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 72.68.5.132 (talk) at 15:41, 7 September 2013 (→Serial reverts from fan-fixated user.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    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:Lugnuts reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: both blocked )

    Both users blocked for 24 hours, reminded to please discuss on talk pages in case of conflict. Continuing misbehaviour on either side can go to either AN or ANI. The rest of this discussion is well beyond the scope of this page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Page: How a Mosquito Operates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1] (I'm not sure if this is what's supposed to be linked to)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]
    6. [7]
    7. [8]
    8. [9]
    9. [10]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

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

    Comments: This is likely related to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 17‎‎. Also, I freely admit I've been uncivil in my edit summaries, after being hit with incivilities in those of Lugnuts and in comments he has made at Categories for deletion. An admin has previously talked to him about 3RR.———Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    • You both have gone over WP:3RR. And due to the fact that your edit summaries have included such remarks as "fuck you Lugnuts" you might want to look out. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already admitted to my incivilities above. The article history clearly shows my comments were directly in response to incivilities from Lugnuts, which are continuations of his incivilities at Categories for discussion and his previous editwarring at the article, for which he and I were already warned by an admin about. The evidence shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lugnuts is persistently disruptively editing in bad faith—a far, far more serious issue than my pottymouth. Curly Turkey (gobble) 15:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not edit warring. CT posted on the film project talk page asking for help on his article. I've offered my help by making several edits to improve said article. Each edit has been met with revert after revert, with no discussion as to why and a wave of personal attacks:
    1. "Fuck you Lugnuts"
    2. "Fuck off, Lugnuts"
    3. "I said fuck you, and I meant it."
    4. "Or develop a cure for cancer, either would be a miracle"

    I then posted on this user's talkpage to try and engage in conversation, but I have been met with:

    1. "When I say Fuck You, I mean Fuck You"
    2. "Fuck you and your "final warning""

    How is that acceptable? If an article is going through FAC, why can't any edits be made to it? Turkey clearly has issues with WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL despite my best efforts to copy edit and improve his article.

    Looking through the diffs, above, I made all those edits in good faith. 1. Is adding the film date template and other infobox fixes. 2. Was removing a portal link, again in good faith, as these look spammy. 3 and 4 were as per the FA for Mulholland Drive - IE if that is formatted like that, then this should be too (or is MD incorrect)? 5. was a copy edit after adding some categories. 6. Was de-linking a name that is already linked in the infobox (another user has since agreed with me and de-linked it) and tagging for a source. 7. is more overlinking. 8. Was showing data that was hidden (why include it if it's hidden?) and 9. was reverting an unexplained WP:OWN revert. I'm unsure how these edits breach 3RR. Yes, I initially removed some white space a few weeks back (again, in good faith), and was reverted. I didn't continue with the reverts after CT went to Crisco 1492's talkpage (again, I have no idea why he went running there, instead of posting a question on my talkpage).

    Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Both parties are at fault here - nether moved to the talk page or attempted to solicit a third opinion but instead kept hitting the undue button. Additionally, Curly Turkey engaged in personal attacks even after warning. Tiptoety talk 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Resolute noted, the personal attacks were not one-sided, but in fact were initiated by Lugnuts. In fact, it was initiated by Lugnuts earlier than that, at the Category for discussion I linked to above. The fact that Tiptoety's summary states one-sidedly "Additionally, Curly Turkey engaged in personal attacks even after warning" has given Lugnuts licence to feign innocence on his talk page, pretending to be flabbergasted that he would get the same length of block as a meanie like myself. Could the summary please be altered to reflect the empirical facts? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Curly Turkey. Per both standard practice, and my personal practice we do not block users with the sole intent on amending previous block log entries without extreme circumstances being at play. While I agree that Lugnuts's comment "clue=0" was unhelpful I do not consider it at the same level as telling someone to fuck off multiple times. You both received 24 hour blocks, and if people need clarification on the specifics on the blocks they are welcome to investigate the situation themselves. Best, Tiptoety talk 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Chortle. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does a taunt serve any purpose but to elicit an inappropriate response? Ditto this. Or this, directed at the person rather than at the argument after an eight-day lull in the "conversation"—to what end? Followed up the same day with a second (!) edit war at How a Mosquito Operates, prefaced with a personal attack and including an edit he was told by an admin (Crisco) twice just the week earlier to stop making. I have no confidence Lugnuts has any intention of given up his vendetta, which is why it's important that his infractions not be swept under the rug. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STICK. Let me know when the porridge has cooled down. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After a week and a half of your horse manure, and given the continued tone of your comments, the idea that you would finally choose to give this up is about as fantastic as a tale from the lips of Scheherazade. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STICK and WP:NPA. Again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NPA?!? Only more evidence that you have no intention of letting it go, and are intent on antagonizing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, NPA. From the above, it's clear that you have no intention of letting it go. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will block the next one of you that continues this discussion in this fashion. As you both seem incapable of relating politely to one another, I strongly suggest that you don't continue the discussion here in any fashion at all. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it possible to have my concerns looked into? I strongly believe this is not trivial, and I have no history of being involved in these kinds of issues. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My view is that this is no longer a matter for this notice board. It deals with the limited area of edit warring and this seems to have gone way beyond that. Your concerns are probably better raised at WP:ANI or even WP:AN. And you do have a history of being involved in these kind of issues, now. Please consider very carefully whether you want to add to it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dolliee reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Indef)

    Page
    Infant Jesus of Prague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Dolliee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "(TO Maurauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven needed caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda. You will please also note that I do"
    2. 17:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "(TO Maurauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda.)Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that un"
    3. 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "/* History */TO Maurauder40 et al: If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda.Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's t"
    4. 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "/* History */Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known"
    5. 15:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "/* History */Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known"
    6. 14:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Papal Approval */"
    7. 11:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "/* History */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [12]

    Comments:

    Dolliee (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I FINALLY FOUND AND WROTE TO DAWN AS FOLLOWS

    When Can I RE-POST ESSENTIAL and now MORE PERFECTED Additions?

    I wrote the following at several places yesterday including the Infant of Prague talk page here and in Czech Republic

    No reply

    It is my second day with a login and I am not seeking a career here and am busy and just dislike murder rackets

    NOR CAN I BE AT WAR WITH ANYONE IN JUST ONE DAY

    And anyone who thinks that a movie made in 1984 showing a 1515 Teresa of Avila with a 1650 Infant of Prague can form a consensus to document Spanish origin... just because a Czech put a clip in a documentary in 2011... after Sanctuary violation...

    Why not visit the bottom of one of MY wordpress pages where I already told the story of the constant deletion of my simple objective paragraph additions here ...along with two music videos below it that are lawfully protected by fair use and also covered by a Court Order I got when crooked cops tried to stop me. You have to scroll way down past 4 videos to find it and the 2 videos after it:

    http://dollieday.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/sandy-hook-notice-of-claim-and-request-for-permission-to-sue/

    You can see the other protected videos too, of course. Or else just stay here and read this below and let me know when I can post the 3 caveat paragraphs:


    IN RE MY ADDITION TO WIKIPEDIA INFANT OF PRAGUE

    My 2 caveat wiki paragraphs did not edit or change one word by anyone but added true perspective regarding the Holy Infant of Prague

    THEY WERE BOTH REPEATEDLY DELETED

    Here are the 2 caveat paragraphs to which I now add a Papal third:


    "History Caveat Wiki – It should be noted that until the late 1980′s this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known origin of the hand-less Icon, a pile of rubble after the Thirty Years War, was later verified and supported in the nineteenth century by the events at Lourdes, France, around a pile of rubble. There have also been repeated fabricated attempts to base this powerful Holy Self-made miraculous Sign-Icon of Prague in Spain, because the timing of its discovery and Hosea fulfillment contradicts the anti-Semitic text then being prepared by Mary of Agreda in Spain solely to try to sell an apocryphal, scandalous, sinfully violative of the first two Commandments and therefore impossible name, “Joakim”, for the father of Mary already 1000 years honorably secured as Levite “Amram” by the Holy Qoran."

