Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 645: Line 645:


:24 hours. Might be slightly more than 24 hours apart, but the user is clearly (by his/her own edit summary) aware of 3RR and is acting disruptively. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:24 hours. Might be slightly more than 24 hours apart, but the user is clearly (by his/her own edit summary) aware of 3RR and is acting disruptively. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

::Ewps. I also {{AN3|p}} the page for '''1 week''', before having seen your block, mainly because it looks like {{User|Piotrus}} is also involved, plus [[User_talk:Radeksz#My_dear_ally|ominous "ally" phrasing]] gives overtones of [[WP:BATTLE|wikibattle]]. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:17, 24 November 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

    24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son


    User1389 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: 8 hours & 24h & 72h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [6]



    Serbia/Kosovo edit warrior took a month off and has now reengaged. Is blind-reverting general article fixes as well as country names. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now off his block, the user has re-reverted the article again [14]. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And...he's back. With a somewhat amusing edit summary, considering his behavior: [15]. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave notice; further reverts will result in an extended block. seicer | talk | contribs 14:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole

    Dabomb87 is performing dozens of edits (and if you go back further, hundreds) which are currently disputed at WT:MOSNUM. Specifically, he is unlinking full dates and despite a good faith discussion and RFC forming, he is refusing to stop his automated edits pushing his POV. I believe this is "edit warring". —Locke Cole • t • c 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment – Abstaining from any action on this subject due to prior interaction with Locke Cole, but other parties should note WP:AN#Special:Contributions/Tennis expert, WP:ANI#Locke Cole. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Coment. Date-linking is something on which the community has not yet made up its mind. Admin action taken from this noticeboard might have trouble winning general support. I suggest that you add any complaint about this editor's work to the existing thread at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly there's no harm in stopping these mass edits from being performed is there? It doesn't help the ongoing discussion and debate when you have this editor (amongst others, I might add) using a single script (created/maintained by Lightmouse (talk · contribs)) to make so many automated edits that the opposing side just throws its arms up in disgust. See my notification diff which quotes a recent ArbCom decision stating that just these types of acts are wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So that makes your nearly-automated edits (and that of Tennis Expert) correct or more respectable? Conducting such edits in a matter of seconds over dozens of pages hundreds of times is just as nasty as an automated account. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually my reverts, when I was doing them nearly a week ago, were done entirely by hand. Trust me, if I chose to address this as my opponents do (mass scripted edits with little or no actual checking of their work) I could probably do a thousand edits a day. But that would be just as disruptive as the edits I'm reporting here. Or do two wrongs make a right now? Give me the word and I'll proceed immediately to automatically undo all of their edits. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, can you tell me how Dabomb87's actions are not in violation of this ArbCom decision? — Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli —Locke Cole • t • c 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, there has been consensus to not link dates since August. See the MOS archives, Featured Articles and Featured Lists, and this page. I do check my work, the thing is, do you (Locke Cole)? See these edits ([16] and [17]); not only did you link the dates against MOS, but you introduced inconsistencies in date formats within the article. If that is not an example of making an edit without checking work, then what is? (P.S. Locke Cole, you could have informed me about this thread instead of letting me find out for myself) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Twelve editors in an unadvertised straw poll are not consensus to undo something across the entire wiki. Fascinating as the idea may be, it just doesn't work. Especially when at least as many editors have came to the page since this was "decided" and registered their dislike for the change (only to be told, effectively, to go away; or simply ignored). Now I invite you again: stop unlinking dates and join the discussion/RFC at WT:MOSNUM. This would 1) cease your disruption of Wikipedia and 2) allow you to voice your opinion on date linking. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot this. seicer | talk | contribs 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No I didn't. I just don't see the relevance. I asked them to stop for a week or two before finally caving and joining them in their disruption. I'd really rather NOT be disruptive though, and despite being asked (often times repeatedly) to stop, they choose to continue. There's an RFC being discussed and more at WT:MOSNUM and it's clear (to all but the most arrogant) that this practice is disputed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this is edit warring, without implausibly stretching the definition. Provide clear evidence of edit warring if you believe otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user's edit warring date-delinking record and intentions, as evidenced by his edit summaries, are clear. For example:
    Casey Dellacqua: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).
    Jessica Moore (tennis): (1), (2), (3), (4).
    Hurricane Fifi-Orlene: (1), (2), (3).
    Air raids on Australia, 1942–43: (1), (2), (3).
    Roscoe Tanner: (1), (2), (3).
    Steve Shak: (1), (2), (3).
    Chuck Jones: (1), (2), (3).
    Christina Fusano: (1), (2), (3).
    Jamal Sutton: (1), (2)
    Robert Ssejjemba: (1), (2).
    Diplomatic history of Australia: (1), (2).
    List of surviving veterans of World War I: (1), (2).
    Darlene Hard: (1), (2).
    Tennis expert (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot this (and more). seicer | talk | contribs 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant and unbecoming of an administrator. Tennis expert (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of compromise and dispute resolution, I am willing to voluntarily stop my delinking edits with the script. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that is part of the solution. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    done Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Hmm, OK, from [18] it seems quite clear that TE, LC, D87 and 2O are indulging in edit warring. [19] appears to confirm this. I can't see any reason to single out D87. It is clear that the issue should be settled on the MOS talk page and that no further linking/unlinking should be done till that discussion is settled on way or the other William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, William; that sounds like good advice. While the community decided on the removal of date autoformatting and links to irrelevant date-fragment pages in August and much earlier still, respectively, there's a small band of loud complainers—none of them representative of WPians or readers at large. I note that these complainers are increasingly resorting to dramatic techniques to shout down hard-working editors who are striving to assist general users to bring their articles into compliance with the style guides. This page is just one of those techniques, which include the posting of threatening, bullying messages on talk pages; I'm sorry that your time and that of others has been taken up in dealing with it at this point. Tony (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    195.210.193.210 reported by Eklir

