Ohiostandard (talk | contribs) →User FellGleaming reported by User Ohiostandard (Sanctions Imposed): rejoinder re inflammatory language |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Comments by FellGleaming: Yes, that's how reverts are normally counted |
||
Line 336: | Line 336: | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&action=historysubmit&diff=383079638&oldid=382938409]. |
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&action=historysubmit&diff=383079638&oldid=382938409]. |
||
Note that Ohiostandard did not consider any of those to be edit warring -- only myself, an editor he has conflicted with in the past. |
Note that Ohiostandard did not consider any of those to be edit warring -- only myself, an editor he has conflicted with in the past. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:FellGleaming|FellGleaming]] ([[User talk:FellGleaming|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FellGleaming|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
:According to the language of [[WP:REVERT]], "reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." When your edit takes some words out of the article it's a revert, no matter how long ago the words were put in. That is, unless your removal of the material matches one of the eight named exceptions to 3RR listed in [[WP:3RR|the policy]]. Though I haven't checked to see who was warring in this particular case, Ohiostandard appears to be counting reverts in the normal way. His view about the counting of interspersed edits is correct as well. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=== Rejoinder by Ohiostandard === |
=== Rejoinder by Ohiostandard === |
Revision as of 02:53, 9 September 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:Humaliwalay reported by User:AllahLovesYou (Result: Declined for now)
Page: Shi'a Islam in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Humaliwalay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments: Humaliwalay is also reverting at Criticism of Sunni Islam. he is very distruptive, claiming everywhere that the Library of Congress is an unreliable source for information. In one article he inserts "The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' (No one can touch it save the pure) but in it is stated in multiple verdicts of Sunni Scholars that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine", which is backed by these fake unverfiable sources: (Fatmaada Aalamgeer Vol.5, Page 134. Fatwa Siraajiya, Page 75. http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/100questions/fatawa_siraajiya_p75.jpg) If anyone tries to remove this he starts reverting. Humaliwalay is engaged in attacking the 1 billion Sunni Muslims by using Wikipedia (encyclopedia), I think he should be banned because we (the people seeking true knowledge) don't need users like that here.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Declined The page in question has already been protected and it appears that Humaliwalay is actively debating the issue on the relevant Talk Page. Given that I would like to see if this can't be worked out. Both the poster and any other admins should see this decline as "without prejudice." If Humaliwalay resumes, a block would probably be in order. --Selket Talk 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on here, and can't fill this report out from a template. But, anywho, somebody should check out the recent history of Musicians Institute. I've semi-protected for 3 days (probably a horrible thing to do), so please revert me if you want. Cheers, Alex Muller 09:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin reported by 82.113.106.30 (Result: No violation)
Page: Ludwig Wittgenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
SlimVirgin: SlimVirgin (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: See below
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
Comments:SlimVirgin keeps trying to insert an extreme-fringe hypothesis into the article and refuses to discuss her insertions. Instead, she is edit-warring to put it back in every time. In so doing, she violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:BRD. (I am unable to find the diff for her original insertion of the questionable material because there is a veritable blizzard of her edits in the past couple of days and she does not always supply informative edit summaries.)
82.113.106.30 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Noting here that I requested semi-protection for the article because of this at 10:07 UTC. The background is there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:53, 7 September 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. --Chris (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Petri Krohn reported by User:Marknutley (Result: Declined, report has been taken to AE)
Page: Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [12] first revert was to remove content which had been removed and then restored [13]
- 2nd revert: [14] reverts back in content he had added which was reverted out.
- 3rd revert: [diff]
- 4th revert: [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16] Tried to discuss it on his talk page, he says to take it here.
