m →User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: ): Fixed duplicate comma |
→User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: ): This edit summary intentionally describes absolutely nothing about the edit I just made. |
||
Line 359: | Line 359: | ||
::Also, your concept that it’s the adding editor’s job to cite follows the rule, but doesn’t follow the spirit of the encyclopedia. Remember, we’re here to write an encyclopedia, not to play remove content wack-a-mole. Yes, experienced editors should always source contributions when adding to the main space. I completely agree. On the other hand, inexperienced editors with good intentions are not too familiar with all our rules, so rather than deleting good-faith unsourced content, I feel individual edits are much more valuable to the encyclopedia when an editor simply takes 30 seconds to do a Google search to see if a reliable source exists in order to source it. When Active Banana writes, “Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"”, this seriously disturbs me. Wikipedia is not a race, and the fact that Active Banana says “I do not have any reasonable expectation … for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"” makes me seriously question how this editor spends time on Wikipedia. We should focus on the quality of our edits, not the quantity! |
::Also, your concept that it’s the adding editor’s job to cite follows the rule, but doesn’t follow the spirit of the encyclopedia. Remember, we’re here to write an encyclopedia, not to play remove content wack-a-mole. Yes, experienced editors should always source contributions when adding to the main space. I completely agree. On the other hand, inexperienced editors with good intentions are not too familiar with all our rules, so rather than deleting good-faith unsourced content, I feel individual edits are much more valuable to the encyclopedia when an editor simply takes 30 seconds to do a Google search to see if a reliable source exists in order to source it. When Active Banana writes, “Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"”, this seriously disturbs me. Wikipedia is not a race, and the fact that Active Banana says “I do not have any reasonable expectation … for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"” makes me seriously question how this editor spends time on Wikipedia. We should focus on the quality of our edits, not the quantity! |
||
::In addition, Active Banana is not appropriately using edit summaries. Actually, neither are you. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&action=historysubmit&diff=368754642&oldid=368752104 You did not write an edit summary for your last three edits to this page,] so I ran [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Groink http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Groink] and saw you only write edit summaries for 30% of your edits? [[User:Taric25|Taric25]] ([[User talk:Taric25|talk]]) 07:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
::In addition, Active Banana is not appropriately using edit summaries. Actually, neither are you. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&action=historysubmit&diff=368754642&oldid=368752104 You did not write an edit summary for your last three edits to this page,] so I ran [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Groink http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Groink] and saw you only write edit summaries for 30% of your edits? [[User:Taric25|Taric25]] ([[User talk:Taric25|talk]]) 07:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::: Right, constructing an entire sentence describing the process of removing one character - yeah, that's productive alright. Yup. Look at the history page for this VERY talk page - you're in the minority, I'm in the majority. I stand behind what I've said before - as long as those uncited awards stay where they are, you didn't fix anything! I recommend adding <nowiki><!-- --></nowiki> around all the uncited awards, and let the other editors find the sources - while at the same time avoid them being seen by readers. My overall beef is about readers who believe everything they read from a major web site. [[User:Groink|Groink]] ([[User talk:Groink|talk]]) 08:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:01, 18 June 2010
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
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 You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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. |
|
User:Justa_Punk reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: No violation)
Page: World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Justa_Punk (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: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Screwball23#WWE edit warringTalk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment#Entertainment/Post-Attitude Era
Comments: I'm sure you've heard this all before. To me, this is clearly an ownership issue I'm fighting against. I see myself as an editor dedicated to adding valuable information, with references, and I see again and again JustaPunk reverts it for no rational reason. Even the titles and subsections have been reverted without reason. The smallest edits seem to create major upsets. And the responses I get are just not logical: his defense is that I should prove that the information is notable enough to put there. Seriously, I have never heard that before. it really is outrageous. This is deletionism at its nastiest.
I personally don't see how the current list of WWE champions is more notable than this; this is a serious change in the WWE's programming and audience, and people are talking about this all the time at the arenas and wrestling meetups. I have references, and I know the material is notable. I want some help, because I am dealing with some very stubborn and abusive editors.
Screwball23 talk 05:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- No violation Three of the four diffs you gave are from a month ago. This edit summary of your's is highly incivil. I suggest that you discuss the issue on the talk page rather than reverting to your preferred version and labeling those who disagree as vandals. --B (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a continuing issue on World Wrestling Entertainment. It's happening again today. I see this as vandalism, and I know my information is notable. I need some arbitration on this issue because these editors I'm working with aren't even listening. I've had my edits reverted in a matter of minutes without reason. That's gotta be called vandalism.
