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 174.117.97.72 (talk) at 11:24, 22 January 2011 (→‎IP user reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report


    User:Bluesatellite reported by Wrapped in Grey (talk) (Result: Stale)

    Page: List of best-selling albums worldwide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 07:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 06:11, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "??")
    2. 06:31, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408542896 by Wrapped in Grey (talk) where the hell is WP:OR?? All figures are supported with reliable sources")
    3. 13:33, 18 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 408573753 by Wrapped in Grey (talk) For 2nd time, no OR here!! all figures are verifiable")
    4. 03:46, 19 January 2011 (edit summary: "This is how this page works!! If you do it, you should do the same for List of best-selling music artists and List of best-selling singles worldwide")
    • Diff of warning: here (which was also reverted)
    • Diff of talk page discussion attempt: here

    —Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale Most recent revert was 19 hours ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason the reverting stopped was because one of the editors thought it might be better to try to seek resolution via alternative means, i.e. this noticeboard (isn't that usual?). Oh well, back to the war. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Antichristos reported by User:DVdm (Result: 72h)

    Page: Speed of gravity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Antichristos (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]

    Was warned before under similar circumstances: [7] and [8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Speed_of_gravity resulting in no meaniningful response—sideways only.
    Talk:Speed_of_gravity#so_what_is_the_speed_of_gravity.3F resulting in no response—reverts only
    User talk:Antichristos resulting in no meaniningful response—sideways only

    Comments:
    User has been adding same content on 5 different articles: "In relativistic quantum theory, a system cannot be localized..."

    Seems unstoppable. DVdm (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    There is a problem with the obsessive original SYN of User:Antichristos. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Quite lenient given that this is their second block in ten days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be so bad if Antichristos' physics was any good. However, it's completely crackpot. SBHarris 23:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Antichristos now seems to be bypassing the block by editing anonymously. For example on Nonlocality, see [9] and discussion [10] Rafaelgr (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:B1mbo and User:3BRBS reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: No vio)

    Page: Bicycle kick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: B1mbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 3BRBS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    • 1st revert: [12] B1mbo changes "chalaca" to "chilena" and bicycle kick, for no good reason.
    • 2nd revert: [13] 3BRBS changes sourced information to support claim for "chilena".
    • 3rd revert: [14] 3BRBS changes sourced information again.
    • 4th revert: [15] B1mbo erases reliable source, changes sourced information, and adds citation to "Scissors kick" in introduction despite the body of the article already discusses the matter.

    Both users are working together to disrupt the article with incorrect usage of English and awkward claims (in order to avoid the 3RR). I have asked them to discuss the matter on the talk page at various points, but only recently one of them accepted. For the most part they seem to be editing for a single purpose in the English wikipedia (Particularly 3BRBS).

    The purpose of the information currently in the article is to leave a neutral point of view of the controversial subject in Spanish, but these two users seem to be focused on promoting their POV at the expense of Wikipedia.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16] and [17]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] Additionally, I have attempted to discuss the matter with the involved users by making the following proposals (prior to them actually accepting):

    • "Reverted incorrect usage of sources by 3BRBS. Questions? Comment on Talk:Bicycle Kick"
    • "Please discuss changes to sourced material in talk page, Talk:Bicycle kick"
    • "If you contest info, please discuss edits on talk page and not article's history"

    Comments:

    First, it is very rude to denounce "edit warring" after he asks for an explanation in the talk page and it is given, and suggesting a complot by two users to avoid Wikipedia policies. I've been willing to cooperate and reach a consensus and I have explained the changes, while MarshalN20 has been acusing of "Original Research", "Disruptive edits" and "Removing sourced information".
    I have explained the changes in the talk page. I have removed an unsourced statement about the use of the word in different languages (including English) by a Spanish-speaking newspaper while I kept the link for the explanation of the Spanish differences. I have included the different uses of the word "tijera", present in the same thesis MarshalN20 is using to support his claims (you can see the difference in Spanish Wikipedia: es:chilena (fútbol) and es:tijera (fútbol)). On the other hand, MarshalN20 has removed the source to FIFA where the name "chilena" is used officialy and the same source of El Mercurio explains that "chilena" and "chalaca" are the most used names in Spanish. --B1mbo (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lihaas reported by User:George (Result: No vio)

    Page: Hezbollah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (This article is under a 1RR restriction)
    User being reported: Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [19]

    • 1st revert: 03:11, January 18, 2011 - Editor re-inserted the "too long" tag at the top, which GHCool had removed a day earlier.
    • 2nd revert: 00:06, January 19, 2011 - Editor again re-inserts the "too long" tag, about 20 hours after GHCool had removed it. They also changed "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance", reverting my change from 5 days prior.
    • 3rd revert: 12:57, January 20, 2011 - Editor again changes "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance", reverting my change from the day before.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor self-reverted 12 hours prior to their last revert, citing a clear understanding that the article was under 1RR, only to return after 12 hours to revert again.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to discussion; I also posted a question on the sourcing for my edit at RSN.