    This IP has reverted a legitimate reference source four (4) times so far: [20], [21]. [22], [23]; for no apparent reason other than that its language is German instead of the English or the Russian used in the other references. I came accross these edits on patrol on issues in languages and linguistics. I have checked out the legitimacy of the contested reference.

    This user is also engaged in blanking historically attested alternate names for this language. Eklir (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2 reverts in last 24h, none subsequent to your warning, no discussion by anyone on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    75.64.248.238 reported by CH52584


    • Previous version reverted to: [24]



    • I warned him about ownership of articles on his talk page: [27], which he blanked before making his most recent revert.
    • I then warned him that he is not providing an argument against the current consensus on the discussion page: [28]

    He's insisting that because the Ole Miss-Mississippi State football game wasn't called the Egg Bowl before the 1930s, all games before then shouldn't be listed on the page. There is no precident for this practice for any other named rivalry, and I've asked him to take it to the discussion page to build consensus, which he has not done.

    I have also noticed that he is making the same changes to the Jackson, Mississippi article as well, using the exact same message in his edit summary, quote, "restore original content and original flow of the article before it got all mucked up." This has been his exact edit summary for all three reverts of Egg Bowl and the exact edit summary for several reverts of Jackson, Mississippi. CH52584 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You've reverted just as often. You've made no attempt to discuss it on the talk page. You haven't warned the anon of this report. I could just as well block you, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The same subject was brought up on the talk page several months ago. I don't think a final agreement was ever made, but since I've been editing this particular article, this is the first time that this particular issue has come up. I have responded to that discussion on the discussion page, and have enouraged the anon to do the same. He has, however, blanked his own user talk page twice since I first posted this alert, so I'm not expecting a response from him. I think he is content to continue arguing that the page is "mucked up" in his edit summaries. CH52584 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Srkris (result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [29]


    (listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

    Too late, he reverted too quickly for me to issue an advance warning.


    User:Dbachmann removed academic references and reverted one of my edits. I inserted the reference back and time and again he removed the same without any justification. He seems to be quite rude and obstinate and made the reverts in very quick succession before I could warn him about 3RR. I could not understand why he was removing a reliable academic reference, and he doesnt seem bothered to explain any of his reverts although I tried to bring sense to him, no avail. He accuses me of pushing POVs, but the very version before his reverts will show I sought to establish NPOV and reliability to that article.­ Kris (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see his simultaneous violation of 3RR for Vedic Sanskrit also below


    • Previous version reverted to: [34]


    (listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)


    Too late, he reverted too quickly for me to issue an advance warning.


