Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tuscumbia (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 13 January 2011 (→‎User:Xebulon reported by User:Tuscumbia (Result: not blocked)). 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:Drmargi reported by User:Tumadoireacht (Result: Protected)

    Previous version reverted to: [1] This current version is largely without any of my inputs as they are mostly reverted.

    • 1st revert: [2]-9 january 22.26
    • 2nd revert: [3]-10 january 00.35
    • 3rd revert: [4] 10 january 07.33
    • 4th revert:[5]-10 january 12.55
    • 5th revert:[6] 10 january 13.17
    • 6th revert:[7] -11 january 8.14
    • 7th revert:[8] -11 january 8.15
    • 8th revert:[9] -11 january 8.27
    • 9th revert[10]-11 january 8.28


    I posted a warning re this listing on Drmargi home talk page at 11:21, GMT 11 January 2011 and a link to this page at 11:43, GMT 11 January 2011 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmargi&action=edit&section=46}

    >[11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

    Comments:On bad advice from a warring editor I began a thread on the Notability Noticeboard about this dispute as it was wrongly suggested that notability was a content and not a subject selection issue and an instant justification for reverts with no further elucidation. Here is the link to that discussion. [13]

    Both the discussion on the talk page and at the Notability Noticeboard seem to be stalled with no compromise in sight.There are also two ongoing discussions about it: one on the talk page of Drmargi as provided in the edit warring complaint notification above and one on that that of Debresser:

    [14]

    I feel strongly that i am being bullied through reverts by a veteran editor and am very unhappy about it. The speed of the reversions, their nature, their being made largely without discussion, their vindictive edit listing description, and the proferred rationale are notable. i am not sure that i filled out the form above correctly --Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This is rich coming from an editor who seems to have no grasp of the concepts of good faith, WP:CIVILITY. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CONSENSUS and a laundry list more. Over the last couple days, Tumadoireacht has attempted to bully, insult, manipulate and generally abuse the editorial process in order to add a) a list of now-famous actors in inconsequential roles to the article on Hill Street Blues solely because they are now famous, despite the efforts of three editors to discuss the issues associated with such an addition and b) to add a link, then a section to the article designed to showcase an external website about the guns used on the show with which the editor seems enchanted, despite it being reverted as unhelpful by more than one editor. Two other editors involved and I have attempted to discuss the issue with him/her and to make him/her aware of policy issues that govern the edits he/she is pushing, and have been treated to a spade of manipulative and abusive responses, largely devoid of any meaningful attempts to discuss in earnest and with an eye toward improvement of the article. Moreover, I would submit this report is retaliation for my having suggested on the talk page of Debresser that an WP:ANI for this editor's incivility might be in order, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser#Hill_Street_Blues a report I ultimately decided not to make. This is the kind of playground tactic used by a bully who's been caught and is attempting to blame others for his own acts

    Depresser feels that an external site featuring 143 high quality still shots of scenes from the subject of the article is irrelevant and should not be mentioned. Drmargi feels the photos are "unreliable" and should not be mentioned. I have sought clarification of what they mean by these strange assertions and adjectives but have received no response but more reverts citing pages that have no bearing on the matter. i have written long rationales for inclusion-they remain unanswered as do direct questions for clarification and compromise.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has repeatedly refused to discuss with an eye toward resolution of the issue at hand, has been repeatedly warned about his/her incivility on the article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#One_off_appearances_by_those_who_went_on_to_fame_and_fortune, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#scholarly_analysis_and_print_media_reception_and_viewing_figures, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#Reversion_of_Guns_section; on the notability noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Hill_Street_Blues-.22Notability.22_of_cast_list, and on my own and others' talk pages, who has made a series of false and spurious allegations regarding my conduct and that of two editors (contained in the discussions linked above), and who has generally failed to operate in any sort of good faith.

    I do not believe I have violated 3RR, having reverted any given edit no more than twice, always in an attempt to return the editor to the discussion process when he/she has attempted to use a comment by an editor to force a new set of edits. Each attempt has been met with an increasingly aggressive attempt on the part of this editor to force his/her edits, uncivil behavior and a general lack of willingness to find a resolution to the issue that is satisfactory to all concerned. I would suggest that Tumadoireacht has very likely violated WP:3RR him/herself and has unquestionably been an active edit warrior.