    Comments:

    This article is under 1RR restriction. The editor clearly violated that 24 hour 1RR window between their first two reverts. Regarding the second two reverts, they reverted once at January 19, reverted again 22 hours later, self-reverted three minutes later (citing 1RR, showing that they understood the article was under 1RR), only to return with the same revert 15 hours later. While the first two were a clear 1RR violation, the second two indicate that the editor was gaming the system to continue their edit warring. ← George talk 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    please see edit history, i duly REVERTED MY OWN EDIT per 24 hours and then added AFTER 24 hours. woops, SELF reverted per WP:3RR "Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")." although this was not a revert (Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
    Lihaas did indeed self-revert following notification of this case. I'll leave it up to admins if any action should be taken regarding the 1RR violation between the first two edits or the attempts to game 1RR. ← George talk 14:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    attempts to game? WP:AGF...as guideline suggested i followed ;) Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaming means that you violate the spirit of the law without violating the rule of the law. Let me ask you this: You self-reverted, noting that your edit would violate 1RR, only to return 15 hours later to make similar edits along the same lines. Did you gain consensus for your edits during that 15 hours? Or were you only concerned with making your changes, regardless of consensus, without violating 1RR? ← George talk 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Two additional questions: Are you aware that the first two diffs I linked above (where you inserted the "too long" template) violated 1RR as well? And did you see my note on the article talk page asking you to self-revert before I create this case, or did you wait until after I notified you of this case to self revert? ← George talk 14:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    also note i mae WP:BOLD edits and reverted that oo.
    templates are not to be removed without consensus especially when UNDERGOING and deceptively removed citing "no discussion" when there was and is a discussion on going. That is not exactly in the spirit of the lawLihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC) oo.[reply]
    Maybe you misunderstood the question. Did you gain consensus for the change from "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance" in the 15 hours between your self revert and your next revert? I wasn't asking about the template you re-inserted a day earlier. Regarding that template, myself and another editor had agreed on talk to remove it 7 days prior to your re-insertion of it. During that 7 days, you made no comments in that discussion, nor did you join that discussion after re-inserting it. ← George talk 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Nobody cited "no discussion" as far as I can tell, and I have no idea where you're pulling that quote from. ← George talk 18:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Respondent self-reverted. Nothing actionable at this board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Carlaude (Result: Editors advised)

    Page: Template talk:Jesus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) See Template talk:Jesus history
    User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] -- These comments to address the dispute on article talk page were also then removed, but might still be there since my reinsertion of them.

    Comments:
    This is a case (also) or changing someones else edits on a talk page. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Carlaude - I think SV felt your talk page comments were disruptive b/c they were v. long and injected into the middle of an RfC. It is occasionally ok to edit others' comments on talk pages (see WP:TPO). Regardless, I'm not sure this is the correct forum for your complaint. Consider going to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard or better Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Best, NickCT (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carlaude reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: )

    • Version reverted to: 3:42 January 20. In the threaded discussion section of this RfC, Carlaude removed a number of references and converted them to a series of cquotes illustrating his opinion.
    Comments

    I was in the process of writing this 3RR report, when I saw Carlaude had posted one above, and then reverted himself anyway. So I'm posting the report I was compiling by way of response, and for the record should the reverting begin again.

    Going back several months, Carlaude has been removing from the Jesus template a link to Jesus myth theory. I recently posted an RfC, which is underway. Carlaude has been a little disruptive there, challenging each support, and recently added to the RfC a long string of cquotes to support his position, reverting against two editors who either removed the quotes, or moved them into their own section.