Please give World Wrestling Entertainment another look. I appreciate your help :-)
Screwball23 talk 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are the only one who has violated 3RR. Removing something that you wrote is not vandalism. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than simply reverting to your preferred version. --B (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
User:84.23.140.26 reported by User:Miacek (Result: 72 hours)
Page: Iran–Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 84.23.140.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff /link [5]
Note that 4 reverts apply to the name Ronald Reagan he added to the infobox each time, there were some other differences in the infobox, since I changed it in the meantime. The user kept reverting all of this, without engaging in discussion at the article talk page (though he posted something - rather unconstructive - at my talk page).
Please note that while not technically breaking the 3 RR as his first revert was on June 14 at 21:57, and the 4th (the last one so far) was on June 16 at 13:49, this IP is pushing his personal point of view that the US participated in warfare alongside Iraqis. Being aware of the 3RR, he most probably just waited some time to avoid technically breaking it. This is synthesis of available books, as explained at talk. As one can conclude from the discussion thread I started at the article talk page, there definitely is no consensus for inserting the IP's text into the infobox.
Please keep in mind that the IP has a long history of edit warring and disruption, for which he has already served a one month block in Oct.-Nov. 2009. His personal battle to insert the US as Iraq's cobelligerent against Iran has lasted for months already ([10], [11] similar reverts in April 2010).
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
Discussion at talk page of the article [13]
Comments:
I suggest blocking that troublesome static IP and/or semi-protecting the article. Please do not fully protect the article: by doing so we would feed the anonymous trolls who may end up getting their version saved for some time, regardless of the real consensus. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Glkanter reported by User:Rick Block (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Monty Hall problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Glkanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
- 1st revert: [15]
- 2nd revert: [16]
- 3rd revert: [17]
- 4th revert: [18]
- 5th revert: [19]
- 6th revert: [20]
- 7th revert: [21]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Comments:
The first 3 reverts were previously reported. The additional 4 have occurred in the past 12 hours (the last claiming "vandalism"). Following the behavior previously the subject of a user RFC (see [24]), this user has been made at least borderline uncivil comments on the article talk page directed at numerous editors, e.g [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and proudly declares being found "innocent" following yesterday's 3rr report [31]. I have opened a section on the article talk page for a straw poll about whether a community topic ban should be considered, see [32]. This user has certainly exhausted my patience. Rick Block (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
User:BigK HeX reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: No action, self-revert)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Peter Schiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigK HeX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 05:29, 16 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "replace cited, verifiable info. No sensible reason listed for deletion")
- 19:14, 16 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Economic views */ replaced cited, neutral, relevant text")
- 23:07, 16 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 368464071 by Screwball23 (talk) no reason listed for deletion of cited/relevant text")
- 23:19, 16 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 368488509 by User:Yworo it is a detail of SCHIFF. The reason given was "IDONTLIKEIT' ... which does NOT trump cited/relevant/neutral text")
- Diff of warning: here
—Yworo (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Might help to note that 1 reversion followed a deletion with no talk page comment, and no edit summary comment or any other indication of why/how the deleted text might have been unsatisfactory (especially given the preceding edit summary by that same editor). BigK HeX (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I've self-reverted, but I think it is noteworthy that this report disregards an intervening rewrite of the text which seems to have been regarded as significant (at 06:11, 16 June 2010). The reversions listed above are not made in support of the same text, though -- without knowledge of the dispute -- there would appear to be a very large superficial similarity. BigK HeX (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You may want to note that the edit warring policy does not require the reverts to be to the same text. It is the total number of reverts to the article which counts. You could do four reverts to completely different sections of the article and it would be counted as violating the rule. Yworo (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- BigK was reported by me just days ago. This was after his 4th revert in a content dispute and after being warned of edit warring by 3 different editors in 3 days. I can produce diffs upon request. †TE†Talk 01:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Does seem you're a bit fixated on me...
- BigK was reported by me just days ago. This was after his 4th revert in a content dispute and after being warned of edit warring by 3 different editors in 3 days. I can produce diffs upon request. †TE†Talk 01:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- One warning [33]. Two [34]. Three [35], reported [36]. You can claim some kind of fixation all you want. The fact is that I wouldn't be here without my watchlist, which is the result of me reporting you for violating 3RR. This was your resulting block [37]. To be fair, here is your unblock [38], and another admin voicing displeasure for it [39]. Like I said, there is a pattern here. One would expect you to be on your best behavior after the last week. Maybe this is a cry for help. †TE†Talk 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. There is no admin "voicing displeasure" for an unblock.