    I will concede that I could have chosen to step back earlier, which I'm doing now, but felt that I was operating within policy, and was mindful of WP:3RR throughout. Drmargi (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I am delighted to see a willingness to seek consensus and dialogue after a morning of 4 undiscussed reversions in one half hour period from Drmargi Pure WP:3RR . I note that Drmargi earned an edit warring 24 hour ban a week ago and wonder if a pattern is emerging. The thrice repeated assertion that my "petulant edits" and content suggestions could be ignored while the "real work" went on was particularly hurtful. I think that once some veteran editors get a critical mass of edits carried and reverts unchallenged that an ownership mindset sets in. The language used and actions taken reflect this. It is hard to interact with or to find compromise. --Tumadoireacht (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Said dispute resolution to be pursued elsewhere.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that it here then  ? " No 24 hour bans ? Go seek a mediator ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Semi-protected 1 week)

    Page: Hattori Hanzō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

    Two IPs have been going at each other for three days on this article. Hell if I know who is right, but it should be looked into and/or locked down.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

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


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

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

    Comments:

    • I've just filed a request for temporary semi-protection at WP:RFPP; seems like the best option (especially as there doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation). In the meantime maybe it's worth opening a discussion on the talk page and inviting both IP addresses to discuss the issues. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      And the article has been protected for one week. Hopefully that'll be enough time to persuade the IP editors to discuss. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shakzor reported by User:Duffbeerforme (Result: 48h)

    Page: List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Shakzor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    First Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] Discussion followied involving multiple editors. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    After making my first change I have addressed my reasons, basing it on wikipedia guidelines on the articles talk page. I received support on wikipedia guidelines grounds. I have avoided responding to personal attacks, such as the further evidence backing Goodwin's Law. I requested help on where I should go to get help ((very understandedly on rereading but not intended (not trying to get help, just knowing where I should go)) read as canvasing and counseled, i erred badly in my wording there, sorry). This was read and responded to in support of my position (with the canvasing caveat). Further talk (on the talk page and my own) has not gone beyond personal attacks and non encyclopedia reasons (eg it's useful). I believe my position is supported by consensus. A new editor, Shakzor, has made 4 reverts in 26 Hours (technicly outside 24 hours but close enough IMO to be gaming the system by being just out) and has included in their diff comments an understanding of of what is happening "ongoing loosely policy-based edit war" [22], and an attack on my motives "Reverting attempted castration of article" [23]. I admit I have come close myself (31 hours) I have attempted to engage in talk, both on the talk page as stated above and later in diff comments [24], [25] [26] (as Shakzor appears to have been reading per their responses). Shakzor did finaly respond on the talk page with a (mild) personal attack and a threat to edit war [27] duffbeerforme (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted his edit and the page has been protected for 3 weeks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:51 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    Editor states they will continue reverting after portection expiers [28]. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he's on the fast track for a block. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:49 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    Ok, i have conferred with User:5 albert square about this, submitting the conversation on Shkazor's talk page. We'll see how it turns out. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:00 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the interest. Unfortunately, you all seem to be focusing on what I am doing, and not why I am doing it. And yes, I just recently created this account, though I have been contributing casually for a very long time as a guest user (see my user page for that previous IP). I made an account specifically so people would not think I am just some random user out to stir up trouble. And while stirring up trouble is not what I specifically intend to do, it is a very likely result of my methods at the moment. To those who would see me blocked, I hope you are satisfied with your bureaucracy. Good day to you all. Shakzor (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:slatersteven reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: The parties will avoid each other for seven days)

    Page: Time travel urban legends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version

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

    The first three are standard revets, the last two being disruptive edits to argue that if one usage of theory can be used, then it should be used in every instance throughout the article. As the other party in this matter, I am not blameless - I have reverted three times in the article, and growing somewhat disenchanted with the user in question as per their willingness to edit collaboratively with me. To whit, I've self-edited elsewhere (or sought to, but edit-conflicts precluded such), and have been using the discussion page more. I desire not so much that the user be blocked for 3RR but rather that they edit collaboratively.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34], followed by request to self-revert to avoid 3RR violation [35].