    After his 4th revert today, I posted at 20:45 on his talk page that he had violated 3RR and asked him to revert himself. [24] His response at 20:53 was to tell me to stop edit warring, [25] and at 20:55 he reported me for 3RR (see above, though I had moved his comments only twice), and then finally at 21:04 he reverted himself, [26] making the whole thing moot. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Editors are advised to follow WP:TPG and WP:REFACTOR, as well as WP:3RR which applies to talk pages as well as articles. Refactoring of a talk page needs consensus, even when it is well-intentioned: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". I noticed Jeffro77 and SlimVirgin reformatting or moving around comments by Carlaude, and I noticed Carlaude temporarily going over 3RR trying to impose his preferred format on his own comments. He then self-reverted. If people think that the material in the RfC is not optimally formatted for the use of the closer of the RfC, reach consensus on how to do that, instead of proceeding unilaterally. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed, Carlaude's edits were disruptive of the RfC, adding 12 prominent cquotes to one of his posts several days after others had replied to it, in an effort to dominate (indeed, overwhelm) the thread. Moving the new quotes into their chronological position was the correct response. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page: Unite Against Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Snowded has been reverting on the left wing issue at the article for months. There has been a slew of noticeboards brought into it in an attempt to find consensus. If the term can be applied as a label, if the term has sources, if the term can be described, and so on are all valid issues. I understand Snowded's reasoning for not wanting to use the label but that does not excuse gaming (I can detail this at ANI if requested) and hitting the revert button are not acceptable. Edit warring was recently brought here in December and resulted in a lock: [27]

    Diffs:

    In regards to consensus, it might be shaping and the RfC leans towards removal. It took going to the RS noticeboard twice recently[46][47], 3rr (listed above), and the POV board[48] to come even that close.

    Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a long-running dispute. Consensus, at least in raw numbers in the RfC, seems to favor omitting 'left-wing' from the lead of Unite Against Fascism. The RfC was not closed in an optimal manner, and a fair-minded closer might want to survey all the other discussions too, like those at RSN. If Cptnono wants to make a request at ANI for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC, that could be a way to settle this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he would have made the change after an uninvolved admin closed it then I wouldn't have brought this up. The RfC is disputed due to its opening line not being inline with the rules. Anyways, he was still edit warring regardless of the RfC. This is the epitome of slow motion edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I right that you complained about how the RfC was closed? Do you want us to block a single individual, but not fix the RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did since using improper procedure to make a revert is part of the issue. But that is only part of the edit warring. This report is not to settle content but to limit Snowded's disruption. I think the RfC was mishandled but that is a separate broader issue. This report is about Snowded and not the entirety of the dispute but that is something that still needs addressing somewhere else.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd welcome any uninvolved admin looking at the whole history here. "left wing" was inserted in early December without consensus and I reverted twice with a request to abide by WP:BRD. It went to the RS notice board where the original position was again supported and I and others attempted to put in a compromise proposal at that point. Then it went to NPOV same result. The RfC followed and the last comment was in December. Yesterday one of those who ignored WP:BRD in the first place added in another "left wing" again. At that point I put the article back to its early December (and long standing) position with a notification on the talk page. Another editor formally closed the RfC. This has been a long drawn out process with several editors (including Cptnono) attempting to get their position against the clear weight of reliable sources by wearing everyone else down, using a few naive right wing editors (Johnsy88) to do their edit warring for them. As I say a review of the whole history by some senior admins would be helpful.
    PS If you go back over the history you will find other reverts of "left wing" by myself and other editors, the attempt to insert it by various IPs and some named editors having been going on for years. The application of the label is the formal position of extreme right wing political parties in the UK despite the fact that the organisation in question has all party support including the leader of the British Conservative Party. --Snowded TALK 06:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your recent mention on the talk page of the article could be considered canvasing since your section header could influence people's perceptions and therefore the outcome. It looks like a request for assistance to me and I hope that people keep in mind that this is not the venue to settle content concerns. This report is about your edit warring which is plainly shown in the diffs. You can claim that I filibustered but you know I feel the same about you. That is not what this is about. You can mention sources (although no source even disputes the description) but that is also not what this is about. If you are blocked (which I hope you are) it is doubtful that any long lasting content change will be made since there will need to be even more discussion about how to handle the sourced information (a label appears out of the question) but encouragement to a swifter understanding of what you did wrong (which you failed to acknowledge) is needed. Your edit warring is disruptive. Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not canvassing to post on the talk page where everyone can see it and it makes sense for other involved editors to see your latest tactic. The simple fact remains that the label was put in place without any consensus, and was maintained there despite each forum the issue was taken to confirming the long standing stable position. I've tried to put that stable position back in place twice in the past but moved to the talk page when other editors refused to accept the consensus position. Personally I think your own conduct, including the use of this forum needs examination. But I leave that up to the community. As I said above I would welcome some independent senior admins going over this one. --Snowded TALK 09:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see some action taken to stop user:Snowded WP:ownership and slow edit warring of this article, the article would imo do better without his contributions for a while. his repeated reverts to his favored version and demands that a whole discussion has to be made to add something even if its cited is stifling the article and puts of other contributors, its not like its a fantastic article, its WP:unassesed - and in need of wider input. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not "my favored version" its the long standing stable version, a position that was supported at the RS & NPOV referrals, as well as the RfC and by many other experienced editors. Also a quick check of the edit history will show that I am only one of a number of editors who have been protecting this article from being hijacked to the political position of the BNP. Few of us have the patience to do this so I can see that our removal for a period would be the favored solution. I'm more than happy for either of the above editors to raise a full RfC on my conduct if they are prepared to have their conduct investigated at the same time. --Snowded TALK 17:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action. The data provided in this report are not enough to show long-term edit warring by Snowded, which was the complaint. There is still a dispute as to whether UAF should be called 'left-wing', and I am glad to see that some discussion is happening on the talk page. User:The Four Deuces is the one who closed the RfC, and by now he may be aware that the RfC would be more convincing if a proponent of the winning side were not the one to close it. He is invited to undo his close and ask for an uninvolved closer at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HiLo48 reported by Sushisurprise (talk) (Result: good faith reverting of apparent sock/meat puppetry)