Comments:
The article is under a 1r restriction and is highly contentious, as Petri refuses to self revert i would like an admin to request it of him. mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The 1RR is clearly marked as under Digwuren, which Petri well ought to be cognizant of, having been specifically mentioned in that decision as I recall. The edit page has a big red warning. The page further states that reverts are to be reported on the talk page which Petri did not do as required. Further that the 1RR is a bright line and not an "entitlement." The violation is exceedingly clear at this point. Collect (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Re - My first edits was a partial revert to an earlier version. It also included a new lede and removed some POV-tags. In the second edit I integrated changes made to one section after my edit and restored my new lede (1st revert for lede.) I am fully aware of the 1 revert rule and carefully limited my edits not to break it, although I would not brake 1rr even if it was not mandatory. Unlike Mark I have never edited the article before during its probation, (most likely never – but have not checked full history.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. – I do feel intimidated by this report, I believe Mark Nutley is fully aware that my edits did not break the rule, as I have explained on my talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- P.P.S. – It seems that the issue is now at WP:AE, please follow me there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Aashah86 reported by meco (talk) (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Asif Ali Zardari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aashah86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 17:56, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383489708 by Dripping Flame (talk)")
- 18:26, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383494756 by Meco (talk)")
- 18:29, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383495394 by Dripping Flame (talk)")
- 18:41, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383497990 by Huon (talk)")
- 18:53, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383498932 by Meco (talk) i am willing to take !0% out but not the corruption part")
- 19:13, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383502697 by Meco (talk) for speaking the truth ok, its not over yet!!!!!!!!!")
- Diff of warning: here
Please also take into consideration that this user has previously been given a 48h block, in March 2009, for similar disruptions. —meco (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Both 48h)
Page: Prospect Hill (New Haven) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 22:41, 6 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv to 381105443")
- 04:42, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "give the other districts the appropriate emphasis")
- 12:39, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "no, the other districts are of less importance because they are not directly related to the residential neighborhood")
- 16:31, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "whitney avenue is not in prospect hill as is commonly known")
- 16:37, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "refocus article")
Previous version reverted to: [17]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] No warning needed.
Past discussion:
- Talk:Prospect Hill (New Haven)#Merge discussion
- User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list#New Haven City HDs (mediated long discussion)
Comments:
Experienced edit warrior Polaron continues to combat to support his quest to merge many or all NRHP historic district articles into town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles that include any portion of them. Here, he is battling to minimize mention of three of the four historic districts in one neighborhood, and to maximize coverage of the fourth, towards arguing for merger of separate article about the fourth HD. Anyhow, he is over 3RR. His edit summaries are just dismissive. I count 4 reversions on his part; the last 2 diffs make up one, with some other small variation. —doncram (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
StaleThe editor being reported hasn't edited since 1704 UTC. This report was filed at 2053 UTC and the reported editor notified a minute later, over four hours since the last revert and over three since the editor's last edit. To block now would seem purely punitive, but I will leave a warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- The editor was subject to a six month edit restriction on not redirecting NRHP historic district articles to town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles, but the six months is now up. And, the behavior seems to be returning. Here's another diff, Polaron simply moving/renaming, with no discussion, one of the historic district articles he dislikes. I reversed that and opened discussion at its Talk page, where another editor agrees with me, Polaron does not even bother to comment.
- At Wauregan Historic District article, the exact behavior resumes: a redirect and a repeat of that redirect. We are talking, sort of, at Wauregan, Connecticut. But, the edit warring first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., and only if other editors beg and cajole will he bother to give a cryptic comment type of behavior is the main thing going on. --doncram (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well I have re-opened this thread so another admin can look at it. I've also warned Polaron. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since the dispute between these two gentlemen has been going on for more than a year it will probably take more than a few hours for it to be rightly judged as stale. I find the whole topic depressing, and my own past efforts to broker a solution went nowhere. The admin Acroterion has valiantly tried to serve as a mediator, but the reverts continue anyway. It is hard to think of giving escalating blocks to long-term contributors, but something like that could be the only thing that would work. Since the dispute at Prospect Hill (New Haven) is a 2-person war, blocks for both parties are deserved. (There have been even more reverts since the last one listed above). 48 hours to each might be the right thing in the present case. Doncram was blocked 24 hours on 9 August for a similar issue. If admins can't bring themselves to do anything about this, should we be recommending Arbcom? EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well I have re-opened this thread so another admin can look at it. I've also warned Polaron. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- At Wauregan Historic District article, the exact behavior resumes: a redirect and a repeat of that redirect. We are talking, sort of, at Wauregan, Connecticut. But, the edit warring first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., and only if other editors beg and cajole will he bother to give a cryptic comment type of behavior is the main thing going on. --doncram (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Result - 48 hours to both parties. The last revert I observed was by Doncram at 01:26 on 8 September. Though the reverts do not always go back to the same version, each one removes text added by the other person. This is the sixth time a dispute between these two editors has been reported at the 3RR board. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, i did replace the material lost by P's edits again, i believe without violating 3RR myself, after the above mild reaction to my report of P's actually being over 3RR.