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Comments:

    After posting this the user not only does not inform me but actaualy asks for a truce [[37]]. In fact the user clearly disguses the warning as a comment about him not breaching 3RR. I would also poiont out the users own breach of the rule [[38]][[39]][[40]][[41]]. I would also point out the users admission that one of these reverts was not based on content but the user who made the edit [[42]] clear edit warring even without the other difs. Many of my 'reverts' are not in fact reverts at all but new material insertesd to adress a lcear POV bias (that person a's veiw is a theory but persons B view is a susgestion).Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I'm missing something, but I count two reverts (the second and third reverts listed by Jack Sebastian), and the rest are standard edits. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies - allow me to spell it out a bit more clearly. The Slatersteven has been marginalizing the noteworthiness aspects of the reported incident for nigh on three months now. The edits he reverts are almost exclusively mine, and mine alone. The first revert undid an edit of mine. the subsequent edits after the third are - as noted before - WP:POINT edits, akin to strawman edits. I thought you might have wanted to look a little bit deeper before responding to Slatersteven's email request for assistance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Slatersteven has not "emailed me for his assistance." You are also not correctly characterizing his edits or the locus of the dispute, which is you editing against consensus. The edits you cite are not "pointy" or "strawman" edits, but rather routine edits you don't like. Slatersteven appears to be correct that this report has no merit. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I am going to avoid a lot of the drama that accompanies this sort of discussion and cut to the chase. You were not listed in the 'what links here' portion of this page until after SS commented. That means that you were either stalking my edits, were requested to contribute via unknown method, or magically used your spidey-sense to know that this was being discussed. I don't really care which, but it bears pointing out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You may want to think of other possibilities, as well as the actual content of WP:STALK, before you make baseless accusations of canvassing and stalking. Also I wanted to point out that Jack Sebastian's comment above that the "the first revert undid an edit of mine" is incorrect. It was not a reversion of anyone, but an edit changing four words. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a frivolus and contentious attmept to bully and inidimidate based either on ignornace or (as I bleive based upopn the dishonest way this has been conducted) deliberate ignoring of the rule.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? You were advised as to your third revert. You were advised subsequently to self-revert; you chose not to. What part of this is bullying, intimidation or dishonest? Perhaps you should explain how you are defending your reverts instead. Maybe you thought that you had to protect the article from me? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When you provided a link to this you disguised it as a link to 3RR. Whilst at the same time saying that we shold lay down the gauntlet. That was dishiniest as you had lunched this prior to offering a reboot in our relashionship.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You were advised of your impending breach, followed by your breach and a suggestion that you self revert, to cure the breach. You chose to ignore it. I don't think I'm required to point out the obvious three times in a row. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your indentating makes it difficult to follow youe posts please try to better indent. As to your warnings. The fact is you hid your informing me of this, in a way tht had to be deliberate. The fact is you saud you wanted to start afresh having in fact allready launched this (thus how could I resppond before this to your offer of a fresh start).Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think an admin needs to look at these false accustions of breaching 3RR and of canvasing (difs please). Should I take this issue to AnI?Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it's an assumption; where there's smoke, there might not always be fire, but certainly something generating the smoke. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Now 4 reverts on time travel urban legends [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] [[46]]. After reporting me the user now breaches the rule hi8mslef, and altering the text it a very POV way.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, I think not. Is it your intent to submit any copyedit I submit as edit-warring, SS? Wow, that is going to have a chilling effect on any edits I happen to make in a Wikipedia article.
    You might want to look at the second fourth edit again; it fixes problems with grammar, flow and readability. I did remove the supposition about WWN, as that appears to be a personal viewpoint. We don't allow that here in Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A copy edit does not alter the meaning, your edits do (especialy the fourth edit which changes the text from fictioal to real), except for one of the reverts which is a reversion of is the very edit you claim of my is a reversion (anbd thus counts towards 3RR).Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, except that the reporting of the matter is real. We are not concerned whether the dude is lying through his teeth or whatnot. The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We write non-evaluatively, leaving that task to the sources we reference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ufodigest.com as a source for statements of fact, hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, that's what I thought. But the dude was arrested and promptly skipped bail. The digest (which apparently has editorial oversight and qualifies as a RS for its referenced stories) seems weird as heck, but they are the only ones aside from WWN reporting on the guy. What sorts of sources are you going to have about some nut who claims to be cheating because he's from the future? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an RS for a derogatory fact about a living person. Good catch. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to ask this to be closed and that admins take a closer look at User:Jack Sebastian's activities here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course you would. As for me, I would be content with the user simply being advised by someone other than me to not edit-war and, when advised of impending 3RR violations, to stop and self-evaluate. It's their first time at bat here, so the aforementioned might do wonders as to SS's disposition and spirit of collaboration.
    I agree that I need to try and work more with people with whom I fundamentally disagree with, and develop a thicker skin where they are concerned. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You do understand what a revert is?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I perceive that both Slatersteven and Jack Sebastian have been behaving badly. One is being aggressive and the other has been making personal attacks here in the 3RR report. Each has reverted three times on Time travel urban legends and they are also reverting each other today at The Circus (film). I am open to a promise that they will avoid each other and any common articles for seven days to allow the problem to cool down. Otherwise, sanctions for edit warring should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can live with that. What advice would you offer on how to progress after the week is up? The other user hasn't really demonstrated a willingness to collaborate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this include this mediation request(assuming it goes ahead which looks doubtful)Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film) and notice boards? I assume that from your wording it just applies to articles. Hut I thought it best to confirm. Which in this case is two. So if that is the case then OK.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you can both participate in the mediation. You would just need to avoid editing the same articles or article talk pages until the seven days are up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result -- Per the above agreement, the parties will avoiding editing the same articles or article talk pages for seven days. They may still participate in the existing mediation. I encourage them to avoid complaints at noticeboards about one another for the same period. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thorwald reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Both main editors involved blocked, 24 hours and 3 hours)

