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 Sharp962 (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 16 March 2011 (→‎Galactus: new section). 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:Calus reported by User:PPdd (Result: No action)

    Page: Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Calus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [Which version does this refer to? There are many intervening edits now.]

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

    Calus deleted the 3RR notice on “his” talk page:


    I am WP:INVOLVED here, so this will need attention from someone else. I have not been following the latest developments, but Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Unfaithful citations, required quotation and translation, NRS vs. RS and maybe a section or two up looks like a good place to start getting a handle on the issues here. The article is currently semi-protected for a few days.
    PPdd: might I convince you to expand your acronyms? I assume that SP/MP means sock or meatpuppet, but is SPE single purpose editor? Also, your first diff goes to Calus' talkpage, not the article in question. Reverting in one's own userspace is an explicit exception to WP:3RR (as is reverting clear copyright violations), and removing a notice or discussion is usually taken as sufficient evidence that the material has been read - did you intend to include a different link there?
    Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions apply to this article, and may be indicated in resolving this mess. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Acronyms linked. WP:SPE -> WP:SPA. oops. PPdd (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That definitely helps the readability of this report, thank you. I am changing WP:SP to WP:SOCK, as from the context it seems likely that you are referring to sockpuppets rather than subpages (:)). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been much quieter in the last 24 hours. I suggest leaving the report open for a while to see if this continues. Either full protection or a 1RR restriction (under WP:ARBPS) might be considered if the dispute resumes. If an admin wants to tackle the sock case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brendan.mattson and consider sanctions it would help. An external forum might have been used to recruit editors here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds fine to me. This is the second 3RR-Sock/MEAT situation on this. In the first I asked for leniency when the editors agreed to calm down, then the above occured.
    • However, one or more admins already shut down five Sock/MEAT accounts used by this group to edit war. PPdd (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • More edit warring and contitued disruptive editing, change from this[10], to this[11], again in the middle of article edit warring by others. Furthermore blatant lies to cause disruptions. Grad student Calus and his prof Herbxue claimed they and all their socks came to WP as a reaction to this[12] discussion forum. The post has this date "Posted on February 8, 2011 by AugustPoint ”, but his contribs show dates BEFORE that post, beginning March 7 - [13]. PPdd (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    User:186.16.90.99 reported by User:Aspects (Result: Rangeblock)

    Page: American Idol (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 186.16.90.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [14]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Idol (season 10)#/* Elimination chart */

    Comments:

    User:Vjmlhds reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: )

    Page: List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Vjmlhds (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: link

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

    Comments:


    User:Koakhtzvigad reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h)

    Page: Gog and Magog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Koakhtzvigad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC[reply]

    1. 14:43, 13 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 418606289 by Til Eulenspiegel its not a lede, but the start of sub-section; mentions same thing twice; not my favourite, but a Jewish translation of a Jewish text")
    2. 15:07, 13 March 2011 (edit summary: "What consensus? This is a Jewish text being translated according to accepted Jewish translation; you are welcome to say that Christian translation is different")
    3. 15:46, 13 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 418623548 by Til Eulenspiegel I suggest you ask yourself why you are opposing my edits; the "policy" is the WP:SOURCES")
    4. 01:17, 14 March 2011 (edit summary: "per WP:UNDUE, there is nothing special about the Revelations mention except that it is a Greek translated borrowing so would be expected to be different if only gramatically, no reason to put in the lede, expand.refs, readings")
    5. 02:10, 14 March 2011 (edit summary: "Eschatology was the article I was looking for, some other wikilinks")
    6. [05:20, 14 March 2011 KoakhtzvigadMobile (talk | contribs | block) (39,967 bytes) (?Christian tradition: rephrase removing Mirriam-Webster, I try not to use dictionaries as a source for this reason) (rollback | undo) (Tag: references removed)
    • Diff of warning: here

    I also warned Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) - I'm not sure if his edit of the lead counts as a 4th revert. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: 72 hours. On the talk page, Koakhtzvigad gives creative reasons for why he doesn't need to wait for consensus. "I don't need to seek consensus on the translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jews....its their Bible!" You can also see this theory relied upon in the edit summaries above. This is Wikipedia, so please follow Wikipedia policies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.64.201.2 reported by User:Yobol (Result: 24h)

    Page: Max Gerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 69.64.201.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