    He seems to have reverted this article too, making it a double-3RR in a single hour.­ Kris (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. No 3RR vio, but edit warring, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I enquire why Srkris was blocked, but not Dbachmann? PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PhilKnight, this editor has been nothing short of disruptive in the past few weeks. Calling him a "good editor" on his talk page as you did [here] is simply not accurate. Edit-warring is one thing; making this sort of commentary is another, and then allowing it to slide is not something we can afford to be doing. There's been wikistalking/wikihounding concerns too in addition to inserting factual errors in Wikipedia. He clearly is a net liability to this project if he continues editing and making unacceptable comments in this atrocious manner - his edits on his talk page since being blocked clearly show that he's going to continue to use Wikipedia as a battleground. Given the variety of concerns, I'd like the duration of this block to be increased so that if he is to return to editing, this is not going to continue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't give PK a particularly good answer. Now 3RR has become edit warring, the lines are blurred, and things become more a matter of judgement. I reviewed S's edits, and the ANI thread, and decided he was at fault. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of block becomes more common, if the feature creep here continues. I'm still comfortable with the block William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for the reply. I would have probably given Dbachmann a shorter block - perhaps 12 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block for User:Srkris, could have been much longer. Good call, William. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tocino reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 72h)




    All additions are violations of WP:RS and WP:BLP as well. Thanks, Grsz11 →Review! 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Veecort reported by User:McJeff (blocked 24h)

    A very brief synopsis of the events. Veecort was previously very active on the ITT Tech article, but took a several-month break from editing. His first edit upon return was to revert the article to the last version he had edited, as seen here. He then continued to revert war by readding the things he wrote in the "controversy" section.

    McJeff (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours due to disruptive editing – as a side note, McJeff (talk · contribs) looks like he might have violated the 3RR; however, I'm ignoring this, since it's clear that Veecort (talk · contribs)'s edits were substantially more disruptive in that several editors also thought it necessary to revert Veecourt over several days (e.g., [47] [48] [49]). However, I highly advise McJeff (talk · contribs) to also be wary of his reverts in the future, for even when consensus seems to back you, you should still avoid breaking the three-revert rule yourself. --slakr\ talk / 08:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly sure that I was only at three reverts, and I was being conscious of my revert count as seen here, where I asked another editor to step in. I'm familiar with 3RR (having once gotten myself blocked for getting careless and forgetting it) and the clause that one isn't entitled to 3 reverts per 24 hours. McJeff (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Roaring Siren reported by Collectonian (Result: 12 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: link
    • 1st revert: link
    • 2nd revert: link (in edit summary he states "we could be at this all day")
    • 3rd revert: link (edit summary of "thanks but no thanks")
    • 4th revert: link
    • 5th revert: link
    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    Despite three other editors reverting his addition, Roaring Siren continues to revert, ignoring the 3RR warning and making edit summaries, as noted above, indicating he intends to continue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 12 hours. If this carries on the next one will be much longer. Spartaz Humbug! 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Date delinker reported by Locke Cole (Result:)

    • This editor has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chose to enforce their POV by performing massive edits to hundreds of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does however meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

    Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    and

    Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    —Locke Cole • t • c 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot has seemingly stopped delinking dates, so no use blocking it; however, I'll make Ohnoconfucius aware of this discussion for his input. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this may be a subject better covered at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's already indicated it's not a bot performing these edits (or at least, that was the original reason for his unblock) so the Bot owners' noticeboard wouldn't really apply. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This complaint is just part of a campaign mounted by certain users against anyone who dares to do anything which they disagree with, and includes various types of harassment such as spamming our talk pages, reporting us to WP:AN. I refuse to submit to the bullying of people who habitually use edit-warring to get what they want. No, I do not use a bot, and have been cleared of such. It can be see from my Mission statement, the pattern of edits, and what is actually being changed that I am executing the policy of removing links which do not belong in articles. I may also be changing [incorrect] date formats to ones agreed upon for country-specific subjects. No-one has validly pointed out in what way my edits are in breach of any relevant policies and guidelines. Whatever "warnings" have been issued to me by certain individuals are founded on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and policy- and guidelines- 'wishful thinking'. I believe previous dismissal of complaints they have made against other editors performing similar tasks, and the decision here not to take action against me are sufficient vindication. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is really quite simple and I fail to see how you can't understand it: Wikipedia operates on consensus. The present wording at WP:MOSNUM is disputed and currently going through an RFC. You have been asked to stop performing these disputed edits until the situation is resolved (at the end of the RFC). You have chosen not to. This is edit warring. It is disruption. It's violating a previous ArbCom decision with regards to forcing your changes during an ongoing dispute. Whatever else you may think of me, my actions or whomever does not change these singular truths. There is no excuse to continue making disputed and disruptive edits especially when you're aware of the ongoing dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are trying to pick off your opponents one at a time. You failed with User:Dabomb87 and you have also failed here, so why don't you quit while you are ahead! ;-) I am inclined to tell you to do something to yourself which is physically impossible, but I realise behavioural guidelines prevents me from doing this, so take "GO AWAY" as the civil response. God spede, Ohconfucius/Date delinker (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully anyone following this will note you've failed to address my statement as to which policies and guidelines you are violating by performing these edits. Hopefully they will further note that you don't appear to be agreeing to stop but rather seem to be taking joy in bringing disruption to hundreds of articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it would be a misunderstanding of the situation to suggest that simply because you weren't blocked that it's a "vindication". You were spared because you "seemed to have stopped", not because what you were doing wasn't a violation of policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohconfucius: please stop with the ad hominem. Attacking Locke due to his block log or whether he's out to get you or not is not the purpose here. If there isn't consensus on changing something, do not use your other account (I thought it was a bot but that has been clarified now) to change it anyway. Oh, and stop it with the incivility. I'm not blocking anyone now but that can change if you keep putting out veiled insults. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I'm not vindicating anything you've done. I didn't block your account (just to be clear, your main account would be blocked in this case as you are the one facilitating the content dispute, not the alt account) because it stopped disputed activities. This doesn't mean it can continue; sort this out first. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 03:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has resumed his disruptive date delinking activities, in contravention of this edit warring case and this warning. See, for example, his edits to the following articles: Federico Luzzi, Francesca_Schiavone, Andreas Seppi, Roberta Vinci, Tommy Robredo, and Federico Luzzi. See this user's defiant statement of intent to continue the edit warring. Not only has this user resumed the disruptive edits, he is using AWB to make clearly controversial edits in violation of the AWB rules of use. See this related edit warring case. Tennis expert (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    190.10.226.137 reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [50]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]
    User has not reverted since being advised of the three-revert-rule. Not closing this yet though since his last edit was less an hour ago. CIreland (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The TriZ reported by User:Hakkari (Result: No action)

    User continues to delete sources and changes articles w/o using citations on several articles.

    Article 1

    Article 2

    Article 3

    ADMIN NOTE: Hakkari (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Am6212 (talk · contribs). Confirmed by CU Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). لennavecia 04:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No action. This result is not carte blanche to edit war on the Assyrian/Syriac naming issue, but there is no evident 3RR above, most of the reverts being stale. Some articles may need protection if this continues. (The sock Hakkari was not auto-confirmed and would have been stopped by semi-protection). Editors who think they may be participating in such issues in the future should be sure they can link to a Talk page discussion to justify their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Elysander reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: 24h)




    User:Elysander has been warned more than once about 3RR. He very rarely ever gives a viable reason in the edit summary for his reverts other than the fact that he believes his version to be the "stable" version. Although he can change the article in which case his changes become the new stable version. He also accuses people he disagrees with of making disruptive edits. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for E and I William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Switchintoglide (result: warned)

    User:Switchintoglide is a new user, like me, and is not responding to requests to stop removing my content from David_Ferguson_(impresario). I am attempting to add a well cited *Legal History* section to the article and requests for citations. The new section has had a Third opinion and mostly all of the recommendations were implemented with the exception of once which was not relevant since the information it requested was clear in the context of the article, but the review read the addition out of context. I have warned the user just now about the 3 reverts rule and have reverted the vandalism, putting me in violation of the 3RR myself. Please advise. I'm trying to play by the rules