    Page: History of supernova observation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thorwald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Link to edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Thorwald#Your edit to History of supernova observation

    Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History of supernova observation#Change in date format

    Comments:
    Thorwald seems determined to force his preferred date format upon the article, despite being aware of the WP:Manual of style (dates and numbers) convention for deciding what date format to use in an article. Torwald has stated the convention is "rather silly". Jc3s5h (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours and 3 hours Less to RJHall because he was, in fact, following the Manual of Style. However, note that Arbcom, on their finding of the matter, recommended not revert warring: here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Herostratus reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: 31 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: version without an image, removed by the commons delinker bot during a temporal deletion. It was restored soon after[47].

    • 01st removal: [48] 8 May 2010
    • 02nd removal: [49] 8 May 2010
    • 03rd removal: [50] 11 May 2010 he then protected the article in the imageless version[51](notification) until 21 May [52]
    • 04th removal: [53] 1 August 2010
    • 05th removal: [54] 3 August 2010
    • 06th removal: [55] 5 August 2010
    • 07th removal: [56] 2 September 2010
    • 08th removal: [57] 6 September 2010
    • 09th removal: [58][59] 8 November 2010
    • 10th removal: [60] 10 January 2011
    • 11th removal: [61] 10 January 2011
    • 12th removal: [62] 11 January 2011
    • 13th removal: [63] 11 January 2011

    The image was subject of a RfC , and, to his credit, he started a discussion here. But in his last edit he removes again and insists that the image has to remain removed while the discussion is ongoing.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #Sigh, #semi-protection, #RFC on Image Inclusion, #Image

    Comments:

    In September 2010 he was already given a final warning, by two uninvolved admins, for making personal remarks while removing the images from Gokkun and Creampie_(sexual_act) [65], related to ANI report. In October 2010 he was warned again for ignoring consensus, ignoring BRD, "substituting your personal opinion for policy or its interpretation", edit warring, inadequately closing a RfC where he was also an involved party, "disregard[ing] the fact that consensus must change to be able to remove the existing image", "If you further disrupt these pages by removing or replacing the existing image without there being a definition of a consensus formed (and by an uninvolved third party) to do so, I will block you for disrupting the project. You have been warned previously by an admin, and again recently by me. You may dispute the grounds - but if so, please refer specifically to policy or guideline - or get a third opinion. In the meantime, don't disrupt the pages. (...) Again, your judgement is seriously in question" [66]