    IP appears to be POV pushing on this WP:fringe page as well. Yobol (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.7.28.215 reported by Mo ainm (Result: 24h)

    Page: Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 92.7.28.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [32]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1RR notice, 3RR notice

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

    Comments:
    This article along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008, one of which is 1RR, which this editor broke and was warned about, I then followed up the community restrictions notice with a 3RR notice which the editor also ignored. Mo ainm~Talk 19:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if you do not class the third and fourth reverts as reverts despite the removal of "assassinated" the editor has broken the 1RR restriction (it does not apply to the reversion of edits by IP editors) on the article which they were notified of here. Their second and fourth reverts are clear and unambiguous reverts. O Fenian (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5th revert added, made despite being notified of this report. O Fenian (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Okkar reported by Hybernator (Result: no violation, articles protected)

    Page: May Sweet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: The Irrawaddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Okkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user keeps making changes on the May Sweet article that do not reflect what is being reported in the reputable sources. (He also made similar edits on the Irrawaddy article). He's reverted my edits, backed by reputable citations. I've made another change, with more citations, and opened up a talk page on the article. I would like someone to review the edit-war. I'm open to dispute resolution. Thank you. Hybernator (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    This is purely sock puppeting. Both Soewinhan and Hybernator are working together. Please note Fifth revert [5] was not releated to article The Irrawaddy. The first 3 reverts were for May Sweet and the fourth was for The_Irrawaddy, and the fifth was for Myanmar Armed Forces. As you can see both users are using their friendship outside of Wikipedia to gang up. This is clearly sock puppeting. Further more Hybernator reverted the article May Sweet even after he was warned by admin for 3RR rule, infact he was clearly in breach of 3RR rule.
    I'll let others decide whether my edits are propaganda. If you accuse someone of sock-puppeting, you'd better have some proof. For the record, I don't need anyone's help to refute your comments. I'm quite sure Soewinhan doesn't need my help either. Hybernator (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Soewinhan kept removing Military related information such as units and battalion information, commander in chiefs names 'etc. from Myanmar Armed Forces article and replacing them with overtly political POV message copied from media. I have already asked him to include those message in correct pages and Myanmar Armed Forces is a military article and it should contain military related information. If he wishes to include alleged human rights issue, he can either include as a section or add to Human Rights in Burma article instead. However, he refused to accept and begin edit warring. Okkar (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    2) Okkar, you are going into unnecessary details about that particular part of history. Rarely anyone finds an military article in Wikipedia with several graphs like "Ethnic and Army Composition of Tatmadaw in 1948" and "Staff and Command Positions in War Office (1948)". Why not you also add all graphs from 1948 to 2011? On the contrary, that article has no history about post-1962 era at all. When I tried to fix, Okkar reverted my edits saying "Overt political messages / POV pushing" and "vandalism"? He didn't comment at talkpage and blatantly reverting my edits saying "vandalism".

    You have accused virtually everyone in Wikproject:Burma of vandalism, including Chris, Hintha, Hybernator and me. You clearly has COI issue. Always edit Burmese military regime articles and refuse to add human right violations even if cited by reliable sources. Soewinhan (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1948 is the official starting point of Modern Myanmar Armed Forces after the independance, as such, detail composition of the Armed Forces after the command was transfer from the British to Myanmar Government. Dont forget this is the article about Myanmar Armed Forces. It is entirely necessary. We dont need to add everything from 1948 to 2011, but it is important to show where it started. You seem to be hell bent on including political issues in a purely Military article. No other country articles include such political information, for example such as Indonesia or China, where Armed forces are involved in politics but the respective pages does not include overtly political write ups copied from biased media. Your have serious COI issue with the article because you want to use Wikipedia to paddle political message. You shouldnt do that! I asked you time and again to include alleged Human Rights issue in a section rather than at the top of the article. Regardless of citing reliable sources, alebit they are biased, the main focus of article is Military, it is about Military and it is part of Military article stub, and it should remain that way! Okkar (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the note of COI issue, the sources you have cited in your edits are mainly political organisations. For example, [39] in this Free Burma Alliance is a political organisation and as such their views and information contained in the sources you have citied are highly disputable. On the other hand, i have citied books published by well known authors such as Andrew Selth, or Prof. Desmond Balls or Prof. Maung Aung Myoe and also archives from Historical Museum. These are all non-bias in and purely military information in nature. So you see, you are the one with COI issue and not me. I have asked you repeatedly to include your alleged human rights violation in a section within the article rather than replacing relevant military information. You repeatedly refused and kept reverting the article and including copyrighted information also. You were already warned by an admin about this too! Okkar (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I suggest you please do not lie. See this edition. No citation to Free Burma Alliance. Also, I didn't write anything by myself as I have said. I drew relavent materials from History of Burma article.
    It is you who cited to DSHMIR archives (only available at a military office) which constitutes original research.
    Also, you said that you are current/former officer of military which mean you definitely have COI issue. Please refrain from editing politically sensitive pages in which you are a member from one side.
    The administrator who has warned me also withdraw his/her warning. See his talkpage for details. Soewinhan (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Both articles protected for 3 days. I don't see anyone exceeding 3 reverts in either article, although Okkar does have four similar reverts, albeit on different articles. I'll let that go for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ComtesseDeMingrelie reported by User:Maunus (Result: 31h)