- In any case, my "best behavior" has been to discuss and, when appropriate to be bold in rewriting content to reduce contention within the bounds of verifiability, and if that fails, to then follow the prescriptions in WP:DISRUPT when verifiable/notable material is deleted. After YOUR block for persisting in an incident despite warning, it is quite obvious that you're seeking some petty satisfaction here. However, unlike you, I make efforts not to persist in the same matter when I feel that a state of edit warring is being reached. BigK HeX (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- One warning [33]. Two [34]. Three [35], reported [36]. You can claim some kind of fixation all you want. The fact is that I wouldn't be here without my watchlist, which is the result of me reporting you for violating 3RR. This was your resulting block [37]. To be fair, here is your unblock [38], and another admin voicing displeasure for it [39]. Like I said, there is a pattern here. One would expect you to be on your best behavior after the last week. Maybe this is a cry for help. †TE†Talk 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No prob. My apologies for the trouble. BigK HeX (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Result - No action; editor reverted his last change. I suggest that BigK Hex consider limiting himself to one revert per article per day for the next 30 days and make a bigger effort to use discussion to persuade others. His comment above "follow the prescriptions in WP:DISRUPT when verifiable/notable material is deleted" suggests a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Well-sourced verifiable material is *often* removed from articles when there is editor consensus to do so, if it leads to a more balanced article or one that is easier to read. Try opening an WP:RFC when there is a dispute as to whether certain material is important enough to include. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Screwball23 reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result: 24 hours )
Page: World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:41, June 15, 2010
- 1st revert: [40]
- 2nd revert: [41]
- 3rd revert: [42]
- 4th revert: [43]
- 5th revert: [44]
- 6th revert: [45]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]
Comments:
- 24 hour block for subject of report. I have trawled history and can't find any 3RR for the other users involved yet. User appears to have forgotten to discuss before reverting. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Incidentally, it is from 04:53, 17 June 2010 and 06:16, 16 June 2010 that the actual 3RR lies. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also worth noting regarding this user is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Justa_Punk_reported_by_User:Screwball23_.28Result:_No_violation.29 above. --B (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Incidentally, it is from 04:53, 17 June 2010 and 06:16, 16 June 2010 that the actual 3RR lies. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- 24 hour block for subject of report. I have trawled history and can't find any 3RR for the other users involved yet. User appears to have forgotten to discuss before reverting. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Truthkeeper88 reported by User:tstrobaugh (Result: )
Page: Ernest Hemingway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Truthkeeper88 (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: [51]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]
Comments:
The article is FA and has been through review. I am in the process of verifying the information the user wishes to add, however, biographers with access to Hemingway's medical records do not verify. Am not opposed to adding well verified information from the best reliable sources, but that takes more than a few moments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I'm not inclined to block anyone here for edit-warring short of 3RR or to protect the page at present: discussion is underway on the talk page, I see, so carry on your chat there like sensible people. BencherliteTalk 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Eugeneacurry reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: )
Page: John Polkinghorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st edit 22:17, May 6, 2010, removed part of the criticism section, including: "Grayling argues that the 'superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago' must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."
- 1st revert: 20:01, June 16, 2010, removed the entire criticism section, including: "Grayling argues that the 'superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago' must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."
- 2nd revert: 20:22, June 16, 2010, removed the entire criticism section, including "Grayling argues that the 'superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago' must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."
- 3rd revert: 21:06, June 16, 2010, removed the entire criticism section, including "Grayling argues that the 'superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago' must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research."
- 4th revert, or 1st edit of new material (depending on how you want to count it): 20:18, June 17, 2010, reverted copy edit; restored, for example: "However, the Times Higher Education has noted that Polkinghorne has been a source of 'puzzled irritation' for atheists seeking to build a scientific case against religion."
- 4th or 5th revert: 20:24, June 17, 2010, reverted the same copy edit as above; restored, for example: "However, the Times Higher Education has noted that Polkinghorne has been a source of 'puzzled irritation' for atheists seeking to build a scientific case against religion."