    I menaced Herostratus with 3RRN if he removed the image again[67]. He then opened a discussion on the talk page, but he insisted that no consensus in the expired RfC meant no image, and that the image has to stay removed until this new discussion was finished: "the default state of the article is to not have the image, and there's no consensus to restore it (see thread above)"[68] in #Image. Note that this is false: the image was first added in September 2008[69] and it stayed 22 months until Herostratus started removing it in May 2010, semi-protecting the article to prevent the restoral by an IP. Several editors (including myself) have since restored the image with assorted arguments in edit summaries and talk page comments. The only removal not made by Herostratus himself was made in 22 November 2010 because the RfC was still open[70].

    In summary: Herostratus has been edit warring, using his personal opinion instead of policy, and disregarding consensus over a period of 7 months, and during that period he was given final warning by uninvolved admins in two separate occasions. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, I don't have time to read through the history here. However, I do see a clear case of edit warring against multiple editors and after warnings. Uncool. Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doncsecz reported by User:Eleassar (Result: stale)

    Page: Languages of Slovenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [71]

    The user Doncsecz continually readds the section 'Prekmurian language' to the article 'Languages of Slovenia' though it has been continually removed from the article by different users (supported by Doremo, Mhus, me and at least two anonymous editors). Using Google, I haven't found a single source that would list Prekmurian language as one of the languages of Slovenia (if not counting Wikipedia and its mirrors). BTW, the user was blocked numerous times already for different reasons, including attacks/harrasment and edit warring.[76], [77], [78], [79]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

    Comments:

    • Stale This happened two weeks ago, and the reporter is just as guilty as the reported. WP:POT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, the administrators, that the affirmations is one-track from the Slovene users. I have evidences about the Communistic propaganda, what was dump on the Prekmurian literature and Prekmurian authors. Few Slovene is affected by the Communistic Propaganda 1. Doncsecztalk 08:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Another searchers from the Museum of Murska Sobota, for ex. Franc Kuzmič also attest this facts. Kuzmič is active contributor in the Pentecostal Church Prekmurje and also cultivate the Prekmurian. Doremo, Eleasar and others be a stranger this informations. Doremo moreover is not Slovene. Doncsecztalk 08:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is: In the communistic Yugoslavia by 40 Year was repressed the Prekmurian. For 1991 the Prekmurian ressurect, Radios, Tidings, Books and the Church again cultivate the Prekmurian: The homeland regards Prekmurje not as a part of Slovenia but something peculiar within its borders… It is unthinkable for two Prekmurians to speak with each other in anything but Prekmurian. I used to meet the former President of the Republic Milan Kučan at public events quite often. We always spoke Prekmurian, it would have felt odd to use literary Slovenian, since he is from Prekmurje too. Others joked about us, asking why are we so secretive. When I met a compatriot in Australia, Africa or America, we immediately started to talk in our own language. This is our language. (Evald Flisar, Gerlinci, 2007)

    User:New Age Retro Hippie reported by Prime Blue (talk) (Result: both blocked 6 hours)

    Page: The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 20:04, 11 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert. A video game article does not have to be broad in its coverage to the point where it covers in depth anything outside of itself. Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire is a GA without having a remake to its name.")
    2. 22:19, 11 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Again, you have literally no right to do this. Consensus may not be based on a vote, but no one agrees with you on this.")
    3. 22:45, 11 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Fixed.")

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Comments:
    User continuously reverted information necessary to fulfill the good article criterion "broad coverage", blind-reverting edits without incorporating other fixes into new revisions and deleting a section that was previously present.