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

    Svan language


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

    Georgians

    [49]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

    Comments:

    I would block this user myself, but given that he has accused me of being motivated by anti-Georgian sentiment I would rather that someone else does it.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have explained myself very clearly in the edit summaries as well as on user talk pages. I am hardly the one who started this edit war and the I am puzzled why Maunus is singling me out. Furthermore, recent accusation against me by User:EdJohnston that I am being reported because I make assertions on others' ethnic identity is false. I am the one whose ethnic identity is denied by this organized groups of thugs who have been terrorizing me for weeks. Maunus does not want to take any action against them,and my only way to counter their propaganda is to revert as I have no other powers.If they were disciplined for multiple reverts before, this would not go as far as it went.
    Finally, the UNESCO link which they are inserting is based on a single Russian-language source which I think is biased. Just because something is on a UNESCO page does not mean it is UNESCO material. I already said in the edit summaries that they may include the information separately but not sell it to the readers as a UNESCO work. Dr. Klimov and Oniani are not UNESCO authorities on endangered languages, they are just authors. The map which they are linking is based on outside sources and can be altered by individuals by simply submitting a report for which there is a button.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, stop. No personal atacks! The "organized groups of thugs" is (WP:NPA) --Kmoksy (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTTHEM. I have been extremely fair to you - twice giving you polite warnings for having reverted 5 and three times. I am now reporting you because you continued to revert after hhaving received by second warning. This demonstrates an utter lack of respect for our rules and policies. None of the other editors have broken the 3rr rule, several of them have participated in talkpage discussions. You are being singled out because you are editwarring. Throwing personal attacks at your opponents will also not help your case. Your opinions about your opponents source do not justify you in removing them without there first being generated a consensus at the talk page. You are editwarring and trying to justify it with faults in others behavior. This is unacceptable, and I believe strongly that you need an editing break during which you will have time to read our fundamental policies such as WP:V, WP:EDITWAR, WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Blocked 31 hours. The Comtesse's repeated removal of a UNESCO source caught my eye. The claim that this is not a good source would definitely require consensus to establish. Repeated removal (against the opposition of other editors) makes no sense. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AnonMoos reported by Tallard (Result: No violation)

    Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relativist fallacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AnonMoos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [51]

    • 1st revert: [52]
    • 2nd revert: [53]
    • 3rd revert: [54]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [I placed a 3r template on his talk page but he deleted it and purged it apparently, stating he does not accept the notification from me. EDIT: I was not aware that 3R templates could be "refused", so placed it again, to test, but it was deleted again.]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

    Comments:

    He moved my comment three times to place it under his, but I am not responding to him, but to the previous poster. I politely undid each of his reverts but he does not seem to understand the WP:INDENT rule No. 3--Tallard (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice that Tallard didn't provide 4 supporting diffs, because he can't (i.e. he's purely pointlessly wasting your time with respect to any 3RR accusations). The matter is exceedingly simple -- Tallard applied INCORRECT indentation prefixes to his own comment, and -- due to this error caused solely by himself -- insisted on shoving other people's comments around in violation of usual Wikipedia etiquette and suggested best practices for threaded discussions, in order to compensate for his own mistake. (Of course, if he had supplied correct indentation prefixes, then it wouldn't have mattered whose comments preceded whose on the page -- the fact that Tallard thinks it does matter shows in itself that the indentation characters he chose to use are incorrect.) This was really a very minor (almost trival) matter, but Tallard's consistent insistence on doing the wrong thing (refusing to fix his own self-created indentation error, and impacting on other people's comments instead) managed to transform it into a semi-pointless personal spat. AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: I don't see a 3RR, and I don't see any reverts after the warning you placed on his page. I know you're not asking this here, but since you're both responding to the same comment, the first response should go first and both kept at the same indent level. Not a good thing to edit war over, though. Please don't revert again until the two of you agree on the indentation. Kuru (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, after the 3R notice he no longer reverted me, he still does not understand the indent manual of style No.3. A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies. I had not specified the first 2 reverts because they were identical moves by AnonMoos, which I had mentioned in the comment. In addition, AnonMoos and Jonathanwallace were responding to my request for delete, then I responded to Jonathanwallace. --Tallard (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are both replying to joanthanwallace; that seems to be what you're missing. Condition 2 is the one you're looking for. You could probably clarify that with a discussion instead of reverting. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see what you are implying Kuru... that he was not voting on the delete request, but simply conversating with jonathanwallace, ... but on a request for delete page, usually initial responses are considered to be to the request, not general conversation? No? I read his "agree" as copy of the previous vote which was keep. If his intent was to vote, as one would suspect from the context, he should have used a single indent rather than a double indent, a vote on the request. It is unnerving to have someone screaming and deleting my post to place it elsewhere, even after polite my polite rebuttal. Cheers--Tallard (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Awindom reported by User:Zakhalesh (Result: blocked 24h)

    Page: Columbia High School (Decatur, GA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Awindom (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: [60]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

    Comments:

    First, I acknowledge I made a fourth semi-revert myself and I'm sorry. I thought Awindom removed the other alumni by accident, which I tried to clean up by readding the information that I thought was removed accidentally (without undoing the other changes, of course). The edit was soon reinstated.

    Awindom hasn't replied to any attempts to contact him, nor does he use edit summaries. This combined with his style of editing gives a feeling of ownership and edit warring without any attempt at consensus. Judging by his username and editing, he is Amir Windom, and also has a conflict of interest when it comes to these alumni. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liz walters7 reported by User:Kuru (Result: blocked 24h)

    Page: National Council of La Raza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Liz walters7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • 1st revert: [62] 3/15 15:52
    • 2nd revert: [63] 3/15 17:09
    • 3rd revert: [64] 3/15 21:01
    • 3RR Warning: [65] 3/15 21:38
    • 4th revert: [66] 3/15 21:48

    Comments:
    Age old content dispute at National Council of La Raza over the translation and intent of the organization's title. New account re-added the literal version again today, and proceeded to re-add it three more times. Kuru (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ringpop7 reported by User:Serienfan2010 (Result: both blocked)

    Page: List of The Troop episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ringpop7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [67]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]


    Comments:

    -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked, clear 3RR from a new account; was warned. Unfortunately, this is a simple content dispute, and Serienfan2010 also broke 3RR. Since this is his fifth 3RR, I have set a much longer block. Kuru (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kwamikagami reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: article protected)