- EdJohnston, your involvement back then, arranging for a 6 month edit restriction for Polaron, together with Acroterion's continued involvement as a mutually agreed upon, invited mediator, did help for a long time. And, there was further good development now with other editors at WikiProject Connecticut. There was a lot of progress and I was hoping not to involve Acroterion or other good editors again. But, yes, the situation is now going bad upon P resuming the same patterns of editing, ignoring hardwon consensus and/or simply removing merger tags or implementing mergers or moves, and i don't see what to do currently to manage the situation. I suppose i could just walk away too, and let P unravel all the previous agreements, but i don't like that idea. --doncram (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have no argument with the blocks, as obviously the change and revert cycle does no good to anyone. But, I would like to know what people would recommend be done by Doncram instead, when Polaron wanders around changing things at his whim and to his preference which is no more and (IMO) often much less valid a view. He doesn't like stubs, but stubs ARE allowable in Wikipedia, so why is it OK for him to change them to redirects whenever he chooses, and how IS one supposed to battle an unrelenting pattern of such edits without edit warring? I seriously would like to know. I have been much less active of late in Wikipedia, in part because of such things as this. If there is a productive way to deal with the stupidity other than to watch things you and others have painstakingly built be torn to shreds by one persons whim and preference, then maybe it could be someplace to enjoy again. OK, so in some cases both viewpoints are equally valid, so isn't the procedure then for Polaron to take it to some venue and get some consensus before changing it? Or to otherwise leave it alone? He KNOWS there's going to be disagreement. And, what about cases like this first one Doncram noted, where Polaron simply moved/renamed, with no discussion, one of the historic district articles he dislikes. This particular article was one where, per the painstakingly, tediously, almost completely non-understandable to outsiders agreement they worked out that recently "expired", Doncram, in order to support separate articles, developed both to DYK eligible length, which rendered all Polaron's complaints about too-short stubs, etc. invalid. The truth seems to me to be that Polaron just doesn't want separate articles about the historic districts, for whatever reasons, while Doncram and I and I think other NRHPers (though I hesitate to speak for others), do see the value of them. I see a world of difference between the historic district (more than the history of the general area, to me, I enjoy the very specific info about EXACTLY what buildings are included, etc.) and the modern hamlet/village/CDP whatever you call them in CT. I dislike the combined articles as much as Polaron likes them. But, I don't go around looking for his work to change/redirect/rename/whatever, often seemingly just to irritate/goad some other editor. So, IS there some other way, other than to let someone like Polaron do as he pleases and shrug it off, to deal with what I see as his destructive edits? They often disrupt networks of lists and disambiguation pages and such, that mean nothing to Polaron, but are things that I and certainly Doncram have spent quite a bit of time working on in order to facilitate the growth of NRHP articles (so there won't be the many bare bones stubs and "underdeveloped" articles that some editors so enjoy criticizing). It's very disheartening to see that structure torn apart, just when you thought it might be time to actually start working on adding some of the backlog of pictures in your laptop and developing some new articles. Instead you spend your time either composing posts like these or being so annoyed and fed up with it all that when you do get some free time for the computer you play spades or solitaire or your niece's Cake Mania instead! How sad is that! Lvklock (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User:67.149.236.113 reported by User:Oncamera (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page: Gackt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.149.236.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 20:42, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "the article is trashed and needs fixing. half of this article is speculation. biased fangirl-ism. do not remove the templates.")