Comments
The diffs show four or five reverts in 24 hours and 23 minutes. Eugeneacurry is elsewhere a serial reverter who has been asked many times to stop reverting so much, and who regularly games the 3RR policy, several times resulting in pages having to be protected. Two examples of his being approached about reverting by Black Kite: [53] [54] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that SlimVirgin is being a bit uncharitable here. Both her #1s shouldn't count as "reverts" and, as she herself concedes, her first #4 could easily be understood as an "edit of new material". So, on a more charitable/reasonable interpretation of the above, I've only reverted three times in slightly more than 24 hours and thus there's no violation.
- I've been working to balance out what was initially a cricism section so wildly weighted against the subject that it bordered on a BLP violation.[55] I've also been posting to relevant notice boards for advice on how to proceed with this matter (along with posting to the talk page) so it's not like I'm just mindlessly reverting.[56][57]
- With all that said though, I grant that I've been a bit over-eager here and, if it would help matters, I'll voluntarily take a break from editing Polkinghorne's page for a week or something. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You reverted either four or five times, not three. This is what always happens with Eugene. He reverts habitually, probably more than any editor I'm aware of. And yet the page is invariably protected, or he offers to take a break from the article, and thus is never blocked, which is why it continues. And despite this report, and despite being the last editor to edit the article, he still hasn't reverted himself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Calm down, SlimVirgin. I said that I was over-eager and that I'll take a break from the article in question. I should also point out that insisting on a strict interpretation of the 3RR rule may not be in your own best interests here: You yourself reverted (in the sense that you undid) my changes to that page five times in a little over just six hours.[58][59][60][61][62] So maybe a slightly more charitable take on this situation would be best for both of us. If some uninvolved admin thinks I should revert my last change then I guess that I'll do that. Eugene (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did not revert your changes five times in six hours, and I wish you'd stop the games. Every article you edit ends up with this pointless back and forth over your reverting, and your claims that others are reverting too, and therefore everyone ought to just calm down (rather than block you). But you're the common denominator and it needs to stop. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You certainly did revert my changes 5 times in about 6 hours, the links I provided substantiate my claim.
(1) I deleted a sentence on quarks which I replaced with one about the S-matrix; you reinserted that sentence.[63]
(2) I deleted a very specific date for which no citation was given and replaced it with simply the year, supported by a source; you restored the unsourced date and deleted my new source.[64]
(3) I added a statement connected to the T.H.E. related to the ideological slant of Polkinghorne's critics; you removed it.[65]
(4) I shortened some of the criticism and replaced the editorializing with quotes; you undid both changes.[66]
(5) And I once again tried to get the T.H.E statement into the article; you yet again removed it.[67]
That's five by my count: the first was at UTC 14:12, the last was at UTC 20:21 on the same day; that makes 5 reverts in just over 6 hours.
But seriously, why don't we just drop this. I've promised ease up and to play nice and I imagine the prospect of being blocked yourself has likely spooked you a bit too. We've both learned our lesson; let's move on. Eugene (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOTTHEM. If you are blocked, it will be because of your conduct, not because of SlimVirgin's conduct. There is also a certain disingenuousness to saying "here's my argument, but ok now that I've had the last word, let's drop it". There is a very simple way to not 3RR - and that's to be willing to let the other person have their way for the moment while you talk it out on the talk page. If you cannot come to an agreement, you can request assistance from a neutral party by means of third opinion or a request for comment. Also, (and this is directed to both), 3RR is not a license to revert exactly three times. Persistent edit warriors, editors who revert three times while the other party reverts four, or editors who revert four times just outside of 24 hours can and are blocked. (I am recusing myself from handling this request. ) --B (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- You certainly did revert my changes 5 times in about 6 hours, the links I provided substantiate my claim.
- I did not revert your changes five times in six hours, and I wish you'd stop the games. Every article you edit ends up with this pointless back and forth over your reverting, and your claims that others are reverting too, and therefore everyone ought to just calm down (rather than block you). But you're the common denominator and it needs to stop. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Xyz231 reported by User:SpigotMap (Result: )
Page: PlaneShift_(video_game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xyz231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [68]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]
Comments:
Editor is using socks to evade WP:3RR SpigotMap 22:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- This user was previously blocked as Planeshift_rpg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous block assuming this editor and Planeshift_rpg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person, as suspected in [76]. Tuxide (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Bah, beaten
User:Studiodan reported by User:Jayjg (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)
Basic reverting (some of these are somewhat complex, but basically restore whatever previous version he liked).