    Page: Ritual Decalogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 00:37, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "undo: we do not write in WP jargon, so "disambiguation" means what it says in the dictionary. edits were also factually incorrect: the ED is not in general said to be later than the RD.")
    2. 09:12, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "Yes, seriously. You're obfuscating the situation, and misrepresenting the claim")
    3. 19:57, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "*sigh*")
    4. 22:48, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 416254088 by Jayjg (talk)--No, you stop edit warring: read BOLD if you don't know how WP works")
    5. 16:10, 1 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. to stable version until this is resolved.")
    6. 07:01, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: " ")
    7. 22:18, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: "factually incorrect: ED is not, in general, said to be composed at a later date")
    8. 06:36, 3 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. unencyclopedic edits. Jay, articles are not about terms. That's what the dictionary is for. Take it to talk.")
    9. 15:04, 4 March 2011 (edit summary: "restore & add refs")
    10. 07:18, 8 March 2011 (edit summary: "still no refutation of the basic premise, nor reason to delete the alternate names")
    11. 23:45, 10 March 2011 (edit summary: "it's been five days, and the deleting editors have failed to provide any sources supporting deletion")
    12. 02:51, 11 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 418231919 by Plot Spoiler (talk)--then define it appropriately. Don't delete sources wholesale.")
    13. 04:09, 13 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. content deletion for mere stylistic reasons")
    14. 18:04, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "integrate new source into article")
    15. 19:31, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "Okay, but then let's start from the beginning, per WP:BOLD")
    16. 21:01, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "No consensus for these changes on the talk page. Follow your own standards.")
    • Diff of warning: here (note, though I warned him I would report him on March 3, I delayed for almost two weeks, hoping he would stop reverting).
    • Comment: This is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR-violation report. For almost three weeks now Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) has been reverting the Ritual Decalogue article, in almost all cases inserting the phrase "one of three lists identified as the Ten Commandments in the Bible" (or close variations) into the lede. He has reverted 16 times now, and in turn been reverted by five different editors (Kwamikagami is the only editor supporting the use of this phrase). Despite lengthy objections to his edits on the Talk: page, Kwamikagami continues to revert, and apparently will never stop doing so, regardless of how many editors oppose him. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have also edit warred, violating BOLD (it's not up to the reverter to justify the reversion, but the initial editor to justify that edit), adding information you must know to be inaccurate or misleading, deleting sourced information, refusing to supply sources for your claims, etc etc. It's also false that I'm the only one; two other editors have expressed support for what had been the consensus version until you and SLR expanded your POV war to this article, and one of the editors who reverted me (Lisa) accepted a compromise edit. As the outside editor who came to straighten this out remarked, trying to get sources out of the two of you "is like pulling teeth"; he also recognized the double standard that you two use, where you require no explicit sources for your edits and feel free to delete sourced information you disagree with. As for your primary contention, now that we have finally got a source from you that actually supports your claim (as all previous sources I was able to check did not), I combined them as two alternate POVs; that evidently is not enough, as you will only allow your own POV into the lede. We're an encyclopedia, and need to base our edits on sources, not on what we want to be true. SLR suggested that we go back to the beginning and discuss this on the talk page, but immediately reneged, reverting to your preferred POV when I returned the article to the pre-edit war consensus. This is simply ridiculous: provide sources for your claims, including why you feel the need to delete sourced information, to delete common names the subject goes by while substituting obscure ones, to promote one 19th-century theory over the scholarship that's gone since, etc.: that is, hold yourself to your standards for others, and we'll be fine. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't use me as an attempt to justify your edit warring. I accepted a "compromise" in hopes that you'd stop. You haven't. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have stopped if our compromise had been accepted. But Jay just reverted it. I classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — kwami (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Namiba reported by User:Tzu Zha Men (Result: blocked 48h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: diff: [73]

    All Arab-Israeli conflict articles are subject to 1RR [76], and a clear warning about this is both on the Talk page, and presented whenever a new edit is made on the page.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Per the prominent notice on the Talk page, "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

    Comments:

    In addition to edit warring in violation of the 1RR imposed on all articles in the I/P conflict space, this edit violates both WP:BLP and WP:LABEL by adding a very contentious label ("terrorist") to a living person. The editor is engaged in similar edit warring involving the addition of contentions labels to BLPs in the I/P space (see for example [78]

    First off, I thought I had passed the 24 barrier. In fact, I was off by just a few minutes and for that I apologize. Anyway, Moshe Zar was not labeled a terrorist by me, but he was in fact part of a label terrorist organization, see Gush Emunim Underground and Jewish religious terrorism and this outside source. It is not my intention to get involved in the flame-throwing match over Israel-Palestine, but merely to add context. I can assure all adminstrators that I will be more careful with reverts and time in the future. Thanks--TM 16:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to express some skepticism with regard to the sincerity of the "It is not my intention to get involved in the flame-throwing match" comment, when it is followed almost instantly by the addition of the "terrorist" label to the biography of Moshe Zar, while relying on a source which does not use that word at all: [79]. Also, you seem to be treating 1RR as an entitlement, implying that if you had held of for a few more minutes, you would not have been in violation. That is not correct. Tzu Zha Men (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Not a first offense. And Tzu Zha Men is correct, 1RR isn't an entitlement. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheRealFennShysa reported by User:Synrfaytal (Result: User warned)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [80]


    Article reverts:


    Talk page reverts:

    Comments:
    Hello. I'm a bit new to this, so I apologize for any error in protocol. On 8 March 2011, I included an external link to the Radio_drama article (then as User:24.18.132.182). The link was to a database of radio drama producers, shows, and cast members - sort of an IMDb for radio drama. My edit was reverted by User:TheRealFennShysa without explanation. I reverted it back and requested that he use the talk page to explain his actions. He then reverted the article back with an edit comment saying he thought the link was too close an already existing one. He also posted an edit war notice on my talk page.