    "Papal Caveat Wiki (again) – Firstly, it should be noted in regard to the so-called Ratzinger “coronation” that for this event the hair on the Prague Holy Icon was painted unprecedented non-Jewish, non-Jacob (Genesis 25:21 et seq.), red. Also, the September 2009 event itself either never officially took place or could not last because the Sanctuary of The Infant of Prague had been violated in April, 2009. Apparently Ratzinger had not cared to notice this. But when the Czech Republic rightly excluded/deported from Czech territory David Duke as undesirable or even dangerous in late April, 2009, it neither then nor thereafter made any provision for the human rights of Duke (who had actually kept an image of the Infant of Prague on his website the whole time he was getting his PhD), to obtain even a limited and guarded day pass access to the Holy Infant of Prague Shrine Sanctuary, which is not “Czech Territory”. No one has sued the Czech government or the Vatican over this yet."

    "(Papal caveat continued): But of course Ratzinger did not notice the April Prague Sanctuary violation as he wormed his way, with his Knight Waldheim, into the Holy Mosque on Temple Mount two weeks later on May 13, 2009. He did not see the Bob Dylan song, “Desolation Row”, copyright chain from the nailed curtains to the broken doorknob, either, nor did he notice that the entire April event coincided exactly with the impossible finding of “probable cause” against Ingmar Guandique for the May 2001 Chandra Levy murder done by the Matt Hale/Knight Waldheim sponsoring FBI. How could he notice these instant replay basics when he never believed how anti-Semitic Mary of Agreda was told off in 1650 from a pile of rubble? Nobody messes with the Hosea 2: 16-17 abstract “Atlas Shrugged” Holy Infant."

    YESTERDAY After repeat deletions knowing nowhere to contact I added but will not re-add:

    TO Marauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven needed caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda. You will please also note that I do not NEED to delete “your” lying junk to be understood. It is YOU who delete and call mine “unconstructive”. OF WHAT? Murder rackets or phoney Catholicism?

    I was NOT warring but then knew no other reply space

    SHALL IT BE:

    See how they need to get away with anti-Semitic lies by blocking objectivity!!!

    Dolliee (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    User:Nietzsche123 reported by User:JamieBrown2011 (Result: )

    Page: International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nietzsche123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [14]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]
    5. [19]

    This is not the first time this has happened either, Nietzsche123 was edit warring here too:

    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]
    5. [24]

    I warned the user during our DRN dispute here: [25]

    And we had both received a previous warning here: [26] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[27]]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:

    Editor is a SPA who uses this page as his SOAPBOX. He engages in CPOV and TEND JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-involved comment — Just taking a look here. Seems like both editors are engaged in edit warring (both egregiously violated WP:3RR today), and both seem to be single-purpose accounts. I think both editors need to take a breath, engage each other in good-faith, and find some common ground. If incapable of doing so, both should be temporary blocked from editing, with a possible topic ban. DKqwerty (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I misunderstood WP:3RR: I thought it meant that one should not make more than three reverts of the same material over a 24-hour period, whereas it means that one should not make more than three reverts (whether it's of the same material or not) over a 24-hour period. My apologies: I will not violate it again. That said, as DKqwerty already pointed out, JamieBrown2011 is also guilty of violating 3RR. I'd also like to point out that I've warned Jaime of edit-warring in the past for making more than three reverts of the same material. I'd like to ask on what grounds Jaime makes his above accusations. He accuses me of pushing a Christian POV since I provided evidence for my claim that a certain journal has a track record for fact checking and accuracy; my evidence in part consists of the fact that the Evangelical Press Association has given numerous awards to the journal in question. As for the WP:TEND accusation, I ask for specific examples. The issue that sparked Jaime's post here concerns a journal: Christian Research Institute's Christian Research Journal. Basically, Jaime questions its reliability. As I understand WP:RS and WP:Burden I've fulfilled my obligations by accurately citing the material and providing evidence that the journal is a reliable source on the talk page. The next step, as I understand WP protocol, is for Jaime to approach WP:DSN or WP:RSN, not simply deleting the content because he fails to find my argument on the talk page convincing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (Also, I think my last sentence to my most recent post on the ICOC's talk page is relevant: "If you continue to disregard WP protocol, I will bring this to the attention of another editor". The next time Jaime reverted the content I planned on bringing this to the attention of The Red Pen of Doom, an editor who has helped advise us of WP protocol in the past. I see that I should have appealed to him, or some other editor, a lot earlier.) -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As evidence of PUSH and TEND we just spent 3-4 months of discussion/disagreement over a large amount of text placed in a few locations on the ICOC page by Nietzsche123 on "Yeakley's research on the Boston Church of Christ", published by 'Gospel Advocate'. After two DRN rulings where Nietzsche123 was warned of coming very close to wikilawyering, [[[29]] Gospel Advocate was ruled as an unreliable primary source and that Yeakley could only be referenced through reliable secondary sources, or possibly directly where the secondary sources had already advanced the information. Immediately following this long, drawn out and very clear ruling... Nietzsche123 goes ahead and inserts links to material in the Gospel Advocate book, that was specifically agreed upon was not allowed to be included [30]. He may claim it was a mistake but it is consistent with his CANVASSING of other users who are ex-members of the ICOC [31]. I would be happy to walk away from the ICOC page and work on other Wiki projects, if I were not convinced that Nietzsche123 will continue in the future to use this page as his personal SOAPBOX, and attempt to apparently RGW by inserting highly controversial material from SPS, Student Newspapers, and other unreliable primary sources which he has done relentlessly and tirelessly for the last 18 months to two years now.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    JamieBrown2011 misrepresents the opinions of the DRN editors. TransporterMan guided us through our first DRN, which concerned whether a certain text--Flavil Yeakley's The Discipling Dilemma--may be be used as a reliable source. There is some dispute about what TransporterMan ultimately advised. I contend that he advised that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, The Discipling Dilemma is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources. And that because it is referred to by multiple high quality sources, we may cite Yeakley's text directly. It's obvious to me that JamieBrown disputes the former statement; but he may even dispute the latter, given his description above. Specifically, TransporterMan said that "I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". Where the secondary sources covered enough ground, I used them instead of the Yeakley in my summation; but where they didn't, I used the Yeakley text itself. TransporterMan also told us to come back the DRN if we couldn't agree on the wording of the summation. After attempts on the talk page failed to resolve how to best word the summation, JamieBrown then went to the DRN requesting guidance in how to best word the summation. Now, during the second DRN request we were told by two different editors that while Yeakley may be directly cited because his text is referred to by multiple high quality secondary sources, neither Gospel Advocate nor the text itself were reliable sources; so we may only refer to it when it is cited by the secondary sources. JamieBrown was repeatedly made aware of this opinion but he has misrepresented it on multiple occasions now: either he just misunderstands it or is deliberately trying to mislead people. Specifically, he denies that we may use Yeakley directly as a source. While I was told that I came close to lawyering on one occasion, JamieBrown plagiarized on two occasions. And I didn't canvass "other users"; rather, I canvassed one user. That I will not do again; I didn't realize WP had a policy against it. Before I arrived at the ICOC page it contained many SPS and other unreliable secondary sources. Not only that, the page misrepresented what those sources said. Before I knew WP's policies on such sources I started making the content of the page better reflect what the sources said and I also added content from one additional SPS. Rather than discuss with me what I was doing wrong, Jamie just undid my edits. Once I was pointed to SPS and RS I accepted the removal of those sources. I did add some criticism about the ICOC from a university student newspaper. But instead of engaging in an edit war with Jamie, I did the responsible thing and placed a RFC. It was ultimately deemed that university student newspapers were not reliable enough to cite the claims it was making. I would also like to point out that I placed another RFC over whether editors are responsible for bringing the source to another editor's attention. Jamie kept deleting content insisting that I need to show him the actual source even though I cited it accurately. The result of the RFC was that I didn't need to show him the actual source, only cite it accurately. He obviously thinks I'm guilty of pushing a POV, one that is critical of the ICOC. But in my edits I have consistently tried to represent both sides when they are presented in a given article. Jamie, on the other hand, has, in my mind, tends to not balance his edits, deleting only bits of the article that are the least bit critical of the ICOC. For a most recent example, while he contends that Yeakley's text is not a reliable source and hence that we may not cite it directly, he left in a large paragraph from the text that is positive about some of the ICOC's practices even though he deleted all the negative paragraphs. I brought this to his attention on the talk page, but he left it up twice now before I deleted it for lacking support from secondary sources. And while I apologize for the length of this paragraph, I'd like to add that Jamie has been guilty of OR and COATRACKING: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_4 (under Member's Personality Changes). Now, we all make mistakes; so I don't hold this against Jamie; rather, I expect that once we are made aware of them, won't do them again. And I've only been editing for about a year now, not 18 months or even two years, as Jaime stated. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hobbe Yonge reported by User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh (Result: )