- 20:46, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "do not remove the templates or the article will be locked. again.")
- 20:52, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 20:56, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: [383520535 here]
—oncamera(t) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments: [18] The editor already believes the article is "trash" from these comments on the talkpage and any edits by me to adjust the templates or ask to honestly discuss the changes to the article is ignored. I even cited a section which was reverted with no reason [19].
User:Oncamera reported by Johnnymushio (Result: Stale)
Page: Gackt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oncamera (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: [diff]
Comments:The article is references with broken links. Other things are not cited at all. The article is written in the form of propaganda. User does not cooperate with changes, instead reverts them back.
User:Meeso reported by User:Taivo (Result: Declined)
Page: Egyptian Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Meeso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
- 1st revert: [25]
- 2nd revert: [26]
- 3rd revert: [27] (Note the incivility in the edit summary)
- 4th revert: [28]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]
Comments:
User:Meeso is engaging in an edit war by removing properly sourced information in the article without adding any referenced material whatsoever. He is relying completely on his own POV and not on any reliable source whatsoever. His comments on the talk page and edit summaries are uncivil as well, for example, this one. He has reverted legitimate, properly sourced material from two different editors without providing one single solitary reference for his POV. --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Both editors appear to have violated 3RR even while still discussing things on the talk page. It takes two to edit war, and content disputes (even when valid) shouldn't be addressed by reverting each other. Civility issues belong at other boards (AN/I being the most "serious")... Doc9871 (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Notice that I have not touched the article since reporting User:Meeso and his unreferenced edit sits there misinforming all who read it at this time. I don't think I violated 3RR, at least I was trying not to, but if I did it was inadvertent in several other edits that I was making at the time. Several of my edits that are listed in the edit history do not involve the population figure (which was the initial place where Meeso started edit warring), but place other cited material in the text. User:Meeso, on the other hand, was just doing the knee-jerk reversion of everything that I posted. I would happily report him elsewhere, but I do not want to be accused of forum shopping. Meeso's knee-jerk edit warring is most appropriately reported here. --Taivo (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)I agree that his edit is unreferenced, and that is a definite concern. 3RR is often violated by both parties in reports here, and often both are blocked temporarily to prevent disruption. It's best to avoid violating 3RR (even inadvertently): once the "more reverting" editor (the one who broke 3RR, and not you) is blocked, the "correct" (cited) version can be restored. POV concerns are usually not an exception to 3RR, except in WP:BLPs - carefully read WP:3RR, and you'll see what I mean. And again, it is not possible for one editor alone to edit war without another editor(s) warring against him/her. Who breaks 3RR and who doesn't often makes the difference in a blocking decision. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Can someone please explain to me (on my talk page, this isn't the place) what this dispute is about? I know most of the nationalism fights, but this one baffles me. --Selket Talk 07:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)I agree that his edit is unreferenced, and that is a definite concern. 3RR is often violated by both parties in reports here, and often both are blocked temporarily to prevent disruption. It's best to avoid violating 3RR (even inadvertently): once the "more reverting" editor (the one who broke 3RR, and not you) is blocked, the "correct" (cited) version can be restored. POV concerns are usually not an exception to 3RR, except in WP:BLPs - carefully read WP:3RR, and you'll see what I mean. And again, it is not possible for one editor alone to edit war without another editor(s) warring against him/her. Who breaks 3RR and who doesn't often makes the difference in a blocking decision. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Notice that I have not touched the article since reporting User:Meeso and his unreferenced edit sits there misinforming all who read it at this time. I don't think I violated 3RR, at least I was trying not to, but if I did it was inadvertent in several other edits that I was making at the time. Several of my edits that are listed in the edit history do not involve the population figure (which was the initial place where Meeso started edit warring), but place other cited material in the text. User:Meeso, on the other hand, was just doing the knee-jerk reversion of everything that I posted. I would happily report him elsewhere, but I do not want to be accused of forum shopping. Meeso's knee-jerk edit warring is most appropriately reported here. --Taivo (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I only seek to wait for sometime so that other editors who are aware of the subject give their opinion on this. User:Taivo has entered in an article that I have been editing for so long, with some very bold fact-statements that are wholly unfounded, and he/she is threatening with reliability of sources although his source is totally erroneous! I discovered a big mistake and posted about it in the talk-page, and then he came with his/her provoking and condescending statements about my own country and threatening me with reliable sources. I should have the time to come with more serious sources myself, and