William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) |
→User:EEng reported by User:Gavia immer (Result: warned): will reply 24-48 hours |
||
Line 601: | Line 601: | ||
: Warned [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) |
: Warned [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
Among other things, 3RR makes special allowance copyright matters, and I had and have good-faith reasons for believing those allowances applied here. I'll post full comments in about 24-48 hours. In the meantime, I note that [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] has proposed at |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEng#I_have_regretfully_reported_your_edit_warring] that the image stay out of the article until the copyright status is resolved. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Ferrylodge]] reported by [[User:MastCell]] (Result: 48h) == |
== [[User:Ferrylodge]] reported by [[User:MastCell]] (Result: 48h) == |
Revision as of 18:19, 18 July 2009
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. |
|
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
User:Gorillasapiens reported by User:Destinero (Result: more info / caution)
- Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Gorillasapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: 12 July 2009
- 2nd revert: 12 July 2009
- 3rd revert: 14 July 2009
- 4th revert: 14 July 2009
- 5th revert: 14 July 2009
- 6th revert: 15 July 2009
- 7th revert: 16 July 2009
Editor Gorillasapiens continue with vandalism of misinterpreting several most reliable sources possible relevant to the topic. He repeatedly tries to discredit scientific research. His behavior is unacceptable under Wikipedia policies. See relevant Talk Page. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're obliged to at least pretend to follow the instructions: please list some reverts, ideally 4. Also, I caution you that your edit summary here [1] accusing Gs of vandalism is inappropriate; the edit is not vandalism, merely one with which you disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've just listed many his reverts. The reasons why his reverts are unacceptable under Wikipedia policies are clarified on Talk Page: Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits --Destinero (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Dumamd reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24h both)
- Page: List of terrorist incidents, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Dumamd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [2]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]
The IP edit is clearly the same editor, however there's now four reverts from the account anyway. Despite this content also being removed by an administrator and two editors on the talk page being against inclusion, this single purpose account continues to push the ridiculous fringe view that the July 2009 Ürümqi riots were a terrorist incident, supported by a vague Chinese state source. I've asked for multiple independent neutral reliable sources to show this isn't some fringe view, all I get is revert after revert. O Fenian (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24h for both William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a BS block. Edit warring disruptive IP using alternate accounts, and a first class content editor. This is not like with like and rewards disruption IMHO. --Domer48'fenian' 07:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Rocknroll714 reported by User:NJGW (Result: 48h)
- Page: Cannabis (drug) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Rocknroll714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [10]
(The above is the first instance of Rocknroll714 inserting a list of slang into the article against previously established consensus. There are many other edits in the history today, but the reinsertion of these terms by Rocknroll714 happens 4 more times below, completely ignoring the discussion on the talk page by several other editors.)
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
- Talk page discussion: Talk:Cannabis_(drug)#Nicknames_in_the_lead
I've reverted this user for other issues (removing a ref with no edit summary, overlinking of common terms, etc.), but other users have reverted Rocknroll714 for this exact issue. They are involved in discussion on this issue on the talk page, but Rocknroll has been silent on the talk page. NJGW (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
User:PelleSmith reported by User:Wikifan12345 (result: stale)
- Page: Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: PelleSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Before edit-war: 03:17, 15 July 2009
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: 03:35, 15 July 2009
- 2nd revert: 03:38, 15 July 2009
- 3rd revert: 03:41, 15 July 2009
- 4th revert: 3:56, 15 July 2009
- 5th revert: 4:01, 15 July 2009
- 6th revert: 4:18, 15 July 2009
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned in talk, AFD, and user page, see below.