    Cassandrar (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Presumed newbie, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam.J.W.C. reported by Noodle snacks (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [73] (There may be intermediate changes, the thing here is the taxobox image)



    I have not warned the user, however he is well and truely aware of the rule and has a history of similar behavior in regard to placement of images he has uploaded. If you dig through his talk page there are deleted discussions on such matters.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]

    Since I tuned in and reverted at the sydney bridge article these reverts at urban exploration have occured as "revenge" only minutes later:

    Despite clear consensus for the other image at Talk:Urban_exploration#New_image_that_was_just_added Noodle snacks (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation The third revert listed is not by Adam.J.W.C. and I cannot find another that you could have meant instead. CIreland (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lightmouse reported by Tennis Expert (Result: )

    • Diff of dispute warnings: (1), (2)
    • Lightmouse has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the five diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does, however, meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

    Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    and

    Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

    — WP:EDITWAR
    • My notification of Lightmouse about this edit warring case can be found here.

    — Tennis expert (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note The admin who chooses to review this should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Special:Contributions.2FTennis_expert, where the general dispute recently received extensive administrative attention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was largely sabotaged by an admin who not only blocked an editor but proceeded to engage in assisting pushing the other sides POV. Obviously the more background information people have on this the better, but hopefully nothing there will be used to excuse this disruptive behavior (when most people seem to be trying to help with the RFC). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note See also: Special:Contributions/Tennis expert, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive493#Locke Cole. And note two other reports by Locke Cole above, both of which were closed as no vio. You should really choose your wording more carefully LC; I was the blocking administrator and I failed to see how I "sabatogued" the extensive edit warring on both sides. In fact, and I've asked this three times already and have yet to receive a response (outside of "look in the archives"), but can you provide a link to a page that states consensus towards keeping the date-links? seicer | talk | contribs 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seicer you misrepresent things: the admin (Master of Puppets) of the Date delinker report above was quite clear that the only reason he took no action was because the editor appeared to have stopped. It wasn't a "no vio" as you claim... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Somewhere up above, I said Hmm, OK, from [86] it seems quite clear that TE, LC, D87 and 2O are indulging in edit warring. [87] appears to confirm this. I can't see any reason to single out D87. It is clear that the issue should be settled on the MOS talk page and that no further linking/unlinking should be done till that discussion is settled on way or the other William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) and I can't see any reason to revise that. Its not clear why Lightmouse's edits don't fall into the same category. Furthermore Lightmouse does appear to be in breach of the use conditions on AWB. This needs to be sorted out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC or Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) oe whereever William M. Connolley (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note (e.c.) I'm sorry that the time of admins and others is going to be wasted here; this is part of a political campaign by several users at MOSNUM talk to threaten and bully those who work to have articles comply with community decisions that date autoformatting be no longer used and that date fragments not be linked (a battle that was resolved quite some time ago). Several users, among them Tennis expert and Cole, have been waging a war of intimidatory notices on talk pages, stalking, edit-warring and loud complaint. They are few in number, but make up for this in their loudness. They seem to be picking off users they disagree with one by one and taking such quasi-legal action as this, without success thus far. I can provide evidentiary links on request. Tony (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone is interested in the AWB guidelines, please note the following two extensive discussions on