    Page: Clan Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hobbe Yonge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [32]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 4 September 2013
    2. 5 September 2013‎
    3. 5 September 2013
    4. 5 September 2013

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

    Comments:

    The reverts are over one word. Hobbe thinks the word is either Gaelic surname equating to the English surname Young, or a Gaelic name for Clan Young. It's neither, it's a Gaelic adjective meaning "young", that is used as a nickname in Gaelic. After a couple reverts I was able to get him to give a reference on the talkpage, but when I noted that it doesn't support his claim, or even mention the surname or clan, he resorted to name calling and reverted once again. So this is going nowhere fast.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been trying to settle this on the talk page. This guy insists on removing the item, while the discussion goes on. He also gave me a reference to a page that says One should not report a revertwar that one is personally involved in. I suspect an over-inflated ego is running rampant here. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Is it okay if I revert the article to the 17 May 2013 version. It's the stable version before the recent reverts?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xkyamie reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: City In the Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Xkyamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [35]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [36]
    2. [37]
    3. [38]
    4. [39]
    5. [40]

    (Note : the first two diffs are from an IP, which per WP:DUCK I am assuming is the user logged out, as it is identical behaviour)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done on article talk, user has already been warned on user talk page [42]

    Comments: User has a previous history of removing AfD /CSD notices. See [43], [44], [45]


    User:CopSuscept reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Abdus Salam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    CopSuscept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:34 - 15:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    2. 03:16 - 09:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    3. 00:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC) "added Pakistani Constitution citation"
    4. 21:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "replace Muslim with a neutral word or keep this fact. If he is not considered Muslim by law, then how can one call him a Muslim?"
    5. 08:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "When Pakistan does not recognize him as a Muslim, the claim of his being Muslim must be accompanied by facts."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Abdus Salam. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Persistently edit warring. SMS Talk 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @4th revert: This is not a revert but linking of a word in my own version with [[.--CopSuscept (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you would point a diff which is not a revert but an edit over my own version. In that case, you should add all the diffs from that page today and not just 4 to make it look like I reverted more than three times.--CopSuscept (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected the diff. --SMS Talk 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding "while in exile for being constitutionally declared a non-Muslim" is not a revert in my opinion. It is pertinent to the description of his being Muslim when he is not considered a Muslim in Pakistan. I rest my case with these final words. ISI is free to do its research.--CopSuscept (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This user also violated 3RR at State-sponsored terrorism (Diffs:Prev Ver, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). --SMS Talk 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aleenf1 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