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Notability tags, unsubstantiated summaries, edit-warring, Removing OR section
This warring is less of a personal dispute and revolves around mis-attribution to policy and poor summaries. User claimed his vast amounts of deleted material was simply OR, even though much of the content was cited thoroughly by the United States Department of Justice and other government/3rd party references. I tried to have him move the content he disputed both at my userpage and the AFD so it would be easier to discuss, but he did not do this. I considered moving the content myself but felt that would be a breach of editing code. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment -- Please take a detailed look into these supposed "reverts" which are not all back to the same version of the entry (they are however all edits Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not fond of). S/he seems to have some rather basic misunderstandings of WP:NOR and WP:BLP. For instance, the last diff s/he has pasted above is a removal of a clear BLP violation. There is nothing to see here except for an example of the usual POV pushing and disruption from this editor.PelleSmith (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- User edit-warred almost every single one my additions and was adamant about not resolving dispute in talk and preferred to project it on the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Contiguous edits count as one. You can try re-doing your report if you like, though it is likely to be stale. As far as I can see, people are using the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean contiguous editS? Pelle has been edit-warring additions he doesn't agree with relentlessly. Using the talk page/discussion is totally irrelevant when it comes to edit-warring, according to you at least. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Editor continues to war out additions. Will, you've had no problem doing what you are supposed to do to every other notice report, and now claim it is stale because you consciously waited. I know we have a history so perhaps another administrator can do their job. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan is editing against consensus and in violation of basic policies. William is correct as well about contiguous edits, however if William or another admin commenting here thinks there is a problem with my editing in this instance please advise on how I need to change my behavior and I will comply.PelleSmith (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, some of the diffs are contiguous, but it looks to me (after a cursory glance) that you have just barely come in under the 3rr wire, and then continued to edit war afterwards. I don't think, pace William, that a new report is necessary, though Wikifan, you might want to make a note here of continuing reversion on the article, if applicable. I'd also note, the report is very far from stale. Admin intervention may well be required. IronDuke 02:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah Pelle continues to revert my edits, and dubiously said the additions were original research. I just think this is a double standard because Will has blocked me for far, far less. I'm scared to continue editing the article for fear of being blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, there is no consensus. Accusing me of editing against it is simply a lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think it might be good for you to stop reverting while you sort things out, and maybe pursue dispute resolution. I agree that WMC might not be the best person to intervene here. Hopefully, an uninvolved admin will weigh in/actIronDuke 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I stopped doing major edits hours ago. All I've done is minor edits (spelling, syntax) but those too are occasionally reverted. I filed a 3OO but no response. William has always been pretty consistent with blocking edit-warring regardless of reasoning and now he makes a dubious exception. Talk about a double standard. Everyone but Wikifan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think it might be good for you to stop reverting while you sort things out, and maybe pursue dispute resolution. I agree that WMC might not be the best person to intervene here. Hopefully, an uninvolved admin will weigh in/actIronDuke 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, there is no consensus. Accusing me of editing against it is simply a lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah Pelle continues to revert my edits, and dubiously said the additions were original research. I just think this is a double standard because Will has blocked me for far, far less. I'm scared to continue editing the article for fear of being blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, some of the diffs are contiguous, but it looks to me (after a cursory glance) that you have just barely come in under the 3rr wire, and then continued to edit war afterwards. I don't think, pace William, that a new report is necessary, though Wikifan, you might want to make a note here of continuing reversion on the article, if applicable. I'd also note, the report is very far from stale. Admin intervention may well be required. IronDuke 02:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan is editing against consensus and in violation of basic policies. William is correct as well about contiguous edits, however if William or another admin commenting here thinks there is a problem with my editing in this instance please advise on how I need to change my behavior and I will comply.PelleSmith (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Editor continues to war out additions. Will, you've had no problem doing what you are supposed to do to every other notice report, and now claim it is stale because you consciously waited. I know we have a history so perhaps another administrator can do their job. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No more reverts; stale William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h)
- Page: Category:English-language surnames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Page: Category:German-language surnames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User: Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous versions:
- Category:English-language_surnames
- Category:German-language_surnames
Category:English-language_surnames
- page blanking: 2009-07-07 06:38:36
- 1st revert: 2009-07-09 23:40:07
- 2nd revert: 2009-07-12 17:02:52
- 3rd revert: 2009-07-13 04:58:15
- 4th revert: 2009-07-13 22:55:54
- 5th revert: 2009-07-14 15:44:00
- 6th revert: 2009-07-15 02:39:10
Category:German-language_surnames
- page blanking: 2009-07-13 22:46:02
- 1st revert: 2009-07-14 15:44:41
- 2nd revert: 2009-07-15 02:38:19
In the English case, Badagnani removed the {{Surnames by language}} template, and was promptly reverted by Good Olfactory. Since then, he's been engaged in a slow motion 1 or 2 removals (page blanking) per day. Also, has used an IP surrogate.