- 1st revert: [77]
- 2nd revert: [78]
- 3rd revert: [79]
- 4th revert: [80]
- 5th revert: [81]
- 6th revert: [82]
- 7th revert: [83]
- 8th revert: [84]
Adding spurious "advert" tag:
Adding lengthy circuitous wording to image descriptions under the guise of being "neutral"
Some of these edits overlap with others, as he will sometimes exhibit multiples of these behaviors in one edit.
Comments:
On May 10 Studiodan (talk · contribs) was blocked for violating 3RR at Circumcision. Since then he has done little but revert wording to versions he preferred, add spurious "advert" tags, or change simple image captions to needlessly wordy ones (e.g. "Circumcised penis" to "A penis that has been circumcised"), using the pretext of "NPOV".[93] He has made little use of the Talk: page; for over a month, from 12:53, 15 May 2010 to 18:07, 16 June 2010 he made multiple reverts of the article, without commenting once on the Talk: page. On 23:49, 6 June 2010, for example, he reverted yet again, with the edit summary Reverting NPOV problems, as explained in talk, despite not having made a comment on the Talk: page in almost 3 weeks. While the other editors on the Talk: page seem to be able to discuss issues, make progress, resolve differences, Studiodan's contributions are essentially all edit-warring or tendentious. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- That poor article... How do I go about replacing the photograph of the erect and flaccid circumcised penis with one of my own? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: )
Page: Rain (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Active Banana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 16:17, 17 June 2010
- 03:03, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367530447 by Taka12345 (talk) we would need a source for claims of "first"")
- 03:06, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "rem unsourced non-leadworthy claims")
- 03:09, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal Issues */")
- 06:34, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Comeback */ the "explosion" was a gag obviously")
- 06:41, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "in need of better sources")
- 15:22, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367778884 by 193.71.106.79 (talk) goes to a redirect page")
- 17:41, 15 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368211537 by 24.35.120.59 (talk)")
- 01:22, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Awards */ unsourced claims")
- 01:53, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368511791 by 99.243.117.17 (talk) source?")
- 02:04, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368513259 by 99.243.117.17 (talk) unsourced contentious claims about living person WP:BLP")
- 11:57, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368572514 by 210.70.69.8 (talk) unsourced controversial promotional material about living person WP:BLP")
- 16:10, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368605304 by 200.63.165.19 (talk) unsourced contentious blp promotinal claims")
- 16:17, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368607163 by 200.63.165.19 (talk) WP:V WP:BLP yes we can remove unsourced content")
- 16:32, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Awards */ thanks for the source")
- 20:02, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Awards */ as you provide citations THEN you can return the claims WP:V")
- 20:02, 17 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Awards */ WP:MOSBOLD")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 05:38, 18 June 2010
Comments:
I am a Reviewer (verify), and as I was checking Special:OldReviewedPages and Special:RecentChanges as I was reverting vandalism today, I noticed an IP 200.63.165.19 (talk · contribs) requested assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User: Active Banana. I took a glance and saw Active Banana was not helping the editor and working in the opposite direction to remove content. I offered my assistance and left messages on both their talk pages directing them to a section I created on the article’s talk page in order to discuss it and stop the edit war. Long story short, I took a few minutes to do a simple Google search to find newspapers that published much of the information that Active Banana removed. I urged Active Banana to keep a cool head for the display of sarcasm and to use edit summaries instead of reverting with no explanation. I urged the IP not to focus on Active Banana’s behavior, and I urged both editors to specify the content in dispute. Although Active Banana agreed to be “willing to have the unsourced claims removed from the main page and placed here until each claim is verified and removed back to the main page with its source”,[94], I realized I was dealing with an editor totally uninterested in improving the page (to eventually one day getting it to featured status) and more concerned in playing Wikipedia wack-a-mole and removing good-faith edits in the process.
“ | As far as the use of edit summaries, please do not use the automatic summary “Undid revision [NUMBER] by [USER] (talk))”, without writing anything else in the edit summary, which I have seen you do a couple times, or no summary at all other than the section in which you're editing, such as Legal Issues, and speaking of that edit, do you see how this is infinitely more desirable than removing that content? It really took me only a few minutes to find the information on Google in order to add the source. Please do the same, unless you can't find the information in under five minutes, then move it to the talk page. Taric25 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[95]
|
” |
Active Banana’s response disturbed me.
