Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.76.208.66 (talk) at 20:12, 10 May 2010 (→‎MauriceAgrippa reported by 173.76.208.66 (Result: protected)). 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:Haldraper reported by User:Joo (Result: Stale)

    Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of the Catholic sex abuse cases article:
    a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly)
    b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons
    c. later proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

    Here are some of the diffs: joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Removed i) Christian Science Monitor survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics
    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967

    2. Removed quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics
    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

    3. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

    4. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again
    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

    5. Removed Context section (Applewhite's quote). Moved Applewhite's quote to the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section.
    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

    6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he has just removed ALL the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation". joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

    7. He reverted (removed all the further references that I added), claiming "RV to non-OR/SYN version". Yet why did he put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why does he still leave the OR-section there?

    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360285649&oldid=360254763

    8. John Nagel reverted Haldraper's deletions. Haldraper removed Applewhite's quote and the Context section (again and again) and put it (without the references) in the Inaccuracies section (yet he wrote on the talk page earlier that Applewhite was not talking about inaccuracies) and removed Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section again.

    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667

    9. Haldraper removed "Context" subheading and the second part of Applewhite's quote where she stressed that "we must consider the historical context of any given episode".

    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360524736&oldid=360515309

    Points 1-4 have been resolved through the intervention of several other editors. Points 5-9 remain unresolved.

    See discussions at
    1. here

    2. here
    3. here <-- latest joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I am a Page Patroller with this article under my Watchlist. The article, Catholic sex abuse cases, was page protected on April 27, 2010 upon my request because the content was being edit-warred with WP:RECENTISM type material. While this action has lessened the edit-war, several editors continue to revert one another and violate WP:NPA with uncivil remarks. On May 5, 2010 I placed the POV tag on the article because the content has become DISPUTED and edit reverts were approaching a 3RR situtation. As a neutral editor, I discussed all my concerns on the affected talkpage to include conversations on 3RR, civility and NPA. This morning I delivered two substitute 3RR advisory standarized warnings to the following editors in these diffs:

    Please note: I have this page under my Watchlist and noted this post. As per my post on one of the editor's talkpage, I was not ready to take action to this noticeboard but as per the affected talkpage, advised others to come here and file a report vis-a-vis ranting on the article talkpage. I felt I had to comment now because it is apparent to me that neither editor considers themselves properly aware of what 3RR means especially when edits/reverts take place to an article that has disputed content. --Morenooso (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    While I agree that edit warring itself is a problem, it's also important to consider whether the editor has good reasons for the reverts. Haldraper has been changing his reasons all the time. E.g. First he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section. Then he wrote that her quote is not about inaccuracy. Then he put an OR tag above Applewhite's quote. And that tag asked for references. When I've sourced enough references to support Applewhite's quote, he removed all the references writing in the Edit Summary that a quote does not need references. Then he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section and deleted Jenkins' quote about only one pedophile among thousand plus priests there. Surely, this kind of behavior deserves some censure/action? joo (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me much of the problem stems from Joo's lack of grasp of how Wikipedia works: to cite a minor example, he asked me indignantly on the talk page how I could see his contributions history when he couldn't see mine when of course every editor's is visible by clicking on 'contribs' in the revision history.
    That's really irrelevant and I wasn't indignant, just puzzled. I am indignant though with your repeated deletions and repeated shuffling of Applewhite's quote in the Criticisms section (as outlined above) and yet refusing to discuss most of the time. joo (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More seriously, I have yet to see any evidence that he understands WP:OR and especially WP:SYN (indeed he questioned why I was referring to 'encyclopaedia policies' on a talk page, suggesting he sees it as a forum for general discussion outside Wikipedia rules), hence his rather strange decision to pepper a direct quote with refs allegedly supporting the points the person being interviewed was making. Haldraper (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See the context of his use of WP:OR on what I wrote on the talk page here and read what other editors have written about Haldraper's edits so far -- Cyrus at here and Huey45 at here and Farsight at here (scroll down). joo (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Up till now, Haldraper, you still have not explained why you've moved Applewhite into the Inaccuracies section when you've written that her quote is not about inaccuracy here. And why did you remove Jenkins' criticism that the media's usage of the term "pedophile" is inaccurate? joo (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale No comment on the allegations at the time -- I didn't even read them. The request is stale at this point. -- tariqabjotu 13:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: No violation)

