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 OnlyForQuadell (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 31 August 2011 (→‎User:OnlyForQuadell reported by User:Tenebrae (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:Kayastha Shiromani reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 48h)

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


    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3rd revert: [3]
    • 4th revert: [4] (note the uncivil edit summary on this one)
    • 5th revert: [5]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See various discussions on article talk page.

    Comments:
    Note This is a general edit warring report, not a 3RR report. The user, who edited the page a lot earlier in the year, came back in August to find that very signficant changes had been made: specifically, sources were added, unsourced content was removed, content sourced to primary sources was removed, etc. The user insists upon reverting back to a much older version of the page that is not compliant with policy. Editor has been reverted by 3 different people, and has refused to discuss on the talk page (other than to simply say that he is right, and to give some non-reliable sources. Editor needs to be blocked to prevent continued disruption. I'm not sure if a short-term block will work, since most of the diffs are about a week about, but it is technically a "first offense", so .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

    Note: 6th revert [7] after EdJohnston pointed out the report here, with no attempts by editor to communicate here, on xyr talk page, or the article talk page, other than the edit summary on the revert of "malice just wont do". Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I didn't realize that xe'd added a section below this; I'm going to change the heading level so that it's organized properly. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI I've just made another revert (my first) of Kayastha Shiromani on this page. [8] ThemFromSpace 16:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To those who are against my version

    A few fellow scholars seem to have based the latest version more on an exception(the sudra status, which I personally would like to be acknowledged by the Govt of India so that we and our coming generations get reservation benefits) than the general rule. How can you discount all of Newton’s Laws by quoting Einstein's. Well as for the secondary research of this article and claim to caste status. The following three are independent and extensive websites and here is what they have to say. As per my efforts I have unearthed refs to the Kayastha in books like 11th century rajatarangini among others. If after reading the two articles, you still find mine lacking in quality to yours then check your grades!


    • The Sanskrit dictionary at Hindunet.org defines Kayastha as follows:
    ka_yastha, ka_yata a man belonging to the writer-caste; a tribe of bra_hman.as whose employment is writing (Ka.)(Ka.lex.)[1]
    • BRAHMINS by vedah.net is an arcticle on who the brahmins are and the various sub-groups of Brahmins. The Kayastha Brahmins are mentioned at sl.no. 15 (in alphabetic order). [2]
    • The Brahmins : A List of Brahmin Communities is an extensive list prepared by Kamat.com of all Brahmin communities in India. Kayastha Brahmins are mentioned (in alphabetic order). [3]

    And I do feel an undercurrent of malice, in the statement made by a few, who say that these sources are unreliable, what would constitute as reliable in their veiw seems to be their view itself. Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kayastha Shiomani, first of all, none of this excuses edit warring. 3 separate editors have said that there are significant problems with your version. At this point, you are required to stop reverting and discuss the issue on the talk page. If after that discussion we still disagre with you, then you can take this issue through dispute resolution. That being said, if you care, I'll tell you one more time: those sources are not reliable sources, based on our guidelines, not just my opinion, but the fact that self-published websites simply never qualify as reliable sources unless they are published by people who are already proven to be exprerts in the field. Furthermore, the version you're reverting to supports most of its claims through the use of ancient religious texts--these will never be reliable for "factual" information in Wikipedia. We can sometimes say "The Puranas say X", but even then we must be very careful to only state literally what they say--no interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. But, again, this is all stuff you must discuss on the article talk page. Given that you were notified of the edit warring rule, told by an uninvolved admin there was a report here, and still reverted anyway says to me that you need to be blocked, at least temporarily, to prevent further disruption (editing against consensus). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I should say that you are basically a well meaning guy with only one shortcoming, i.e. not much respect for the identity of others. As far as the quotes from puranas and manusmritis are concerned, these very same were presented in a British law court in India for the very same reason which is a bone of contention between us. The court took them as reliable sources to decide on the varna status and the decision was 'Kshatriya'. So the likes of us dont have much scope to be choosy with them when the righteous English Courts can accept them as relevant!Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 97.87.29.188 and 99.119.128.88 and 99.181.138.168 and 99.181.139.210 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Page Protected)

    Page: Talk:Climate change policy of the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:

    1. 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. 99.119.128.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 99.181.138.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    4. 99.181.139.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [[9]] <- Not sure I showed what template wants me to show here.