More recently, he's started doing the same removal (page blanking) in the German case – once per day so far.
- (repeat offender, previous subject of RFC, blocked for edit warring several times per year for 3+ years.)
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
With the recent removal of WP:3RR, nobody knows what to expect (looks like that was a bad idea). Obviously, this slow motion page blanking isn't exactly covered. But isn't page blanking still vandalism by definition?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Although Badagnani did not respond here, certainly saw notice – about 1.5 hours later edited own Talk, and was taken to WP:WQA by 2 more editors (administrators?) for that infraction, too.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- 48h, per this and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Badagnani William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Liu Tao reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 48h)
- Page: Republic of China Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Liu Tao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: 18:25, 14 July 2009
- 1st revert: 15:49, 15 July 2009
- 2nd revert: 19:41, 15 July 2009
- 3rd revert: 19:48, 15 July 2009
- 4th revert: 20:07, 15 July 2009
NB, this edit was part of the third revert, which restored text previously removed.
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:49, 15 July 2009
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19:59, 15 July 2009
Liu has twice been blocked for edit-warring on this page. We also had a discussion with him on the talk page, but because he couldn't gain consensus for the change he re-started edit-warring. He has now tried to continue edit-warring by simply removing the text he doesn't like, claiming it's not a revert (despite the fact I've explained to him that policy says it is).
He isn't listening, so I had to bring it here. John Smith's (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have not broken the 3RR rule. I have only made 2 reversions then stopped. My third edit towards the article was to restore the previous vandalisation done by Smith. My 4th edit was to remove information and POV that had no consensus reached or evidence to back up. I did not break the 3RR rule, all my edits were done in response to discussions in the Talks as well as to fix and revert vandalisations done by others. Liu Tao (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have not started edit war either. About the consensus, none was ever reached. I had pleaded and begged for them to continue discussing about the issue, but they refused and chose to ignore my discussions and points. They are the ones who have refused to discuss the matter and chose to edit the article by their own wills. There are multiple of them but only one of me, for each edit they make are multiple reversions I have to make to remove their unsupported and non-consented edits. Liu Tao (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Form. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Wikireader41 on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (result: Prot)
- Page: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Wikireader41 (talk · contribs)
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
User:Wikireader41 has violated wp:3rr by reverting Kanwar Pal Singh Gill four times in one single day. Please seerevert 1,revert 2,revert 3 andrevert 4.
- Please note that the text in question (which is several rows long) was NEVER deleted, initially it wasflagged by editors and finally some other editor duly preserved in theTalk: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill to discuss its notability and to reach wp:consensus.
- 4 Editors opposed this text User Talk:135.214.150.104-a Paramus-New Jersey based IP, User:209.183.55.111-a Dallas texas based editor, User Talk:99.51.223.161-myself and a User Talk:144.160.130.16-a San Jose- California based editor. Editors have participated in the discussion as well.
- July 9th - User: Wikireader41 asked for some reference from editors (ideally to accept their logic)
- July 11th-He was provided what he had asked.