this topic here and here. The discussion included but was not limited to contributions by Tennis expert and Locke Cole. Lightmouse (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The guidelines are fairly clear: Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding. You are very clearly doing something controversial. Everyone else seems prepared to wait for the RFC (no?); you should too William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be happy to see a debate on ANI as to whether date delinking is a breach of AWB guidelines. But it would be a duplication of a previous debate within the AWB jurisdiction itself i.e. here and here. The outcome was that date delinking is not a breach of AWB guidelines. There is nothing to stop ANI duplicating AWB debates about AWB guidelines or finding another guideline that wasn't mentioned in the first debate. But it seems to me that if ANI is discussing a challenge under AWB guidelines, we need to go back to AWB and tell them they made a wrong decision. Lightmouse (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Doing controversial things is a violation of AWB guidelines. If date delinking is controversial, and it is, then date de-linking is a violation. Previous discussions about "inconsequential" seem... inconsequential. I don't see why it should go on ANI. Please join everyone else in waiting for the RFC William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is something controversial when one person stands up and shouts loudly in protest, or is two three or four enough? There are only 2 people standing on rooftops, jumping and waving flags, and I totally disagree that that is sufficient to make something controversial. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confused. The AWB people said date delinking is an acceptable use of AWB. If the AWB decision was wrong because they forgot about the 'controversial' guideline then they need to be told of their error. I certainly don't think that date delinking is controversial despite vocal disagreement from editors like Tennis Expert and Locke Cole. If a challenge is to be made under AWB guidelines then the AWB people need to be told that their original decision is being looked at again. Lightmouse (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Since all editors have been notified in some fashion or another, and since this has gone on long enough at EW/AN/ANI with three reports that were all closed at one point or another, if there are any further de-linkings or linkings by Tennis Expert, Locke Cole, Lightmouse, or other involved editors, they will be blocked for a period of 24 hours. Gain consensus for this at the RFC, not by revert-warring. Furthermore, I suggest that all editors involved refrain from posting on each others talk pages; some of the comments generated on both sides is nonconstructive and unhelpful. seicer | talk | contribs 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I find it a regrettable and lamentable pronunciation - To grant what is effectively an injunction to delinking is capitulation to two loud bullies. We are just doing my bit to tidy up WP in accordance with guideines. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note (e.c.) TE's complaint above cited certain 'problematic edits': However, it would appear that the problems relate more to the incorrect date formats which litter WP. He complained about 5 here and another 5 on LM's talk page,which I have analysed as follows:
      • 1st edit: [88] was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout
      • 2nd edit: the [only] date link in [89] was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
      • 3rd edit: [90] was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout
      • 4th edit: [91]
      • 5th edit: [92]
    In User talk:Lightmouse#Follow-up_on_previous_warning_about_delinking_dates TE also warned about certain 'problematic edits'. It's the same story as above, I have analysed those cited as follows:
    1. Apollo 17 was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout;
    2. Royal League 2004–05 refers to Dutch Football, and was correctly converted by LM to dmy;
    3. the [only] date link in Secret Intelligence Service was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
    4. the [only] date link in Royal Knifefish was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
    These cases, chosen apparently at random to illustrate the 'offenses committed' by Lightmouse are actually symptomatic of the lack of consistency between articles, and clearly illustrates the important work LM is performing to effect compliance with WP:MOSNUM. It also illustrates the disruption being perpetrated by the complainant in concert with User:Locke Cole whether in terms of edit-warring, stalking or other actions against all who disagree with their stance. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr. Anymouse reported by Dlabtot (Result: user warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [93]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [99]