    —Prime Blue (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To note, the reversion that was made, the initial reversion, was Prime Blue's. Upon reverting his edit - an action which corresponds with the actions of "bold, revert, discuss." Prime Blue may have followed this in the simplest sense of doing all actions, but he did not follow the guideline that he should have left it to its original state until the discussion was complete. I must also add that this is a noticeboard for edit warring - something that you, Prime Blue, did. It takes two to tango, and you very clearly violated it. 3RR does not just exist to deal with people who make three reversions, but anyone who knows not to edit war is in violation of it. So I would suggest you get off your high horse before you argue that your actions were okay because you made less reversions. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 6 hours. No innocent partners here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    James Childs

    Seems this one could be solved by simply splitting and disambiguating the two biographies contained on the article page. LilHelpa (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears this has been handled by an administrator blocking User:James childs after a request at WP:RfPP. -LilHelpa (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xebulon reported by User:Tuscumbia (Result: not blocked)

    and

    User:Aram-van
    User:Vandorenfm
    User:ASALA7.08.1982
    User:Oliveriki
    User:Gorzaim

    supported by IPs:

    User:46.70.114.79
    User:46.70.43.163

    as possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts of

    User:Andranikpasha
    User:Meowy
    User:Hetoum I
    User:Magotteers
    (who is the sock account of Meowy himself)

      • The reason the above banned users are mentioned is their continued use of sock accounts

    Page: Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Barda, Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Shusha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Tartarchay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Qarqar River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Utik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Heyvali (village) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Ermenikend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Users being reported:
    Xebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Aram-van (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Vandorenfm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Gorzaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Oliveriki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    ASALA7.08.1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version before the edit-warring began [82] (Shusha article as the basis for showcasing the type of edit warring and violation of 3RR)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96],[97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts have been made to resolve any issues on talk pages of related articles these accounts have been reverting in [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]

    Comments:
    The accounts which are being reported have started editing in a Wiki-professional manner (i.e. it's obvious these users are not newbies and are well experienced in editing Wikipedia pages) right after infamous puppeteers Andranikpasha (banned on 28 October 2010), Meowy (banned on 14 March 2010 but its latest known sockpuppet account Magotteers was banned on 21 November 2010) were blocked by administrators. Hetoum I is mentioned in this report along with the Andranikpasha and Meowy because he (they) has a long history of sock-puppeteering and abuse of multiple accounts. Please study the history of their activity as sockpuppets here for Andranikpasha, here for Meowy and here for Hetoum I. The edits by Aram-van are quite similar on behavioral to Andranikpasha. In any case, Aram-van seems to be using sock accounts by himself (the report was filed by another editor for sockpuppet investigation.

    I sincerely apologize for mass-reporting but these account deserve to be looked at all at once because their activity is apparently coordinated. I have no problem discussing any problems and issues with established users, (specifically if it's content dispute) who do make efforts to discuss before adding POV or making blind reverts. Most of these users are also restricted by AA2, hence are cautious with disruptive editing. That's why I believe the accounts being reported have careless users, hence the disurptive editing. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tuscumbia is an abusive account that apparently found a new way of edit warring: reporting his adversaries to administrators by falsely accusing them of transgressions that he himself was accused of several times recently. Sock/meatpuppetry accusations are nonsense.

    User:Tuscumbia was blocked here [122], as early as in March 2010. Here, despite the warning, User:Tuscumbia continued edit warring and was warned more severely here [123]. Shortly thereafter he was topic-banned to edit article on Armenia and Azerbaijan for as many as three months here [124]. Now, User:Tuscumbia emerged from this ban and went back to his habit of edit warring and blunt refusal to engage in civilized dialogue when invited to do so. User:Tuscumbia’s most widespread type of abuse are unreferenced reverts that he fails to address on talk pages. Here are the examples. When asked in discussions to present evidence from external sources or from stable Wikipedia articles, User:Tuscumbia evades dialogue [125]. User:Tuscumbia’s report with alleged 3RR violations are false. User:Tuscumbia does not understand the policy on WP:REVERT. User:Tuscumbia operates in company of his favorite meatpuppets:

    User: Twilight Chill
    User: Quantum666

    User: Twilight Chill and User:Tuscumbia in their meatpupetting operations use the same language “next time you will be reported” like here [126] and here [127], which raises the possibility that the two may be sockpuppets.

    I suggest to block User:Tuscumbia for 1 year, a measure applied to his "enemies" Andranikpasha et al.