- But he DID NOT agree with what he had originally asked and now he has started asking for 10,000 references from the opposing editors. wp:pov
- User:Wikireader41 did not care for the ongoing discussion between july 9th (the 1st day he asked for reference) and today, i.e. July 16th 2009 (he was already done with several reverts). Initially he deleted the related wiki tages several times in a row and then he started reverting the article to forcefully add the text into the article. wp:pov, wp:consensus
- Further, Please note that User: Wikireader41 was previouslyblocked] because of his known POV pushing history.--99.51.223.161
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
This is a serious violations and need to be looked at.yousaf465' 06:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- 2009-07-16T05:33:10 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) m (45,543 bytes) (Protected Kanwar Pal Singh Gill: ew ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not enough. In pervious cases which I have seen it's both side as for yellowmonkwy is concerned a case is going on against him in which wikireader41 is [invloved]. Interstingly Yellowmonkey also broke wp:3rr there.yousaf465'
- I was not aware if someone had already filed a complaint based on my rough/un-detailed contents which I had posted on some administrator's talk page and on some un-related notice board. I have gathered enough sources to document this case based on the template of this notice-board, I request Administrators to look into my contents and PLEASE DECIDE. As previously complained by another editor, User:YellowMonkey is already facing POV charges at "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" where Editor in questions, i.e. User:Wikireader41 is the only editor supporting User:YellowMonkey. So while considering this relationship, I make a humble request to rest of wikipedia administrators to make an impartial decision on my complaint which I am putting below:
- Page: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Wikireader41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (and IP 209.224.239.164 (talk · contribs · 209.224.239.164 WHOIS) )
- Previous version reverted to: [16]
- 1st revert: [17]
- 2nd revert: [18]
- 3rd revert: [19]
- 4th revert: [20]
- Repeat Offender: Wikireader41 was previously blocked for WP:EW and WP:POV violations.
- Warning: Warned by other editor
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- July 9th 2009 – Initially the text was being tagged by editors but Wikireader41 kept deleting the tags, see here and here
- July 9th 2009 - Wikireader41 asked for some reference from opposing editors (ideally to accept their logic), which was provided to him
- July 14th 2009 – After receiving no further challenge from Wikireader41, another editor cut and moved the text in question to the article’s talk page to reach wp:consensus but Wikireader41, after putting an unrealistic demand for at-least 1000-10000 further references, he reverted the article and kept on reverting it[1][2][3] . By doing so he has clearly violated wp:consensus, by forcefully restoring the text (which was never deleted but actually preserved in the talk page) he has violated wp:pov and by reverting this article several times he has violated WP:EW.
- This editor Wikireader41 and IP User: 209.224.239.164 is clearly the same editor, however there's now four reverts from the account User:Wikireader41 anyway. Despite this case, User:Wikireader41’s previous history shows that he is a known violator of wp:pov and WP:EW , which resulted in his previous “48 Hours of Blocking ” by respected Wikipedia Administrators. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- As previously complained by another editor, User:YellowMonkey is already facing POV charges at "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" where Editor in questions, i.e. User:Wikireader41 is the only editor supporting User:YellowMonkey. So while considering this relationship, I make a humble request to rest of wikipedia administrators to make an impartial decision on my complaint. Kindly consider it very serious.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also User:YellowMonkey had already protected the page after recieving a message from User:Wikireader41. So in other words he was not aware of my detailed complaint in this case. Hence! It need your kind attention. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Wladthemlat reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h)
- Page: Banská Bystrica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Wladthemlat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It looks like user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Checkuser already requested.