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

    User being reported: HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 09:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 07:53, 21 January 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted. It's an inaccurate claim. The poster doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia procedures. Maybe Discuss it on the Talk page and it will help understanding.")
    2. 08:21, 21 January 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted. Please stop being silly about this. I've posted on both my Talk page (like you did) and yours. Let's discuss it in one of those places.")
    3. 08:50, 21 January 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 193.105.134.151 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by HiLo48. (TW)")
    • Diff of warning: [User talk:HiLo48 here]

    —Sushisurprise (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

    Comments:
    Sushisurpise is most likely a sock- or meatpuppet of User:68.168.131.198 and User:193.105.134.151 who have been editwarring for their POV-agenda on Censorship. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a good faith approach earlier and attempted to have a conversation, on both my Talk page and his. The only response was vandalism of my own Talk page. This person is beyond rational behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith accepted, though you should probably have reported the case to ANI or SPI. The page has been semi-protected for a day. If anyone wishes to add the contested claim of Wikipedia censorship, they should bring it to the article talk page and provide proper sourcing. Favonian (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There has since been more vandalism and threats on my User Talk page by 193.105.134.135 HiLo48 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roscelese reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24h)


    • 1st edit (version reverted to): 23:39, January 19, 2011, an IP removed "Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna, and as her indictment is read aloud to her in court over a day and a half)."
    • 1st revert: 02:20, January 20, Roscelese removed a large amount of material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
    • 2nd revert: 01:54, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
    • 3rd revert: 04:58, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this; in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
    • 4th revert: 06:07, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this; in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
    • Ist edit (version reverted to): 06:10, January 21, she added "Nicholas Wroe, in the Guardian, also writes of the relationship between Hanna's illiteracy and the Third Reich's "moral illiteracy."
    • She was advised she may have violated 3RR, so she reverted herself at 06:24, January 21, but continued editing, and reverted twice more involving different material:
    • 1st edit (version reverted to): 06:46, January 21, she added an OR tag to the top of the section she'd been removing.
    • 6th revert: 20:44, January 21, she added a citation needed tag after one of the sentences she'd removed four times, although the source is already at the end of the paragraph:
    • "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust."
    • Source: Franklin 2010, pp. 201–202, which is Ruth Franklin's A Thousand Darknesses: Lies and Truth in Holocaust Fiction. Oxford University Press, 2010. See p. 201, where Franklin is clear that the illiteracy is a metaphor.
    • She also restored material she had added before at 06:10, January 21, including "Nicholas Wroe, in the Guardian, likewise writes of the relationship between Hanna's illiteracy and the Third Reich's "moral illiteracy" ...
    Comments

    Four reverts (2 to 5 above) within five hours, and a fifth (6 above) 14 hours later. Some wholesale reverting, some of it complex and partial.