    FIRST, note that 48hr 3RR blocking for IP 97.87.29.188 expired at 23:45 on Aug 25

    SUBSEQUENT 3RR violation



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I only used tag text and edit summaries as shown in the diffs above PLUS this is the same behavior that just earned the IP a block this week. What more warning could I have added?'

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

    Comments:


    On 8-27-11 ~ 03:41 I collapsed several news-aggregation type of posts which lacked specific ideas for improving the article. These had been posted from the following IPs.

    97.87.29.188 <--- At this time this appears to be the main IP, which is registered to the Kalamazoo Public Library.
    99.181.138.215
    99.35.12.88

    Each of the reverts simply un-collapsed the news aggregation threads. All seven of the IPs above track back to Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo Michigan area. The main IP appears to be 97.87.29.188, and appears to be spoofing the other IPs to engage in a revert edit war less than 48 hrs after coming out of a 3RR block. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    76.175.193.153 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: No Violation)

    Page: Flash mob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 76.175.193.153 (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: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:

    The IP address user at 76.175.193.153 is clearly Meiert Avis—the director of this and other videos— and he is clearly making edits to this page—and others—solely to promote himself and his work. Additionally he has made edits to replace valid sources with URLs to his self-promotional page on the web such as this one and this one and even this one. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I count three reverts. The IP's first few edits to the page are additions, not reverts. Subsequent edits to the page are reverts however. If the IP makes another revert, please make another report, or leave a note on my talk page. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:90.199.34.136 reported by User:Puffin (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: International Ultraviolet Explorer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 90.199.34.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:
    User has already been blocked for edit warring before. Puffin Let's talk! 10:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lambanog and User:WLU reported by User:TransporterMan (Result: )

    Page: Coconut oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User 1 being reported: Lambanog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User 2 being reported: WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [16] (I would note that there was one prior addition and removal, but both were by the same editor and could not in my opinion be considered to be edit warring, though they kind of presaged what was to happen later. Moreover, the EW could arguably be dated to an earlier date as a EW over a section POV tag, but it moved to one over an article POV tag at this point.)

    • 1st revert: [17] introduction by Lambanog
    • 2nd revert: [18] removal by Belg4mit
    • 3rd revert: [19] restoration by Lambanog
    • 4th revert: [20] removal by Ronz
    • 5th revert: [21] restoration by Lambanog, who subsequently made changes to cure what he perceived to be the POV issue and removed the tag he had restored, followed by reversion of Lambanog's changes by Yobol
    • 6th revert: [22] restoration by Lambanog
    • 7th revert: [23] removal by WLU
    • 8th revert: [24] restoration by Lambanog
    • 9th revert: [25] removal by WLU
    • 10th revert: [26] restoration by Lambanog
    • 11th revert: [27] removal by WLU
    • 12th revert: [28] restoration by Lambanog
    • 13th revert: [29] removal by WLU
    • 14th revert: [30] restoration by Lambanog
    • 15th revert: [31] removal by Ronz; I gave a warning to all editors on the article talk page after this removal
    • 16th revert: [32] restoration by Lambanog
    • 17th revert: [33] removal by Yobol
    • 18th revert: [34] restoration by Lambanog; I reiterated my warning at this point, clearing up an ambiguity in my initial warning which might have suggested that it was okay to continue the EW if DR broke down
    • 19th revert: [35] removal by WLU
    • 20th revert: [36] restoration by Lambanog
    • 22st revert: [37] removal by WLU


    Diff of first edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]
    Second notice: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As above

    Comments: I am only involved in this as a neutral. This is reported as a general edit war, not as a 3RR violation (though some 3RR violations may have occurred, though I haven't looked at that. The POV disputes with this page have been discussed extensively at the POV noticeboard at least twice. An attempt at DR was made at the DRN but failed. WLU argues here that this is the result of tendentious editing by Lambanog, but I express no opinion about that except to say that edit warring is not the way to solve it. I only include WLU and Lambanog as reported users because only they continued to revert and delete after my second notice, but others could arguably be included as well.

    — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Other areas where this has been discussed includes:
    In addition, there is an extensive set of discussions at talk:coconut oil in the archives. Every section starting here, and the Questionable content section in archive 3, as well as the current NPOV tag section on today's talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made different edits trying to improve the article and have built it up in various ways with a variety of information. I have tried various tags as well to show the multiple errors that the article has. The result is basically the same: removal or reversion to a version with clear factual errors. In my opinion the editors blocking my edits are effectively acting as indiscriminate censors blocking me from editing, displaying a level of article ownership with the implicit message "YOU CANNOT EDIT HERE". They are not looking at the quality of the edits. They seem to behave like this over multiple articles with various editors. They do not build articles, but acting like a pack, tag team individual editors on different articles. At [40] a couple of other editors commenting on a different article share my experience. One also sees there WLU's penchant for hiding stuff. Many noticeboards have been approached for outside opinions but unfortunately little in the way of meaningful suggestions have been provided. I would note that without my persistent editing the article would contain less information because when outsiders have bothered to engage, WLU was compelled to compromise and add stuff that I had originally contributed but had earlier been blocked. Lambanog (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ownership can go both ways, such as by continuously adding tags and information against a clear consensus. In my opinion much of the grief in the article revolves around issues of how much weight to give ideas about the health value of coconut oil. Weight issues are tricky, requiring both a grasp of the sources and one of wikipedia's more nuanced policy (neutrality). Lambanog appears to believe that saturated fats are healthy for you, and adds this idea to several articles. Quite naturally, an editor noticing the same (in their opinion) error being added across several articles would then go on to correct those articles. Many noticeboards have indeed been approached for outside opinions. As ventured by Hasteur at the DSN ([41]), Lambanog doesn't seem interested in the input from these noticeboards unless it agrees with his interpretation of things. These issues have been discussed extensively, but apparently Lambanog has not heard these discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With my tags I have brought up the matter of neutrality, but they are swatted away without consideration. The coconut oil producers do not wholeheartedly agree with the findings of certain organizations given weight here (and who also it might be argued could possess a conflict of interest) and their viewpoint is significant for this article. But it is not given. Do a search for sources on this topic and you will be flooded with information quite favorable to coconut oil. As for article ownership, WLU and company's ownership behavior preceded my participation by years. Regarding the noticeboard outcomes, they cannot be said to be particularly conclusive. A look at the talk page archives will show I am not alone in thinking more viewpoints from a different sources would be appropriate. I would also add that removal of sources can be interpreted as vandalism and that the indiscriminate removal of such sources as practiced by WLU isn't ideal to say the least and violates WP:Editing policy. If he believes something is in error let him present the better references; but he doesn't and instead removes references. Simple reason: my sources are better. Lambanog (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you could have presented that information, found in medically reliable sources, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've analyzed the sources you have presented, and compared them to the statements made by numerous medical and dietary organizations - clearly the two are at odds. I do not object to coconut oil being healthy in principle. I do object to portraying it as healthy in the absence of an indication that this idea is mainstream. Merely because other viewpoints exist doesn't mean they are equally valid, particularly compared to the scholarly community. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You bring up your points once, and people clearly disagree sufficient to establish a talk page consensus, you don't get to keep raising them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? The medical dietary sources say coconut oil is bad due to saturated fat. When newer higher quality medical sources are brought up to show that actually there is a controversy about it, they are removed on the basis of what? Synthesis? But in any event I have provided medical sources specifically about coconut oil—but they were removed. News and media sources? Removed. What is kept are dietary guideline by bodies (that could be accused of having conflicts of interest) that have been criticized by members of the medical community. From a geographic standpoint the article is definitely not neutral encompassing primarily a Western point-of-view. The experience of leading doctors in the coconut producing nations who have coconut eating populations and who have studied and performed trials with it have been cut. On the other hand name the leading coconut oil expert against it? Or are they all hiding behind the veil of anonymity? Lambanog (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's break this down to the bare facts so we don't get bogged down in the back and forth. Lambanog has edit-warred against 5 different editors: Ocaasi, Yobol, Ronz, Belg4mit, and WLU numerous times over the course of 5 months. No one else has put the POV tag back except for Lambaong. Meanwhile, Lambanog justifies their behavior by numerous accusations of bad faith, basically trying to justify why ignoring the consensus on the talk page, accusing everyone else in being in a coordinated cabal against them. If someone could place a stop to this disruption, it would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody expects the Wikipedia Cabal! Shot info (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tony0106 reported by User:Wesley Mouse (Result: 24h block)

    Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tony0106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [42]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