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by administrator [25]
B@xter9 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Gorillasapiens reported by User:Teahot (result: 24h)
- Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Gorillasapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gorillasapiens appears to be on a continued campaign, using the talk page and this article as a soapbox as well as continuing to revert other editors with the same issue and disrupting improvement to the article. I have offered some suggestions as to how to proceed on the talk page but they have been ignored. In addition to the above list of reverts given by Destinero, here are the most recent two examples:
—Teahot (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note, User:Gorillasapiens has recently raised a request on wp:3O. However, I believe their history of reversions on this page still requires review.—Teahot (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Verbal (Result: 24 hours)
- Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 20:25, 15 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored corrections") (Version generally reverted to, also a revert)
- 21:52, 15 July 2009 (edit summary: "once again undoing the work of reckless, anti-science vandals")
- 09:50, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored corrections and removed uncited allegation that scientists have accused him of pseudoscience")
- 09:52, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reception */ restored censored statement from two biologists in support of Sheldrake") (These are two sequential reverts, hence count as one)
- 10:31, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
- 11:39, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored material censored by anti-Sheldrake fanatic")
- Diff of warning: here
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rupert Sheldrake User has been warned and reverted by at least three different editors who have questioned his contributions.
- User attempting to justify why his reverts aren't in violation of 3RR on my talk page.
—Verbal chat 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:99.254.62.8 reported by User:EEMIV (Result: LAME)
- Page: Coraline (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 99.254.62.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [26]
(I believe there are others earlier than the first one listed here)
Point of contention is whether it's "jerkwad" or "jerk wad." Muy importante. This is technically not a 3RR violation (given the 24+-hour window of edit warring). However, the sheer number of reverts and counter-reverts -- including one after a 3RR warring -- make this a clear violation in spirit.
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]
I'll add as a PS that User:Montana's Defender has been the other half of the edit war. Although he hasn't technically violated 3RR, he's well aware of the policy and has thoroughly broken it in spirit, too. Per his MO, he's reverted the IP editor without initiating in any sort of talk-page discussion. He placed the warning on the IP editor's talk page, and I placed one on his for edit-warring in kind. Frankly, I believe both the IP and MD should receive the usual block. --EEMIV (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Added to WP:LAME, thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Edokter reported by User:Arcayne (Result: both warned)
- Page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/policy/manual (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/policy/manual|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Edokter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [37]
- 1st revert: 17:50 July 15
- 2nd revert: 18:21 July 15
- 3rd revert: 11:05 July 16
- 4th revert: 12:05 July 16
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:46 July 15
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:20 July 15 and subsequent posts
The user is seeking to reframe a mediation dispute by altering the content of the dispute by adding false information, and subsequently edit-warring about its inclusion.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment – Edokter appears to have been acting in good faith, to keep to the required structure and to keep things in order. Would it not have been better to discuss his reasons for dispute with him? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Argh. This is all a bit cr*p. Ed *has* broken 3RR and should know well enough not to do so. OTOH I had assumed that the links A provided to attempt-to-resolve and warning were valid; they aren't. Unblocking for now at least, anyone else wants to look please feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I tried and failed, as Edokter refused to discuss the matter. Edokter created a flawed RfC that is alterably different from the initial, more neutral RfC, and my comment was to point out the flaw, instead of substituting the original. Had Edokter been interested in listening, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead, he thought breaking 3RR seemed a better idea. He was warned about refactoring the posts of others, and chose to ignore it, violating 3RR. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I tried and failed, as Edokter refused to discuss the matter. Edokter created a flawed RfC that is alterably different from the initial, more neutral RfC, and my comment was to point out the flaw, instead of substituting the original. Had Edokter been interested in listening, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead, he thought breaking 3RR seemed a better idea. He was warned about refactoring the posts of others, and chose to ignore it, violating 3RR. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As well, Edokter has been an editor an admin here long enough to be aware of something as simple as 3RR; my warning was to ask him to not refactor my posts - a request that Edokter promptly ignored. We do not refactor the article- or process-discussions of others, and - unless I'm grossly mistaken - we certainly don't violate 3RR to do so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to think that this is an IAR situation. He was honestly trying, as I think WMC noticed (and thanks for unblocking, by the way!), to keep the flow and structure. It looked more like you were undoing all his separate honest efforts. I think we should just put this one down to a breakdown in communication and move on quickly! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec x2)I disagree. This is not the first time that Edokter has swerved dangerously close to 3RR in the past, this was no exception. He did not choose to discuss his edits, he just made them, and to hell with my comments and requests. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) This (as in, this situation that you've both got yourselves into) is stupid. You should both know better. If either of you reverts there again I'll certainly block you. However, you may both be reassured that without a doubt any number of eyes have now looked at that page. If there is any remaining problem, people will edit it. But not you. Should you feel like discussing the question further, why you could use the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Tried that in the mediation discussion. The mediator blanked it as "unprofessional"(1), effectively ending discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC).