    Roscalese arrived at this article for the first time yesterday, after apparently having followed me from another page I was working on, and began reverting against three editors. She could see that I was looking for sources, and she was being asked on various talk pages to stop reverting. Her responses were somewhat snarky, verging on personal attacks. See Talk:The Reader#Reverting, User talk:Roscelese#Warning, and User talk:Roscelese#3RR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment. As I noted at the article, absent any reason why the Wroe comment (and other critics' comments) shouldn't be in the article, I'm willing to take the heat for adding legitimate sourced information, particularly in the presence of so much illegitimate unsourced information. I also explained repeatedly at the article that Franklin says that the illiteracy is a metaphor, but absolutely not for modern understanding of the Holocaust; SV has repeatedly added this text back after I've noted that it's both unsourced and contradicted by the cited source. (The comment about vorlesen supporting that position is also falsely sourced to Franklin.)
    It troubles me that SV has reached administrator status without learning that it's not okay to add original analysis to articles. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not to help people publish book reports. Analysis needs to be sourced, and when you threaten a block because I removed original research (and then left it in the article but tagged it as such), I question whether your goal here is the same as mine.
    SV, since you only suggested this at the other page rather than making an outright accusation, I let it slide, but here I'm going to respectfully ask that you retract your accusation that I followed you. It's so plainly false that bringing it up here only makes your position look worse.
    In conclusion? Don't make things up. Not about me, not about The Reader.
    -- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've written about Holocaust literature before for Wikipedia, and when I saw the condition of this yesterday I decided to start improving it. Instead I've taken it off my watchlist for now, so you're free to do as you please.
    The point of the 3RR policy is that you must not revert more than three times in 24 hours (and preferably not even up to 3RR), no matter how right you believe you are, unless the issue is a BLP violation or clear-cut vandalism. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And you seem to have a hard time believing that anyone else's motives could be as pure as yours. It is actually possible, you know, for someone to edit an article that you have edited without them doing it because you have edited it. It's not all about you.
    I recommend that in your future Holocaust-literature endeavors, you make sure you have a citation for something before adding it and re-adding it, especially when it contradicts a lot of other sources. That's what I'm trying to do with the article right now - dredging up citations for these swathes of original research you kept adding. Of course, some of the citations directly contradict what you wrote, but that's life. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: 24 hours. If we consider only the edits made on 21 January, Roscelese is over 3RR, based on edits #2, 3, 5 and 6 as tabulated above by SlimVirgin. R. gets no credit at all for diplomacy in her comments above. This editor was blocked eight days ago for personal attacks. Surely people can be polite even when they disagree on the details. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: )

    Page: Ancient Macedonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.117.97.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Previous version reverted to: 10 January

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

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

    Comments:

    This is the same IP user who was wildly revert-warring on the same article already back in November (AN3 thread), leading to semi-protection. Probably a sock of some more experienced long-time user. Sterile revert-warring for obvious POV agenda reasons, removing a new chunk of high-quality text boldly inserted in good faith by a different user (who hasn't so far joined in any subsequent reverts.) In fairness, I must point out that the 4th revert was reverting a banned troll (a User:Wikinger sock, who normally attacks by reverting blindly against me but accidentally had reverted to my version this time), so it probably shouldn't count towards 3RR, technically; however, I still consider it part of the overall aggressive revert-warring pattern of editing of this anon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin, Please note that Future-Pref and HxSeek generally work in tandem to revert/editorialize articles relating to the Ancient Macedonians in such a way as to not break the 3RR rule. HxSeek / FutPref have decided to add their inappropriate addition to the lead of the article, which is a hotly debated issue, without discussing it with other editors first, and, more importantly, citing fringe authors , and not following academic consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the 4th Revert was reverting a troll who reverted FP's revert ;) But I'm well aware that I did 3 revisions, its the fastest way to get this back into Arbitraion. Lets not kid ourselves, the article is heading there once again...
    By the way FP, I hope you will consider my suggestion that we discuss creating a section in the article on the Greekness of the Macedonian culture, language, and ethnicity.  We can then share the arguments put forth by the canon of literature in favor, vs the minority view that HxSeek and yourself in opposition.   Even if we ignore for a moment the inappropriateness of HxSeek's addition to the lead, it should still be removed for no other reason then that it makes it *way* too long. (Nearly half the article!)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=409345551"