    Page
    2014 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Wooccu (talk) to last version by Aleenf1"
    2. 03:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Wooccu (talk) to last version by Aleenf1"
    3. 11:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Wooccu (talk): MOS. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Asian Games. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Alleges a MOS violation, but is opaque on what the violation is. Unfairly considers the edit to be "disruptive". ViperSnake151  Talk  05:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It not just MOS, but it is unsourced material adding into the article. I'm recheck the addition in Official Website, it never found or mention, so it is against the verifiability. Does the sports name need capitalization? I don't see the where it apply in MOS. Clearly reversion is only choice. --Aleenf1 05:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, i did link the MOS to those editor, however it seems he never discuss or capture the point. So, if we have a reversion to apply the policy, while we have to apply 3RR also, makes no sense at all while the other just come here to mess the things. --Aleenf1 05:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cybordog reported by User:Owain.davies (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [46]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [47]
    2. [48]


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

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

    Comments:

    User was given 72 hour block by User:EdJohnston last week for edit warring and not engaging (in Archive 222). Immediately following expiry of block, has made the same revert again. I have left further message on talk page explaining in detail, but will not engage, and has made the revert a second time after the block expired. Any assistance would be appreciated. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Januarythe18th: reported by User:GreyWinterOwl (Result:No violation.)

    Page: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Januarythe18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [51]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [52]
    2. [53]
    3. [54]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56], [57]

    Comments:
    All editors agree on the talk page, including 2 very experienced ones, that the article in its present form is very biased, using Confirmation_Bias and carefully choosing from the references, only the information which seem negative, odd or controversial while ignoring neutral/positive ones. Despite the huge consensus and much explanation on the talk page, Januarythe18th aggressively reverts the tags so I see no other solution than informing about it here. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation Breaking 3RR means making four reverts within 24 hours, please see the policy. You have provided diffs of three reverts, two recent and one from 26 August. Checking the history for myself, I see that that's all there is. Note: the situation at the article is being discussed on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you for your attention, Bishonen. I never said there was a violation of 3RR. The case is one user forcefully reverting against consensus of all other users to push a non-neutral POV. I still don't understand why my report is not valid. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined your report firstly because this board is about edit warring. Since your concerns as you describe them above are wider, they are more appropriately discussed on ANI, and you have indeed already raised them on ANI. I do understand that you're a new user, and that navigating and using Wikipedia's boards is a whole rather labyrinthine and daunting world. For taking essentially the same concern to different boards, however, you might find Wikipedia:Forum shopping useful. And secondly, as far as edit warring (=not simply the 3RR rule) on the article is concerned, you yourself have been equally guilty of it. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying that, Bishonen. Sorry, my bad, I was completely unaware that this section was only for 3RR violations. I was also unaware about the policy of not raising the same issue on 2 different sections for admins, sorry again. I will address this matter on the ANI page from now on. About me being guilty of editwarring, yes I am 100% guilty, but my edit came from consensus and his came from forcing a specific POV. Would that make me a less guilty editwarrior? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Serial reverts from fan-fixated user.

    [[User:72.68.5.132 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)]] reported by User:72.68.5.132 (Result: )

    Page: Lily Collins, and Jamie Bower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    <!Undo revision 571911781>

    Previous version reverted to: [trying to maintain researched citations and references from UPI being serially deleted by user]

    <!There are 22 reverts since August which apparently fixated fans have been upset about, and who do not understand that UPI is a reputable source fully cited in the text. User:Hullabalo apprears determined to violate 3RR in spite of multiple requests to put any of his/her concerns on the Talk page of Lily Collins. I have tried multiple times.> Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

    <!History of 22 reverts over the last two weeks of apparently fixated fan response, which does not understand that UPI is a reputable source> <!User has been warned and refuses to put anything on Talk page> Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    <!User has been invited to put his comments on Talk and has declined> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    Comments:There also appears to be a spurious account that was set up for the sole purpose to making the deletion of the UPI report and collaborative references which seems to have no history of contribs other than this single deletion:Breelieber (talk | contribs)‎ />

    <!After restoring the fully cited and reference UPI text, if a 3RR is seen as overly targeted, then perhaps to protect the page for a few days to protect the UPI citation and give the overly excited fans a chance to take a breath concerning the documented outcome of this fully researched UPI report. 72.68.5.132 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=571927814"