I want to wait for other editors who are more aware of the condition of language in Egypt to express their opinions. That's all. Thank you, Maysara (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::::Neither one of these editors has been warned. But before I noticed this report, I was already considering what to do about Meeso's incivility. He's never been blocked for anything, but I have given him a 3RR warning 2 weeks ago [32] and edit summaries such as "go fuck yourself !! deleting bullshit on my talk page" (on his talk page) and " IT IS NOT ANY LESS SIGNIFICANT THAN OTHER INFO! STOP YOUR IGNORANT BALLYRAG! OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS!" [33] are clearly not acceptable. In this case he may not be insulting editors in his use of 'ignorant', but to call Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International ignorant is putting personal opinion over a very respected and clearly RS source. Saving this just now produced an edit conflict, and seeing Meeso's rationale above it is clear that he does not understand our policy on reliable sources - or civility evidently. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict):You mean "threatening" with reliable sources doesn't mean WP:BURDEN would apply? Say it ain't so! Doc9871 (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I just looked into the history of the article, and discovered that the original number was exactly the same as what I edited now [34] for example. The one who changed that number, by a margin of 20 million (thus making quite a big mistake), is the one who should prove that such a great multitude of people do speak a different language than the rest of the society. This has nothing to do with nationalism, but such a thing does not exist at all. And it's not that i don't understand what reliability is, it's that i disagree with it's application in such a blind and mindless manner, and as you can see, to produce rather than correct mistakes. I can only apologize for my occasional profanity and temper, although they are always given to those who deserve it! I am here for reasons other than observing rules and suppressing others!! Maysara (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Earlier" numbers in the article, if not supported by a reliable source, mean nothing: see WP:CIRCULAR. The most available sources point to the 50 million figure, and the 70 million figure is unsupported. Your last two sentences above, Meeso, are not the most encouraging I've ever seen in terms of assuming good faith here... Doc9871 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- You can see Meeso's version of reality does not include reliable sources by this post in response to my answer of Selket's question above. But this noticeboard is for edit warring. If you look at the history of editing over the last 24 hours, you will see that Meeso added nothing to the article to support his knee-jerk reverting of everything I added to the article based on reliable sources, especially the speaker number (which is the particular issue of this complaint). The "old number" had already been corrected by another editor before I got there and Meeso was already reverting it. --Taivo (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- So when is someone going to block this edit warrior so that the unsourced information can be removed from the article without him reverting it by a knee jerk? --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken the civility issues to WP:ANI (having found a bit more). Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Since his civility issues in other articles appear to be more serious than his 3RR here, I will watch there for actions that might be taken to censure him. Of course, if an admin wishes to go ahead and block him based on 3RR, I won't object either. Indeed, a block for knee-jerk edit warring might be an appropriate stop-gap until the AN/I has reached a conclusion about more long-term solutions. While the AN/I proceeds, the unsourced, incorrect data remains sitting at Egyptian Arabic. --Taivo (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken the civility issues to WP:ANI (having found a bit more). Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- So when is someone going to block this edit warrior so that the unsourced information can be removed from the article without him reverting it by a knee jerk? --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- You can see Meeso's version of reality does not include reliable sources by this post in response to my answer of Selket's question above. But this noticeboard is for edit warring. If you look at the history of editing over the last 24 hours, you will see that Meeso added nothing to the article to support his knee-jerk reverting of everything I added to the article based on reliable sources, especially the speaker number (which is the particular issue of this complaint). The "old number" had already been corrected by another editor before I got there and Meeso was already reverting it. --Taivo (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Declined The discussion at AN/I now superceeds this one. --Selket Talk 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User FellGleaming reported by User Ohiostandard (Sanctions Imposed)
Page being reported: Watts Up With That? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User making report: Ohiostandard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:37 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies in advance if this isn't the right venue; if it's not please just let me know and I'll be glad to move it to a different location. I know there's a lot of "pot boiling" on Wikipedia re climate change, and I know that user FellGleaming is somehow involved in that. But there seemed to be several different venues to choose from, and this seemed the most applicable to me, given that it needs clarification as to what, exactly, constitutes a revert for 3RR purposes. Here are the facts I'm aware of:
Diffs of FellGleaming's actions in edit war over article about climate-change blog Watts Up With That?