    Dlabtot (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned There is no evidence that user was aware of the rule before this report was posted. I have reverted the user's post 3RR violation edits, warned the user of the rule and for the significant incivility on his page towards Dlabtot. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Colonies Chris reported by Tennis expert (Result: )

    • Diff of dispute warning: [104]
    • Colonies Chris has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does, however, meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

    Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    and

    Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    Tennis expert (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Since this is the fourth reported incident regarding date de-linking/linking, and the three were given no-vios, I've given Colonies Chris a warning and any further de-linking will result in a block. This applies to all involved in the AN/ANI/EW disputes; further edit warring will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fourth incident, yes. But reported by the same two Spidermen acting in concert. Take that as you will. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Melkortheevil reported by User:Peter Fleet (Result: already blocked 24h )


    Comment User:Melkortheevil has already been warned for edit warring here and has chosen to ignore the warning. In the past two days he has reverted the Slipknot article 8 times and appears to be a single purpose pov account. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Already blocked --slakr\ talk / 06:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jamesontai reported by emerson7 (Result: pending)

    Template:Infobox University Chancellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Jamesontai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 03:46, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 253326080 by Emerson7 (talk) image width for infoboxes are generally 225px. please don't change it. go2talk page?")
    2. 15:56, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 253327072 by Jamesontai; Please do not undo my edit until you discuss this at WP:UNI.. using TW")
    3. 22:25, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 253408157 by Jamesontai; As I've said many times, please review this on WT:UNI. Further revisions of my edits will begin to be considered to be vandalism.. using TW")
    4. 08:48, 23 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Emerson7; I have already expressed my views on this issue on the edit summary. Any further revisions by emerson7 will now be considered as vandalism. See WT:UNI.. using TW")
    5. 03:24, 24 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Emerson7 identified as vandalism to last revision by Jamesontai. using TW")
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Note – Are you two seriously edit warring over— 25 pixels? Are 25 pixels seriously worth an edit war? Would the encyclopedia collapse and be lost forever if 25 pixels were either added or removed? I mean, it's not even a penis or something where size would matter anyway. Since you are both otherwise productive, rational, civil editors, I'll assume a solar flare or something else is interfering with your brainwaves, thereby somehow remotely causing this and do something I rarely do. You both have exactly two choices:
      1. You both get blocked for edit warring and this entire ordeal is subsequently added to our lamest edit wars ever page, or
      2. You both make use of third opinion or other dispute resolution steps, while I reserve full trout-slapping rights, even though I probably won't use them, because of how silly an edit war over 25 pixels is.
    The choice is yours. Continued edits to the page by either of you over any of that content without showing clear attempts at dispute resolution will likely get both editors blocked. Also, please avoid attempting to justify your actions; you are both automatically and horribly in the wrong for one reason and one reason alone: 25 pixels.
    ...and would you please make that redlink for the template's talk page disappear? Thanks.
    --slakr\ talk / 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (conflict here, was going to post a warning and protection result) Frivolous fight over the format of a template. Reporting user behaving no better than reported user, but both contributors have good records, and it would be a shame to block them over this one dispute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The only thing I've asked this editor to do, was discuss the changes the 25 pixels would do to the articles. This article concerns BLPs, which stretching/shrinking the 25 pixels could make a difference (by making a person's face seem fatter/slimmer). I've really done this by the book here. I've asked the editor to comment to WT:UNI#Template:Infobox University Chancellor or Template talk:Infobox University Chancellor. Since this template does effect many articles, a simple explanation of what exactly this will do to the other articles should not have been that hard to type out. I've posted on the template's talk page, WikiProject Universities' talk page, and have extensively commented my point of view on this issue on my user talk page. All I've asked for was an explanation, and since I did not get that response, I honestly cannot assume that this editor's intentions were honorable, which resulted in the reverts I have made. I have no intentions of creating or participating in an edit war. I personally recommend to have the template reverted to how it was before, have WikiProject Universities look at if this change is feasible or necessary, and move on from there - therefore taking myself and Emerson7 out of this process. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 06:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support protecting the template until WP:UNI has the chance to review it as well. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 06:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more thing, I think what I've done is the textbook definition of trying to reach WP:BRD, hence, not an edit war necessarily. Trying to get an editor to discuss his edit should not be considered edit warring. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 06:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly didn't see the part where I stated, "Also, please avoid attempting to justify your actions; you are both automatically and horribly in the wrong for one reason and one reason alone: 25 pixels., but if you wish to ignore that, I can help clarify:
    1. His edits clearly were not vandalism,
    2. In my opinion, you told, not asked the other editor to do something ([105]) by calling disagreement vandalism, and
    3. You also appear to have used rollback (or at the very least twinkle without using rollback) in what was clearly a content dispute— not vandalism.
    Page protection, although another admin added it, shouldn't be needed for something like this. In fact, I'm wondering why I'm still even typing this. You both know what you need to do: WP:3O, talk page, or pick a WP:DR step. --slakr\ talk / 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time you start a lame edit war... God orphans a baby polar bear
    Well, having WP:UNI look at it (which I made that request days ago) was essentially my attempt at WP:3O. But look, I don't want to drag this out any further, I'm not touching that template page. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Radeksz reported by Boodlesthecat (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [106]



    This editor is making repeated ongoing reversions of WP:OR material for days, despite consensus that its improper; see e.g., opinion offered [111] Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Might be slightly more than 24 hours apart, but the user is clearly (by his/her own edit summary) aware of 3RR and is acting disruptively. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ewps. I also Page protected the page for 1 week, before having seen your block, mainly because it looks like Piotrus (talk · contribs) is also involved, plus ominous "ally" phrasing gives overtones of wikibattle. --slakr\ talk / 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=253749210"