    Comments:
    The user has constantly reverted the article to suit his own beliefs, despite several polite requests from other editors to cease doing so, and to leave the article alone while a dispute is in progress regarding the reliability of a specific Azerbaijani news website as sourcing for the main article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There appears to be a rather rude and negative response from User:Tony0106, in regards to the block seen here. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    USer:Tony0106 has repeatedly stated he will continue to do edit warring and cause disruption/vandalism as stated this diff. Even though several attempts to pursued him not to, and even explain policies, and consequences that he could face if he chooses to ignore what is being advised, he still threatens to go about disruptive vandalism. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BlueonGray reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BlueonGray (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: [59]

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

    Comments:


    That's a clear 3rr violation, including a revert several minutes after the user was warned, recommend 24 hour block. Secret account 01:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    After looking at BlueonGray contributions, he's a single purpose account only used for trolling in the Duchesne pages, and it's bad faith Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. A longer block (up to a week) and a topic ban from all academics are the best course of action. Secret account 07:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:43235Guy reported by Rostz (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Alan B. Krueger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 43235Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 01:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 23:02, 29 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
    2. 00:00, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
    3. 00:05, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "This entry is suggestive, and has nothing to do with Alan Kreuger - I'm sure he's performed a lot of natural experiements - so why reference this particular one? What purpose does it serve?")
    4. 00:13, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "Alan Kreuger has written a lot of things in his books...it's not relevant to point to any specific piece of those writings. Let people read his books if they want to. This is about Kreuger, not about what he's written in his books.")
    5. 00:46, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "This comment is politically motivated, and inserted strictly to suggest that employers like paying higher wages. Sounds a lot like what a union-backed democrat would believe. No wonder he had to do a natural versus a controlled experiment.")
    6. 00:48, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "Terrorist do not "often" come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds. That's a false statement, unless you just re-wrote the definition of "often". If you didn't, then Kreuger did - either way, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.")
    7. 01:02, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "Terrorists do not "often" come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds. Other than Krueger's opinion, please cite the source you are using to support this. The New Jersey/Pennsylvania comment is misleading")
    8. 01:04, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "It is not true that terrorists often come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds. Just because Krueger writes it doesn't make it true, anymore than you repeating it while referencing him makes it true.")
    9. 01:53, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "Terrorists who come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds is the exception, not the rule. The minimum wage reference to Pennsylvania and New Jersey is misleading.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Note that the diffs above are for a pair of repeated deletions. I attempted to explain WP policies and initiated discussion in the article's Talk page, but the new editor continues to EW.

    —Rostz (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ronz reported by Caultonpos (talk) (Result: Page Semi-Protected)

    Page: List of open source healthcare software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 02:11, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Jpmd (talk) to last version by 66.30.187.57")
    2. 02:12, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "non-notable, linkspam")
    3. 14:53, 29 August 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 24.147.154.35 (talk) to last version by Ronz")
    4. 19:40, 29 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */ cleanup after spammer - given final warning")
    5. 01:12, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "redlink cleanup - editors are encouraged to WP:WTAF")
    6. 01:54, 30 August 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 66.30.187.57 (talk) to last version by Ronz")

    Ronz is attempting to remove a legitimate open source EMR from the list of open source EMRs - likely Ronz is a competitor. —Caultonpos (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've requested the article be partial protected and am refraining from any further reverts until we get all the ip's and spa's under control.
    I hope at some point Caultonpos will join the discussion on the article talk page, or even respond to the comments on his own talk page. The continued spamming of his website isn't helping him. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected While Ronz should have asked for help earlier, I am going to cut them some slack because they were clearly editing to enforce existing consensus. Article has been semi-protected due to obvious IP sockpuppetry. — Satori Son 02:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Yes, I should have got help and drew attention to the talk page discussion earlier. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reikasama reported by User:TheFarix (Result: )

    Page: Lolicon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Reikasama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also editing under the IP 87.16.197, 80.182.44.218, 87.11.58.187, 82.51.181.75, and 82.61.65.224 (All originating from Italy)


    Previous version reverted to: [60]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kodomo no Jikan#Edit request from Reikasama, 28 August 2011, Talk:Lolicon#In Japan is not genre, WP:ANI#Reikasama insisting on less reliable sources

    Comments:
    Reikasama has been engaged in an edit war on this and another article, Kodomo no Jikan. The editor does not believe that Lolicon is a genre and that all reliable sources that states that it is are "unreliable". While at the same time, Reikasama has stated that user generated content websites—such as the Japanese Wikipedia, MyAnimeList (WP:A&M/ORS#Unreliable), and Anime News Network's encyclopedia (WP:A&M/ORS#Situational)—are reliable because he agrees with them. —Farix (t | c) 10:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    User: ShmuelGoldstein reported by User:Asad112 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Multiple pages on Israeli Settlements
    User being reported: ShmuelGoldstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    This user is systematically going through multiple articles related to Israeli Settlements and removing information that was established by consensus (See WT:Legality of Israeli settlements). The user was also informed here about the 1RR for all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and in general about WP:ARBPIA. The user then continued to violate the 1RR rule after.