- [35] 13:31 7 September 2010 (UTC) Restores previously deleted NYT passage
- [36] 18:03 7 September 2010 (UTC) Removes just-added "undue weight" tag
- [37] 18:51 7 September 2010 (UTC) Removes passage/cite critical of climate-change skeptic's blog, orphans ref.
- [38] 10:59 8 September 2010 (UTC) Removes disclosure of readers' work on blogger's climate-data collection project.
- [39] 15:17 8 September 2010 (UTC) Restores deleted NYT passage a second time.
Please note that this user was blocked for 48 hours in May 2010 for edit warring and, if the diffs I presented here are correct in their understanding of what constitutes a "revert", then he violated 3RR+ on a different article just over a week ago, as well.
Comments:
Each of the above has intervening edits by other users. The relevant deletion in the fouth diff is the removal of the sentence, "The blog's participants and contributors often discuss or participate in Watts' Surface Stations project." Perhaps it was deleted becasue it casts doubt on the blog's reliability to disclose that the blog's readers help collect some of the data it relies on? ( I'm not familiar-enough with the subject area to determine this, however. ) Also, the fifth revert above occurs 25 hours and 14 minutes after the first one, and is thus just outside the 24-hour 3RR window. The article was put under full protection to halt the edit war shortly after the last edit documented above was made.
My brief examination of the article's edit history didn't turn up any other editors who went over 3-reverts in 24 hours. I'd suggest that it would be worth investigating this more carefully, though, and that a quick check-user on the IPs very recently involved in the edit war is probably also called for. I see another editor has raised that issue as well, and that neither the accusation or only the counter-accusation of socking appears to have been denied so far, at least, here. ( updated 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC) )
Full disclosure: I've never edited or even commented on any climate-change article. But to be transparent, I should also disclose that I did comment extensively in a recent ANI discussion that FellGleaming initiated concerning an edit war at Linda McMahon. In that ANI thread, which rolled off to archives with no admin action, FellGleaming repeatedly accused me of telling "lies" and "falsehoods" for claiming, among other things, that FellGleaming was himself over 3RR on that article. I'd never edited that article, either, btw, but I'll admit that those remarks probably knocked FellGleaming off my Christmas card list. Anyway, I came across the edits I've listed above while I was in the process of re-examining FellGleaming's edits on the Linda McMahon article. FellGleaming is very well-aware of the three-revert rule; she warned another user with whom she was in conflict about it quite recently.
Also, I know these kinds of things tend to grow into novels that just bore and annoy everyone, so I'd prefer not to comment further or attempt to rebut any counterstatement here unless an uninvolved user or admin specifically asks that I do so.