    Xebulon (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blocked This is the wrong forum: please head to WP:SPI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand this seems more of an SPI case, but how is this handled when several newly created accounts make articles a battleground by adding and reverting from different accounts against one or two opposing users. It is evident from the articles history that one removes the information, the other one reverts when the that information is restored. That's the point of this report filed to prevent edit-warring by several accounts. What do you suggest I do when these accounts add/remove information in controversial articles without discussing first? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.170.135.174 reported by User:Esprqii (Result: Semi)

    Page: Oregon Ducks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 173.170.135.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [128]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

    Comments:

    • Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit-warring by IPs who do not participate on the talk page. This upsurge of unusual edits may be due to a recent football game. If the problem goes away, the semi could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:209.36.57.248 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: already blocked)

    Page: Talk:Falkland Islands (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 209.36.57.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    See [135], threatening edit warring and has been disrupting page for weeks. Blocked numerous times already and uses a number of IP socks to evade blocks. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hallersarmy reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)

    Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hallersarmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [136]

    • 1st revert: [137] "redo [sic] changes which alters the meaning of the paragraph. The subject is Jews in Haller's army, NOT pogroms."
    • 2nd revert: [138] "undid revision. Subject is the existence of Jews in Haller's Army, nothing about politically what they were or not guilty of doing. People can read the originals on their own. Stay on topic."
    • 3rd revert: [139] "Faustian is changing the entire meaning of the section. He is pushing his agenda. Desist or continue the edit war."
    • 4th revert: [140] "Told to take my changes to the talk page, but previous changes to my work were made without using the talk page. I insist take it to the Dispute review Board."

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

    Comments:

    I asked User:Faustian and User:Hallersarmy to discuss their disagreement on the article's Talk page but, as the edit summary for the fourth diff indicates, Hallersarmy doesn't wish to follow my advice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DanTD reported by User:Fram (Result: No action)

    Page: Mather Field / Mills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) plus some twenty other pages
    User being reported: DanTD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [142]

    While the above is only one revert, it is one in a large series of page moves with the same pattern. On december 28, DanTD moved more than 20 articles about Sacramento RT stations from their undisambiguated name to a disambiguated one, with the edit summary "New name complies with naming conventions". These pages had been at the previous, undisambiguated name since May 2009, so a rather stable situation.

    After discussion with DanTD (see section below), I reverted these moves per WP:BRD, and asked him to take it to WP:RM if he disagreed. However, DanTD moved them all again to his preferred title[145]. I would like that DanTD was advised to stop edit warring, that someone would revert these moves (per WP:BRD, not to take a position in the actual debate), and that DanTD was again advised to take this to WP:RM if he still disagrees with this.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First attempt[147], with request for clarification of which naming convention he referred to, and request to undo his moves. Further discussion[148], still asking for a naming convention supporting his moves. Two days later, I indicated that I would revert him since I believed his moves were against our guidelines[149].

    After he indicated that he was willing to edit war, I pointed him explicitly to WP:BRD and WP:RM: [150]. Meanwhile, he started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Sacramento RT Station Naming Revisited, where the only other person who answered, User:Sameboat, stated that "I actually don't find any mentioning of applying parentheses OUTSIDE of WP:DISAMBIG, so I suppose it is better to avoid it altogether." and later on "Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Fram (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Other users at WP:Trains did find a problem with Fram's edits when I brought it to their attention. I don't believe he paid any attention to the existing standards with other systems. I only indicated that I was willing to engage in an edit war, when he refused to see the error of his renaming of these articles and insisted on undoing them. ----DanTD (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the fact that you should never engage in an edit war, you still have not shown me any standards or the "naming conventions" you claimed as the reason for your moves. The only relevant naming convention I was able to find, the main one, directly contradicts your moves. But whether the moves were correct or not could be resolved at WP:RM, not by edit warring. You choose the latter option instead... Fram (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You never even paid attention to how other stations were named in the United States, and you completley ignored the problems of leaving the system out of the name. Furthermore, when I created a dab page for one of the names, you disregarded that, and changed all the names back. Your edits are the problem in this case. ----DanTD (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not blocked This does not rise to the level of a blockable offense for edit warring. A more appropriate venue is WP:ANI if the pattern of behavior is disruptive, although I suspect WP:RFC/U may be the more appropriate route, as this was a clear violation of WP:BRD. Although I can't put my finger on why I feel like I've frequently seen DanTD's name come up before regarding edit wars, so it may (or may not) be a long term behavior issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=407666436"