- And I would point out that the current version is the problem, and one that folk visiting it would not be initially aware of. Indeed, the version assumes its conclusion, and any folk visiting the discussion would have already been influenced as to the outcome. It is flawed on its face. Either way, removing clarifying instruction was a 3RR vio from an editor (and admin) who should very well know better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:ViperNerd reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: warned all round 24h / 1 week)
- Page: Tupolev Tu-160 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: ViperNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Note: the user is not over the bright line, but has made over 4 separate, arbitrary reverts with really rotten justifications; and is making no effort to edit collaboratively, nor is he follow the relevant wiki policy.
- attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page: User_talk:ViperNerd#tu-160
- attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tupolev_Tu-160#Non-English_Sources
User has been repeatedly reverting edits by arbitrarily removing non english language references. He quotes the policy, then acts as if it says something else. In effect, he's inventing his own policy and then enforcing it by deleting/reverting.
He edit wars while his subject line says 'Edit warring solves nothing.' He's insulting on the talk page, and acts as if he owns the article, while accusing me of owning the article (I don't consider the claim that I am owning the article has any merit at all, I've got literally a handful of edits there, he's on about 20 consecutive, many of them simply deletions or reversions). The user ViperNerd has been suspended for edit warring for long periods before. The user is being very tiresome, and seems to be using the 3RR rule contrary to its intended spirit.
In short I've never seen a more clearcut example of edit warring, although he has not made 4 reverts my understanding is that this is not required, and this seems to be very clear cut edit warring by him.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reporting user has also been blocked more than once for edit warring, so if we're judging by past actions here, there you go. Also, this user seems to believe that just because the first source one stumbles across is non-English, that it's fine to quit right there and use it to ref statements in the article. In short, this editor is interpreting the guideline as he wants it to be, not as it was intended. It took me very little time to replace several Russian language refs in the article with English language ones (per WP guideline), is it too much to ask the same of others who want to edit this article? I did more to improve sourcing on this article (which is still in desperate need of more) in one day than this user has done in months, but somehow that's "edit warring" in the eyes of an editor who seems to think that article ownership and lazy, unverifiable sourcing are acceptable on Wikipedia these days. ViperNerd (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The user is simply aggressively removing anything that he wishes for a completely non policy reason; the policy says that non english references are acceptable, but English sources are preferred- the user is just edit warring them all out, and is being pretty insulting as well, as you can see. Examination of the edits to the article shows clearly that I am not owning the article in any way; but the same is not true of ViperNerd. The user needs to stop edit warring.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- If by "edit warring" you mean replacing utterly unverifiable Russian language sources with reliable English language sources, then yes, I'm guilty as charged. It's really not that difficult, maybe you could try it sometime. Policy states that foreign language sources are only acceptable if NO ENGLISH SOURCE CAN BE FOUND, and even then the foreign source must meet the standard of WP:RS, so the burden of proof falls on the person providing the source. Like I've pointed out several times, I found English sources with mere minutes of looking for them, are you suggesting that you cannot do the same? ViperNerd (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The user is simply aggressively removing anything that he wishes for a completely non policy reason; the policy says that non english references are acceptable, but English sources are preferred- the user is just edit warring them all out, and is being pretty insulting as well, as you can see. Examination of the edits to the article shows clearly that I am not owning the article in any way; but the same is not true of ViperNerd. The user needs to stop edit warring.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Vipernerd vs Wolfkeeper sounds like some exciting wrestling federation title bout. Sadly its just a tedious edit war, but not a 3RR violation since they are well out of 24h. VN appears to be removing sources for spurious reasons. e.g. [42]: just because *you* can't verify it doesn't make it unverifiable William M. Connolley (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- He's systematically removing all my edits, and has just done it again, immediately after your warning.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow...just, wow. "Your" (WP:OWN much?) edits/sources do not support the material you are attempting to add to the article, and this was explained in the edit summary. Either find a reliable source that verifies the material you wish to add, or stop attempting to add it. It's really that simple. I assumed good faith in believing that you understood that basic tenant of Wikipedia. Please read up on it if this is not the case. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
*That* is more like it - now you're living up to your names. And all caps too - extra points. 24h both William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC) [Update: in view of past history, VN gets bumped up to a week William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)]