    I am not going to list all the violations (as they can be seen by the users history page), but here are a few examples of the reverts after the user was notified:

    1RR warning: [73]

    User:SomeHuman

    [74]

    Slight problem developing with User:SomeHuman concerning the article Mechelen-Zuid Water Tower. The editor has made good and helpful contributions to the article, but is currently insisting that their alterations to the text of the article are an improvement - but some of what they are writing is in-perfect english. eg diff

    I've already tried to tell them that their english is good but not native standard. eg User_talk:SomeHuman#Mechelen_water_tower. Here is an example of the type of sentence I am reverting

    The toadstool shape of the 55 metres high water tower in Walem was already at the Mechelen-Noord industrial estate when the towering needle became erected on the Mechelen-Zuid industrial park

    After my initial partial revert [75] the editor has started rewriting the entire article in slightly odd sounding near-english. Can someone help with this. (Note I'm aware I am not a "shakespeare" or a "ernerst hemingway" either)Imgaril (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Imgaril inverted italics/normal font style in the here above quote. Btw, the 'towering needle' is the article's topic, also a water tower, and very recognizably described earlier in the lead. Imgaril's mastery of English language appears less than proven by the other sentences here, and Imgaril's comments on my talk page are not more convincing. Please, inspect also my reply there. Kind regards,
    ​▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-30 17:26 - 2011-08-31 00:27 (UTC)
    Please stop rewriting the article - your english is not good enough, (also and the info you are adding does not match the references you supply eg your reference in the lead says 20m spike [76] yet you wrote 23m )
    This was the article before you started editing [77] - you helped by tidying the length measurements, and adding a reference for the 'tallest tower claim' -everything else you have done appears to be pure edit warring.
    I would suggest you improve the nl:Watertoren_Mechelen-Zuid article which is currently a stub, since dutch appears to be you native tongue and you wont have competence issues (see Wikipedia:Competence is required) relating to language - I'm fairly certain that your edit warring problems may relate to english being a second language as you appear to be a good faith editor.Imgaril (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    SomeHuman has made reverted the text.(third time) [78] , ignoring all my comments on english grammar, dates etc It still contains poor english- will someone please give the editor a clue about the actual standard of their english.Imgaril (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kotniski reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: declined)

    Page: Manual of Style (snooker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [79]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85] (repeatedly asked this editor to direct me to the naming guidelines but my requests have been ignored)

    Comments:

    Either the editor is correct, or he isn't. If he is then I have no objections to the move, but he really should respond to my requests for these naming guidelines. I have looked and I cannot find them, so would be grateful if I could be directed to them if they do exist.