“ | Feel free to follow me as I hack trails through jungles of unsourced content; and you can build lovely sourced roads in the wake. Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search" to attempt to find sources for claims ranging from seemingly benign to bizzare. If you do, well good for you! But, bringing articles into closer compliance with WP:V is something that takes mere seconds and if I do get interrupted, my previous work is not lost and providing zero improvement to Wikipedia. Thank you for improving Wikipedia in your way, and I will improve it in mine. Active Banana (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[96] |
” |
Back at Editor Assistance: Requests, I saw, “I have started a topic on Talk:Melissa_Joan_Hart#WP:UNDUE_and_WP:RS regarding this user's edits to the Melissa Joan Hart article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)”[97] with an identical problem with the same user. I also found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Not sure how to approach this. I also looked into the current open investigation of Active Banana’s sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerald Gonzalez. I ran X!'s Edit Counter[98] and edit summary[99] for Active Banana the same two[100] reports[101] for Gerald Gonzalez and the and looked at their contributions, and I ran wikichecker for both[102] users[103]. I found that when one was logged on, then other was logged off, and they were both doing the same type of editing removing content in the same fashion.
I request a block of at least 48 hours and further investigation into this user’s edit wars. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- 48 hour ban isn't going to do a thing. 48 day ban isn't going to help either. I've been monitoring this from the outside, and I have to side with Active Banana on this issue. Most of you may not realize this, but many articles related to Korean popular culture has a way of being filled with a lot of unsourced information - most of it by IP anons. Take a look at the Korean wave article for example. These articles are filled with Korean nationalism! It's simple to post uncited information on these articles, and then leave them sitting for MONTHS without any citations. And yet, the thousands of readers coming across these articles will take these uncited information as the truth. It sounds like Taric25 is one of these editors who like filling articles with lots and lots of information, and then wait for someone to cite the information. I for one, as well as many other editors are against this form of editing, as I refer to myself as a Deletionist as well as an Exclusionist. These editing philosophies believe that information should be added to the article ONLY when the information has been cited at the time of the addition to the article. Taric25 does not understand that it is not the deleting editor's job to find the source. As Active Banana has pointed out several times in the Rain talk page, it is the responsibility of the adding editor to cite the information as it is entered. I repeat - the longer the uncited information stays on-line within Wikipedia, the better chance in the information becoming a falsified fact. Groink (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, I would like you to withdraw your statement, “It sounds like Taric25 is one of these editors who like filling articles with lots and lots of information, and then wait for someone to cite the information.” I spent my time on the article un-deleting all the unsourced information that Active Banana removed from the article and replaced all of it with sourced information. I have never once advocated for adding unsourced information to the encyclopedia, so again, I would like you to withdraw that statement, because I explained to Active Banana in this article that it is better replace unsourced good-faith edits with sourced information like I did here, instead of removing good-faith edits like Active Banana did here. I myself have created or worked on Biographies of Living People for a while, like the article I created for Miss Foozie, and as you can see, I am no stranger to making sure all the information I add is sourced.
- Also, your concept that it’s the adding editor’s job to cite follows the rule, but doesn’t follow the spirit of the encyclopedia. Remember, we’re here to write an encyclopedia, not to play remove content wack-a-mole. Yes, experienced editors should always source contributions when adding to the main space. I completely agree. On the other hand, inexperienced editors with good intentions are not too familiar with all our rules, so rather than deleting good-faith unsourced content, I feel individual edits are much more valuable to the encyclopedia when an editor simply takes 30 seconds to do a Google search to see if a reliable source exists in order to source it. When Active Banana writes, “Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"”, this seriously disturbs me. Wikipedia is not a race, and the fact that Active Banana says “I do not have any reasonable expectation … for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"” makes me seriously question how this editor spends time on Wikipedia. We should focus on the quality of our edits, not the quantity!
- In addition, Active Banana is not appropriately using edit summaries. Actually, neither are you. You did not write an edit summary for your last three edits to this page, so I ran http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Groink and saw you only write edit summaries for 30% of your edits? Taric25 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Right, constructing an entire sentence describing the process of removing one character - yeah, that's productive alright. Yup. Look at the history page for this VERY talk page - you're in the minority, I'm in the majority. I stand behind what I've said before - as long as those uncited awards stay where they are, you didn't fix anything! I recommend adding <!-- --> around all the uncited awards, and let the other editors find the sources - while at the same time avoid them being seen by readers. My overall beef is about readers who believe everything they read from a major web site. Groink (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)