- User:ViperNerd still seems to be edit warring while blocked.[43], I've put a sockpuppet request check in, and I probably going to call for semiprotection of the article as well if he does it again.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
User:173.109.97.127 reported by User:Vexorg (Result: No violation)
- Page: John Beyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 173.109.97.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Beyer&oldid=302278559
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Beyer&oldid=302278559
This anonymous editor is using different IPs but is clearly the same person. The excuse for his/her reverts is WP:BLP, however the reverts are info describing the organisation he belonged to.
I have notified the user of this report, however it may change IP..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.109.97.127
Vexorg (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:David Fuchs reported by User:Despayre (Result: )
- Page: Star Trek: First Contact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: David Fuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [44]
- 1st revert: [45]
- 2nd revert: [46]
- 3rd revert: [47]
- 4th revert: He won't answer on article or usertalk page, no reason to believe he won't revert again if I restore the sourced info
Also please review exact same process at [48]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page (2 sections, "ST:TWOK revert, and "First Contact budget"). (Also review the edit summaries of the two articles): [50]
Also, I just (finally) received this on my talkpage, doesn't seem very likely to change his ways, does he? --Despayre (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The third "revert" listed was an extension of my second; I had removed incorrect information but accidentally left the ref used in. If you can't be bothered to actually look for quality sources, I'm sorry if I sound snippy. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- My edits did not contain "incorrect information". You reverted my sourced verifiable edits with material that was unsourced entirely! As per WP:Burden, if you can't prove your material, I will have to remove it and go with reliably sourced material. If you only have a hard-copy of your source please provide a quote backing up your claim, along with your reference. If you have a problem with my sources, please discuss on the talk pages, that's what they're for. --Despayre (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I really can't bring myself to care about the tedious details of some movie. Yet again, I'm amazed at the tedia people edit war over. It doesn't look like a technical vio to me, but I think someone else should judge this William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Got enough of the tedious details of some climate change topic, eh? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Dr.enh reported by User:Lionelt (Result: warned)
- Page: Traditional marriage movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Dr.enh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [51]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] (see Edit Summary)
I am a Novice Editor, and this is my first experience with an aggressive editor. I believe Dr.enh has violated 3RR, at least in spirit anyway, but I am unsure. I copied the Diff's as best I could: hope they meet your requirements. Lionelt (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No technical vio (1st revert on the 14th) and no reverts since your warning. Will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Wikireader41 reported by User:99.51.223.161 (Result: already decided)
- Page: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See above. Don't re-add this William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:76.114.133.44 reported by User:KeltieMartinFan (Result:24 hours)
- Page: Rebecca Quick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Previous version reverted to: [59]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65] (see Edit Summary)
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]
This editor, who has no formal experience editing on wikipedia according to his history, has put unsource, speculative, and rather inappropriate edits to Rebecca Quick’s article pertaining to her martial status. I tried to undo this questionable edit by this edit, but everytime I did, it is reverted right back to the same controversial information. When I tried warning him, this editor still did not comply, and still continue with his ruthless reverts. So I told him, enough’s enough. There is no official source stating Rebecca Quick’s martial status in the past. And this obnoxious editor is putting information that is unsource and in direct violation of the living person’s biography, and is unwilling to back off in his shrewd ways by engaging in this edit war that I don’t want. I afraid that if I revert for a fourth time, I would subject myself to the 3RR policy. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Dvj2009 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: No violation)
Long term edit warring over a content dispute with several other editors. Editor keeps removing verified assertion with multiple reliable sources claiming defamation and untruth in the Mimi Macpherson article.[67][68][69][70][71] The issue was also discussed at biographies of living people noticeboard but the discussion lapsed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for 3RR. I'm asking administrators to intervene in a long-term edit war. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Disfasia reported by User:Mathieugp (Result: )
As recommended by User:Jezhotwells over at WP:EAR (under "Censorship"), I report that there is continued edit warring at National Holiday (Quebec) over content pushed by User:Disfasia .