    Secondly, I cannot believe for one moment riding roughshod through dozens of MOS's are the correct approach. Short cuts and redirects need to be fixed. If tehre is ineed a requirement to move the MOS then it should be undertaken more systematically. Messages could be left on talk pages, and the project participants can then undertake the move in a more organised fashion. I find the curent approach simply unacceptable, even if there is a need to rename the MOS, which as yet I have been unable to ascertain. Betty Logan (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been discussed at length at the MoS project. As regards the alleged 3RR violation, these were not reverts at all, just repeated attempts to clear up the mess left by Betty Logan, who kept moving the page into article space, where it certainly should not be, and who then blanked the left-behind redirects in such a way that the moves couldn't be reversed.--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is indeed a need to rename the MOS, then the snooker project is quite able to do it on its own without any help from you. But first, I want to see these naming guidelines to confirm that it is indeed a requirement. Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you want to discuss that issue, we can do that elsewhere, at the MoS page. But that isn't what the above "reverts" were above - had you just reverted my move, I'd have left it, but you didn't do that - you kept on (by mistake, I assume) moving the MoS page into article space, and I was correcting you. I did point this out in my edit summaries, with increasing volume. Do you see that now?--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see a guideline that says the MOS name has to be changed. But if there is then you could simply have pointed out the change in guidelines on the talk page so we could undertake the move ourselves. Now we have shortcuts and links to a page that doesn't exist anymore, so maybe if you are so adamant about undertaking this move yourself you can now go and fix them. Betty Logan (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The resulting mess is really your fault - it was you who was moving the page into article space, and more to the point, blanking redirects left behind after your moves, which meant your mistakes couldn't be corrected, and now require admin intervention to sort out. Had you not done that, the page could have been moved back to where it was to start with, even after your mistyping.--Kotniski (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And yeah salting the pages wasn't proper etiquette, but if you hadn't just ignored my requests for these guidelines and discussed the issue I wouldn't have needed to try and stop you. A salted page can always be G6'd anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The salting came first; that was the root of the problem. --Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Thanks to User:MSGJ, it seems the mess has now been sorted out. Unless Betty really wants to make an issue of whether we use a slash or brackets in this page title - if so, I suggest discussion at WT:MOS. (But it's really a question that affects all the MoS subpages - I don't think there would be any good reason to do it differently for snooker than for all the other pages.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whether there is a requirement to rename these pages or not (and will someone please direct me to a clear set of naming guidelines for MOS), there is surely a better approach than a single editor steaming through hundreds of pages moving them? The projects should do it so they can at least correct links and shortcuts. This approach leaves hundreds of links broken. Betty Logan (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the link to the relevant discussion is on your talk page and has been for some time.
      • Links do not "break" when pages are moved - that's what redirects are for. They only start breaking when you move it numerous times or blank the page.
      — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hopefully all issues are now sorted. With regards to this report:

    • Kotniski: you did "move war". Although what you were doing was correct, it was not worth warring over. Keeping the article in mainspace for a few minutes while explaining to the editor what was wrong would have been preferable. Also, putting a link to the discussion in your move summary might have been a good idea and prevented all this.
    • Betty Logan: you also participated in the move war. Rather than immediately reverting it would have been better to ask the editor for the reasons behind the move. Also you still seem unable to admit that you have made a mistake above!

    I am not going to take any further action at this stage, but let the editors take these suggestions on board. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at the edit summary! I clearly asked for a link to these naming "guidelines" several times! If I made a mistake it was based on information that I was not being given. Why didn't he just provide the links?? Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The (honest) mistake you made was to move the page into article space. I kept saying that in my edit summaries, but you kept making the same mistake. I would even have moved the page back to your preferred title, to keep the peace, but I couldn't do that because you had "salted" one of the intervening titles. It had nothing to do with any guidelines at that stage. Anyway, I take Martin's points on board for the future, and hope that this issue is now settled.--Kotniski (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 141.218.36.44 and 99.112.212.108 and 99.190.86.55 and 99.181.141.69 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi)

    Page: Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:

    1. 141.218.36.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. 99.112.212.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 99.190.86.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    4. 99.181.141.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Reverts:

    1. 20:49 (as IP 1)
    2. 00:26 (as IP 2)
    3. 06:19 (as IP 3)
    4. 09:39 (as IP 4)


    All edits restore the section Cast, Footage, or something similar, except the 3rd, which is an exact revert

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is obviously the same as IP 1 ("97" started editing immediately after "141" stopped, and they're all editing the same family of articles) previously warned, warned me, was the subject of 2 previous reports here, and was blocked here. IP3 warned 06:28, after which he stopped editing. IP 4 started later.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Now, here, I may be a little guilty. Still, the IP has not given a reason for inclusion of the section, except in versions which are false as described in sources, by including those appearing only in "archive footage" as "Cast" without a caveat to that effect.

    Comments:


    IPs in the 99. family have been reported for 3RR twice in the past week. There seems no solution except to semi-protect all articles loosely related to global warming, or to block wide ranges of 99.* for long periods of time. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous sections include #User: 97.87.29.188 and 99.119.128.88 and 99.181.138.168 and 99.181.139.210 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Page Protected) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:97.87.29.188 and User: 99.19.47.119 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier this month, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive165#User:99.181.144.107, User:99.181.132.122, User:99.35.14.74 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Page protected)]. Who knows how many are just edit warring, or otherwise not reported to this board. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Semiprotected two months. Range blocks are not a good option since these IPs are too far apart. Per WP:SOCK, one person must not revert the same article with multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OnlyForQuadell reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [86]

    • 1st revert: [87] - 00:53, 31 August 2011 OnlyForQuadell (Undid TriiipleThreat)
    • 2nd revert: [88] 01:22, 31 August 2011 OnlyForQuadell (undid Tenebrae, who then posted friendly note on OnlyFor Quadell's talk page here)
    • 3rd revert: [89] - 16:06, 31 August 2011 OnlyForQuadell
    • 4th revert: [90] - 16:20, 31 August 2011 OnlyForQuadell


    User:OnlyForQuadell refuses to give an edit summary for (a) change(s) he made, which are essentially imperceptible; such minute changes without edit summaries is commonly done by vandals. After I left a diplomatic note, he immediately attacked me here, and insists that his saying, "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that..." is not an insult, here.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see talk-page exchange at User talk:OnlyForQuadell.