Finally, I think either I or FellGleaming have an incorrect understanding of what constitutes a "revert" for 3RR purposes. As I understand it, he thinks one is free to remove any passage that has not been the subject of recent dispute, without it "counting" toward 3RR. That's not the way I read the 3RR documentation: "A 'revert' in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." I don't see any "recent dispute" proviso in the policy at all. I'd greatly welcome clarification on this from uninvolved admins, clarification as to what constitutes a "revert" under 3RR, since – among other reasons – it bears on the list of diffs I provided above, and on those I provided previously at ANI in the earlier matter, as well. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the removal of the "undue weight" tag should be counted since there is sanction against adding/removing tags on climate change articles without first achieving consensus on the talk page.[40] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments by FellGleaming
Ohiostandard has been on a jihad against me recently, reporting me to several different forums. The articles in question he's reporting have all experienced substantially more reverts by other users than myself. However, the real bone of contention is Ohiostandard interprets any change to an article whatsoever as being a revert. My understanding is that changes made to text which has long been part of the article, and not currently under dispute or recently modified by any editor, then this is simply part of the standard Wikpedia BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. By making such changes, you're doing your job as an editor, not "reverting" text which might have been added years earlier. By Ohio's interpretation, I believe the great mass of all edits to articles would violate 3RR. Ohiostandard also has a rather odd interpretation that, if you are making a series of edits and another editor's change winds up interspersed in yours, then your chain counts as two two reverts, even if that interspersed edit in no way conflicts with yours. In other words, if you change paragraphs one and three in an article and, in between your edits, another editor modifies paragraph two, then you've engaged in two separate reverts. As Ohio, I would appreciate a clarification on this policy.
To answer the specific diffs listed above, only three of those edits are actually reversions of changes made recently by other editors and, since those three span more than 24 hours, doesn't even breach 2RR, much less 3RR. In this "revert" for instance:
Ohio claims it "removes disclosure of readers' work on blogger's climate-data collection project.". However, if you actually look at the content of the edit, I simply moved one paragraph from one section to another, and removed a sentence "The blog's participants and contributors often discuss or participate in Watts' Surface Stations project.", because an almost identical version of that sentence appeared just a few lines further down: "The Surface Stations project (at www.surfacetations.org), an analysis of terrestrial US weather stations is also discussed on this blog." Now obviously trivial changes like this can still constitute edit warring...but only if I was actually reverting the changes of another editor, not simply touching up content that had been in this form for an extended period of time.
Out of Ohio's list of five edits, two were actually reverts of a paragraph that has actively been reverted by many other editors other than myself. This is a partial list of other editors who have made the same change (either to add or remove the paragraph) just in the past 3 days alone:
Note that Ohiostandard did not consider any of those to be edit warring -- only myself, an editor he has conflicted with in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs)
- According to the language of WP:REVERT, "reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." When your edit takes some words out of the article it's a revert, no matter how long ago the words were put in. That is, unless your removal of the material matches one of the eight named exceptions to 3RR listed in the policy. Though I haven't checked to see who was warring in this particular case, Ohiostandard appears to be counting reverts in the normal way. His view about the counting of interspersed edits is correct as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Rejoinder by Ohiostandard
I didn't want to respond, but really, I'm "on a jihad" because I reported FellGleaming for edit warring? Hey, that's a good plan: let's all label people who find fault with us as jihadists. And I'm a teller of "flat-out lies" because I provided diffs at the ANI complaint that FellGleaming started to show that he'd also been edit warring, just as he was accusing another user of doing? A complaint that he had forum-shopped, btw, to BLPNB and to this board, as well as to ANI? Well, there are a lot of smart people here, and I think they can see what's behind such inflammatory language. I'll not correct FellGleaming's misstatements about my understanding of 3RR, either, or respond further to his negative characterizations except to say that we do have a legitimate difference in how we read the 3RR documentation, and that we still need community consensus on the question. I realize, however, that this isn't the forum to seek that. – OhioStandard (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Ejmarten reported by User:Jerzeykydd (Result: )
Page: United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ejmarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Today's reverts
Last week's reverts
Comments:
Ejmaren continues to revert this page over and over again. We have discussions on the talk page, but he continues anyway. We reached consensus, and yet he continued and vandalized the page. Note: I have already been blocked after edit warring, he has not.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)