User:Disfasia edited two full paragraphs on June 16 which were first removed by Administrator User:FisherQueen ([72]) as WP:OR. User:FisherQueen attempted to explain the nature of the problem with User:Disfasia on User:Disfasia's talk page. After edit warrring with User:FisherQueen (and random others) all the way to June 21 ([73]), User:Disfasia complained of censorship (WP:EAR) and later disappeared.
He reappeared on July 14 and re-posted the same stuff, which I removed ([74]), which he reposted again on July 17 ([75]). This is where we are now. As User:FisherQueen seems somewhat on vacation ([76]), there has been no response to the re-occurrence of edit warring. Could someone who has time please take care of this. Thanks. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:EEng reported by User:Gavia immer (Result: warned)
- Page: Phineas Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [77]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]
EEng is a frequent editor of the article Phineas Gage whose work has greatly improved the article. However, he has repeatedly reverted today to remove an image of a 160-year-old daguerreotype from the article on spurious copyright grounds (and attempted to have the image deleted on Commons, which I mention only to say that he is entirely intractable on this matter). It does not appear that he will cease edit warring to remove the image under any circumstances. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Among other things, 3RR makes special allowance copyright matters, and I had and have good-faith reasons for believing those allowances applied here. I'll post full comments in about 24-48 hours. In the meantime, I note that John Vandenberg has proposed at [84] that the image stay out of the article until the copyright status is resolved. EEng (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Ferrylodge reported by User:MastCell (Result: 48h)
- Page: Clarence Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: 00:51, 17 July 2009 (two consecutive edits by Ferrylodge summarized in diff)
- 1st revert: 01:06, 17 July 2009 (undoes this preceding edit)
- 2nd revert: 01:13, 17 July 2009 (note edit summary)
- 3rd revert: 16:32, 17 July 2009 (undoes preceding edit)
- 4th revert: 01:07, 18 July 2009 (continues dispute, and partially undoes this preceding edit)
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Ferrylodge is familiar with 3RR, having been blocked 3 times previously for edit-warring, and has been handing out 3RR warnings in his edit summaries.
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Clarence Thomas#"Far left".
OK, I know this is 4 reverts in 24:01, but given that it's only a snapshot of the edit-warring, and given Ferrylodge's history, I've brought it here for review despite the 1-minute-beyond-24-hours grace window, which I'll assume is coincidental rather than an obvious gaming of 3RR. MastCell Talk 06:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- There was no 3RR violation. What there was was this: Mastcell admitted that he was seeking "insertion of more extreme and partisan terms" into a BLP. I objected at the talk page, and another editor concurred that I am right about this. Mastcell is in violation of several Wikipedia policies such as WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Serouj reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: 48h)
- Page: Armenians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Serouj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [85]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90] Also this user has previously been blocked for 3RR, so he is aware of the rule. [91]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92] There's a discussion at talk, but Serouj does not seem to be willing to wait for the outcome of the discussion. Grandmaster 08:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)