    I then when to his talk page to make my case for the inclusion. I gave him six days to respond and then added another comment asking him if he had anything to say about the matter. He then reverted my comments off of his talk page. Not really knowing what his opinion was, I included my edit into the article once again, commenting that I had tried to discuss the issue on his talk page without a response. He almost immediately reverted it back, labeling my edit as link spam. So I again went to his talk page to discuss the matter, and included several sources that pertained to why I though my edit merited inclusion in the article. Within a half hour, he erased those comments from his talk page as well, commenting that re had removed an IP edit.

    So I signed up for an account and had a user name (User:Synrfaytal). I went back to his talk page and asked if he would care to discuss the matter. I waited for him to respond, but two days later he erased that comment from his talk page.

    My issue isn't so much the inclusion of my edit into the article, although I believe that it is a valuable resource that pertains to it. If someone has an issue with an edit, it is Wikipedia's policy to talk the matter over and try to reach some sort of consensus. But if someone is going to continuously revert my edits, I at least want to have a two-way conversation about it. I am very mindful of edit warring and I've tried to include an explanation or comment in all my edits and reverts. I don't want to put my edit back up without some sort of official decision. I believe that I made a good case for my edit, but what can I do with a person who just deletes my conversation from his talk page? Synrfaytal (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheRealFennShysa can revert his own talk page as much as he wishes, the other reverts are trivial but seem to be removing non-notable information. Seems to be abreach of WP:BRD by the new user.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All is see is a single purpose editor trying to promote a website. Continuing to spam the link will result in blocks of that account(s). OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully admit that I am not as regular an editor as many people on Wikipedia are. As a radio drama enthusiast, my edits do focus on the subject simply because that's where my interests lie and I think I can share information with people who share an interest in it. But still, I believe that my link is consistent with the other accepted ones, is non-biased and fact-based, and provides a valuable resource for anyone wanting to research radio drama. In fact, the editor that made all the reverts implied that it was too closely related to an already accepted link, and that the information overlapped with it. The point of contention seems to be not that it is a link to a vanity site or such, but whether it contained enough unique content, which I tried to show that it did. An IMDb-style database of radio drama personnel is of great use to someone wishing to learn more on this topic. I think that in a case such as this, where it is basically one person's opinion versus another as to what is valuable to a subject, there should at least be a discussion. In the talk page reverts, I included several third-party sources that acknowledge its value to radio drama. I will definitely abide by the admins' decisions. I already said that I will not re-post my edit if it is decided that is not a valuable inclusion, but shouldn't that decision be made on the merits of the edit itself rather than the newness the the editor who made it? Synrfaytal (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Result IP warned for spamming. Page will be watched for further SPA activity. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oddbodz reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: blocked 24h)

    Page: Outcasts (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Oddbodz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments: Content in itself not encyclopedic, names facebook fanpages as reliable source. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dxdestroyer reported by User:Rehevkor (Result: declined)

    Page: Stargate Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dxdestroyer (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: [91]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Dxdestroyer

    Comments:
    Using adding unsourced commentary/pov. Refusing to provide sources. Rehevkor ✉ 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Declined Editor's final edit summary indicates agreement to stop warring. Blocks are not punitive. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.232.166.138 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: blocked 72h, article protected)

    Page: NPR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 98.232.166.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: (07:33, 13 March 2011)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR multiple warnings and previous blocks: [92]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:NPR#NPR.27s_Controversies

    Comments:
    Please note recent identical warring from 24.20.230.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 128.193.148.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); all geolocate to Oregon, near the State University; common ISP, and all speak with one voice on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Article semi-protected for 1 week. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Galactus

    User:Brian Boru is awesome, User:Mobb One reported by User:Sharp962 (Result: )

    Page: Galactus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Mobb One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [93]
    • 2nd revert: [94]
    • 3rd revert: [95]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

    Comments:


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=419208180"