    Comments:
    This editor stridently refuses to provide edit summaries — why? — and when asked politely to do so, he attacked me with vulgar insults which he then claims are not insults, and that telling another editor that I don't have balls is perfectly acceptable language on Wikipedia. Two editors, not just myself, have reverted him. He refuses to say what his imperceptible edit is, he attacks another editor with extremely uncivil language and won't take responsibility for his insults, and he 3RRs on top of that. Please help. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My last edit comments says it best: User:Tenebrae explicitely admitted that he does not understand what he is reverting and is acting on assumption of bad faith alone. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what are you changing and what is your intention? Your comment above doesn't excuse edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it doesn't? If somebody is attacking another editor, first by assuming bad faith, then by libel ("vicious insults" as parts of this report), and is inventing stuff in the process, I have to put up with it? His edits are avowedly based on bad faith alone and thus vandalism. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't get to revert because you're feeling maligned. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was never my motive. I merely wanted to reinstate my (admittedly minor) improvements to the article. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then how about we take Erik's advice and call it a day, and you can use edit summaries from now on and we trust one another? Acroterion (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment below. Giving his bright-line edit-warring and his gross insulting of me a pass is not right.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but behavior modification is a desired outcome, and we're still sorting out what actually happened, i.e., changing quotes, etc. Acroterion (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend dismissing this report as excessive. OnlyForQuadell's initial edit removed an arguably extraneous word and added a space inside a reference tag (which has no impact). TriiipleThreat had reverted OnlyForQuadell, presumably because the edits were without a summary (though Triiiple's revert did not have a summary explaining that). When OnlyForQuadell reverted TriiipleThreat, Tenebrae reverted him because he found the edits imperceptible and required an edit summary (which is not required, though highly preferred). When Tenebrae contacted OnlyForQuadell about using edit summaries, OnlyForQuadell accused Tenebrae of mistrust because Tenebrae did revert him like his edits were of bad faith, as if the lack of an edit summary and imperceptible edits meant sneaky vandalism. So mistrust went back and forth and shows in the edit warring in the page history. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, a 4th-revert edit-war is a bright-line vio. Before anything got this far, I attempted a polite discussion with OnlyForQuadell on his talk page — please read it; no one could reasonably call it an "attack" — to which OnlyForQuadell responded immediately with vulgar, insulting, horribly uncivil language. That and edit-warring is not OK behavior on Wikipedia, no matter what his rationale. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And as editor TriiipleThreat just noted on the Thor film's talk page, OnlyForQuadell's edit apparently changed a quoted person's direct quote. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You never left your stance of assumption of bad faith, how would a polite discussion possible? Yes, accusations of vandalism, name-calling and inventing of facts are indeed attacks. Your "vulgar, insulting, horribly uncivil language" is either an invention or a gross misjudgement. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you made gross and vulgar insults: What do YOU call "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that..." Let me ask Acroterion: Is saying I don't have balls not "vulgar, insulting, horribly uncivil language"? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ec: Indeed, let's ask him: Is saying "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that..." even implying that he has no balls? --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This board deals with edit-warring, not user conduct. However, I view your first response to Tenebrae's comment on your talkpage as inappropriate and a vulgar overreaction. I see no "invention" on Tenebrae's part, nor is his conduct "vandalism," as you have chosen to label it. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on the vulgar. Anyway, it was a fake commendation at worst.
    His invention was that I did not change a quote, and nobody claimed that I did. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Sanskrit Dictionary at Hindunet.org
    2. ^ Vepachedu, Sreenivasarao. "Brahmins". vedah.net. Retrieved 2009-07-18.
    3. ^ Kamat, Vikas (April 01,2003). "A List of Brahmin Communities". kamat.com. Retrieved 2009-07-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=447688526"