    Page: Filioque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

    Comments:I had retired from Wikipedia and I intended to stay retired. I intend to go back and retire after this is addressed and resolved. This editor Lima/Esoglou would cause any editor whom does not have lots and lots of personal time to get frustrated and leave. Causing good contributors to think wikipedia is a frustrating waste of time and their efforts. This editor abuses Wikipedia policies to frustrate editors. This causes people to resent being a contributor. I have attempted overtime to address this person actually over the course of some years. This editor is disruptive and over uses the sourcing requests asking for people to source obvious things Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue along with reverting and falsifying sourcing because rather then copy and paste I am trying to copyedit (i.e. recently the editor insists that the sources say the word compromise (which I used) rather then the reconcile)


    • No violation I don't see evidence of a violation of the three-revert rule or a persistent edit-warrior. -- tariqabjotu 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where can I appeal this decision?LoveMonkey (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jetblack500 reported by User:Michig (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Alan Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Jetblack500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [7]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    [14] Comments:

    There are conflicting sources regarding the subjects birth date. This has been discussed on the talk page, with a consensus that we shouldn't state one birthdate as fact without mentioning the other possible dates. User:Jetblack500 appears unwilling to accept this consensus and has persistently removed a note after the birthdate pointing the reader to a section that discusses the different possible birth dates. It may be worth noting that Jetblack500 has also made totally unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against pretty much anyone who disagrees with him on the topic [15], [16], as well as totally spurious accusations against me of vandalising his citations and removing his comments from Talk:Alan Vega ([17]). I've asked him several times to stop, to no avail, and it's now time for him to be forced to take a break. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seconded. Furthermore Jetblack500 forbids us from discussing on his/her talk page. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ari89 reported by User:TBSailors (Result: protected)

    Page: New Testament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [18]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

    Comments:

    <This user appears to be in an edit war involving the deletion of a sub-section of the article ("Textual variation"), as well as many other content changes. They have violated the TRR, though without discussing it on the corresponding discussion page.GradStud28 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC) -->

    Page protected Fully protected for one week in lieu of blocking. Tim Song (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keyser1978 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: stale)

    Page: Jurdan Martitegi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Keyser1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [28]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34] (on user's talk page)

    Comments:

    I have tried to explain that to the editor that his edit is point-of-view and redundant to the description of who considers ETA to be terrorists, but they persist in adding the word in one form or another. O Fenian (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale Tim Song (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LinuxDude reported by User:Parsecboy (Result: 16 hours)

    Page: Royal Canadian Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: LinuxDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [35]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No need, the user is quite aware of the rule, his own edit summaries make that clear.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Royal_Canadian_Navy#Canada.27s_Navy Comments:

    The user has been reverted by 3 editors not including myself; he throws the threat of 3RR in the face of other editors while shamelessly breaching the policy himself, while discussions on the talk page continue. LinuxDude's been around since 2006, he certainly knows better than to behave like this. I'd have blocked him myself, but since I'm involved, thought it better to bring the issue here. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not quite a fair categorization of what happened in the Royal Canadian Navy article by Parsecboy. An unfounded assertion was made in the article which was not factually correct. That assertion was the MARITIME COMMAND (which is a component of) the Canadian Forces represents the Royal Canadian Navy today. I initially removed that statement as factually incorrect (and without substantiation). I was reverted a number of times. I was the first one to point out the 3RR, in the hopes that rather than simply undoing my edits someone would either post Canadian Forces policy, Canadian Government policy to support the assertion.
    I then allowed the offending statement to stand but edited it reflect the fact that this sentiment is by convention only. If it is by more than convention some will post the Canadian Forces or Government policy which establishes a Navy in Canada. Many serving members in Canada's Maritime Command 'feel' they are in Canada's Navy, but the National Defence Act which is on line here establishes Canada's military under the banner "Canadian Forces". The Navy which was established by Canada's "Naval Services Act" was dissolved by the passing of the National Defence Act which is why there is no Canada's Navy, or Royal Canadian Navy today.
    These assertions can all be verified by simply examining the National Defence Act, and confirming it makes no provision for a navy. Under the National Defence Act, the Queens regulations and Orders and the Administrative Orders of the Canadian Forces also acknowledges no Navy, but does acknowledge a MARITIME Command. On the other hand those claiming I'm am engaged in 3RR violations, and who are undoing my contribution can simply prove me wrong by citing something more than a website (which is neither Canadian government or CF policy). I pointed out also, that Canada's Governor General recently claimed incorrectly on her government website that she was Canada's Head of State - and she was corrected by Canada's Prime Mininster. This further shows that a website does not prove government policy.)
    Nonetheless, there are serving members who speak as though their is a navy though no one can cite either Canadian laws or CF policy that shows this to be true. In editing the Royal Canadian Navy article, the convention that people call Canada's Maritime Force informally a Navy should be noted, as it is noteworthy, however the article should not cite as fact something that is not factually correct, and this is what drives both the 3RR complaint and the revisions of my edits.
    Wikipedia's policy clearly favours factual correctness (to the detriment of sentiment). LinuxDude (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr. However you want to characterize the dispute, you broke the rules of which you are clearly aware. If you want to behave like you have been, you have to suffer the consequences. You simply don't edit war, no matter how right you are. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why we are here Parsecboy, because there is a dispute. LinuxDude (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of sixteen hours -- tariqabjotu 13:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MC Head reported by User:Mosmof (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: KRS-One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: MC Head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [42]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:11, May 7, 2010

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43] (User:OlYeller21 left a message on the user talk page)

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 14:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darnotley reported by User:Bidgee (Result: 24h)

    Page: Coles Supermarkets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Darnotley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [44]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

    Comments:


    User:Alwpoe reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Beware, Princess Elizabeth
    User being reported: Alwpoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [53]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

    Comments:

    User:Jeanne boleyn and I have tried to reach a compromise with the user I reported. However, he/she has refused every compromise I offered. He/she simply reverts. A number of other users disagreed with the user and opposed the changes he/she was making (see this discussion on another page) but the user still refused to cooperate. Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, he or she insists upon inserting false information into an article as if it were historical fact, rather than the personal opinion of a children's novelist. When several editors and myself had asked the user to please compromise he or she refuses to do so and responds with flippant demands for DNA tests, and so on. I should like to point out that Tudor-related Wikipedia articles receive a lot scrutiny by academics and were they to come upon an article which implies that Elizabeth I of England and Mary I of England were stepsisters rather than the factually correct half-sisters, they could possibly use that as an excuse to discredit Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours DrKiernan (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MauriceAgrippa reported by 173.76.208.66 (Result: protected)

    Page: Noel Gallagher
    User being reported: MauriceAgrippa


    Previous version reverted to: [65]

    • 1st revert: [66]
    • 2nd revert: [67]
    • 3rd revert: [68]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [I provided source for Noel's statement, I suggested reverter go to talk page....I will accept block if necessary to allow for intermediary. This user just set up this account, I am also curious to know if there may be sockpuppetry here]

    Comments:
    Just because I (and apparently a bunch of other users) don't agree with "your" definition of what nationality is does not automatically make me a sockpuppet or a vandal. My recent account creation is irrelevant. If anyone is engaged fully in an edit war, it is you, who continues to be combative and has no other argument except to "take it to the talk page."MauriceAgrippa (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    This IS NOT "MY" DEFINITION. IT IS LIAM GALLAGHER's. I have provided the source IN QUOTES to you. I am sorry that it doesn't please you. But, whether or not YOU and others agree highlights POV pushing rather than wanting the article to be accurate. Your retort that I simply have some odd "Irish" fixation is a rather contemptable effort at race bating and is deplorable. That behavior and the fact that I am entirely comfortable in knowing that this data is factual, sourced and NOT POV is what led me to independent eyes here for impartial examination. Liam's words are the source. Suggesting that I am combative because I suggest you take it to the talk page--is not an argument--it is an established wp component. It's how wp works. I STILL am curious about the timing of your account registration. Cheers. Thank you Tim for your assistance173.76.208.66 173.76.208.66 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Where exactly in the article does it list Liam Gallagher as an indisputable source for nationality identification? I don't see an anthropological background in either he or his brother's backgrounds. And besides, it is common practice to identify people in any of countries of the UK with as English if they're from England, Scottish if they're from Scotland, etc. This is a basic fact that you seem to not be comfortable with accepting, which says a lot. And you are combative with the fact that you tried to have me blocked in mind. Thanks, but no "cheers" wanted. MauriceAgrippa (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You state on your profile that "I carefully deliberate and want to use sources before contributing." Yet, this sourced and attributed TO Gallagher item is refuted, according to you, not upon source but simply upon YOUR personal belief of how he should be defined. That is amazing! Absolutely amazing how you can not grasp this (it's called POV) and as a "new" editor you should really stop it! Tim, I will appreciate an update from you. Thx. 173.76.208.66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it quite amusing that I have managed to work you up this much. It's rather fascinating. As a non-administrator, you can only suggest things to me and report me. That's it. Case in point. MauriceAgrippa (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    These comments are odd; but not entirely surprising to me. They highlight that you're not entirely engaged in the wiki process but rather looking to stir up controversy--which is counter to what wiki is all about. You may want to explore those motivations elsewhere buttercup! User talk:173.76.208.66

    Page protected - fully protected for 3 days. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brother743 reported by User:Bantam1983 (Result: No vio/stale)

    Page: Stefan_Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Brother743 (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: Brother743 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStefan_Molyneux&action=historysubmit&diff=357494782&oldid=355553331

    Comments:

    Brother743 appears to be a shill that does nothing but edit the article on Molyneux to make him look as badly as possible, removing anything at all that disagrees with the narrative that Brother743 is telling - namely, that Molyneux is some kind of child-stealing bogeyman. Just look at his contribs page if you want evidence of that. I warned him, he continued to revert, and he demanded to hear moderator input before he'd stop. So here it is. Bantam1983 (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Resource based economy reported by User:Quale (Result: 55h)

    Page: Cheating in chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Resource based economy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [69]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

    Comments: There have also been some ip edits that appear to be socking by Resource based economy.

    • Blocked for 55h - longer than usual due to the excessive warring on multiple articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Studiodan reported by User:Jakew (Result: )

    Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Studiodan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: (link)

    • 1st revert: 23:53, May 9, 2010 (reverting to version dated 23:53, May 9, 2010)
    • 2nd revert: 11:15, May 10, 2010 (partial revert, removing images that had been restored in edit dated 11:00, May 10, 2010)
    • 3rd revert: 14:27, May 10, 2010 (reverting to version dated 11:15, May 10, 2010)
    • 4th revert: 15:25, May 10, 2010 (a slightly different change, but another revert, reverting to version dated 15:19, May 10, 2010)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] (link to most recent 3RR warning, from April 2010. User has received other warnings prior to that, and must be presumed to be aware of it.)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78] (see also Talk:Circumcision#Recent image changes and Talk:Circumcision#Ongoing attempts to remove images)

    Comments:

    Studiodan has been editing Wikipedia since January and has exclusively made circumcision-related edits. The above report documents his attempts in the past 24 hours to remove an image from the circumcision article (on the puzzling grounds that he believes it to be graphically manipulated), which has been reverted by Avraham and Ossman, in addition to myself. Before that, he made a similarly strenous attempt to remove the date of an American Medical Association report, on similarly baffling grounds. He has been encouraged (eg here, by Atomaton) to seek consensus for controversial changes rather than trying to force them through, but this appears less than successful. Jakew (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC) (corrected 15:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    Actually, the edit warring is worse than Jake as shown. Please note:

    -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=361337966"