Dr. Blofeld (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 547: | Line 547: | ||
:::Here's a constructive comment - how about reading [[WP:OWN]]? I have as much right to comment on the article as you. Probably more so, since I seem to be approaching it as a serious subject, not a 'joke article' thrown together for a DYK. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
:::Here's a constructive comment - how about reading [[WP:OWN]]? I have as much right to comment on the article as you. Probably more so, since I seem to be approaching it as a serious subject, not a 'joke article' thrown together for a DYK. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::No more. Dispute resolution doesn't take place here.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
::::No more. Dispute resolution doesn't take place here.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::Indeed, it is a good thing to make a subject which would otherwise seem comical to be written to a good quality and actually produce a surprising scholarly article on it as a serious architectural form. This was also my intention, but work ''with'' me, not against me. Such an article is achievable, but they don't magically appear on day one. Placing a tag and hoping for a Professor in Phallicology to magically come along won't produce the results. Vigorous research and collaboration will produce results however. Do you think I'm an expert on [[Abbas Kiarostami]], [[William Burges]], [[Peter Sellers]] etc too? ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000">Dr. Blofeld</span>]] 19:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:18, 16 September 2012
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:Jokkmokks-Goran reported by User:Activism1234 (Result: Declined)
Page: 2002 Hebron ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jokkmokks-Goran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: [1] this is reinserting info that was previously removed a few days ago. In fact, we discussed this on the talk page, and a look at it shows only Jokks supports putting it in, while no one else does - there isn't consensus to put it back in. He didn't bother to even comment on the talk page about it...
- 2nd revert: [2] (reinserts this and other info after I removed it today) and this nonsensical revert
- Article is under ARBPIA, 1RR.
Look at his contributions/user talk page history - he has extensive dealings in the area.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3] - as mentioned above, despite not having consensus to put it back in, he simply ignored the talk page and put it in a few days later, without even commenting on the talk page.
Comments:
Activism, I don't think your reason for reverting in the edit summary, "Btselem is POV and can't be used unless mentioned in RS", is valid. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B.27Tselem (although note the editor there, Stellarkid, is a long term sockpuppeteer who was previously involved in the CAMERA campaign in Wikipedia). My understanding is that B'tselem is an RS with attribution, like Human Rights Watch or the IDF. Jokkmokks-Goran seems to be trying to build the article. It is not entirely clear why you aren't helping him. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy with discussing this further on the talk page of that article. Note though that Jokks also reinserted previously removed content for which there was an open discussion on the talk page without any consensus to put it back in, and after I removed it for that reason, reinserted it again, which is really the main reason I'm here. --Activism1234 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant, because it's not a content dispute but rather a clear breach of 1RR.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Activism, yes, it would have been better if he didn't do that. He should have continued to discuss it, but you must know that running straight here will reduce your chance of collaboration, which will ultimately damage the article. Shrike, it's not irrelevant that there is a dispute where an editor is unable to build an article based on RS and another editor feels it's necessary to file a 1RR report because they are not getting collaboration on the talk page. We're supposed to build articles but it's becoming increasingly difficult in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Activism1234 has repeated deleted all information concerning Israeli plans for and actual destruction of Palestinian houses in Hebron. I believe that this is highly relevant for the subject of the article. The material has reliable Israeli sources. He has not given any real reason why it should not be included.
- I didn’t notice that this was one of the things Activism1234 deleted. The other things he deleted were new additions to the article that had never been there before and therefore not “reverts” as I understand the term.
- He deleted two quotes from a report by B’Tselem on the pretext that it’s not a RS. He then also deleted the source. But this B’Tselem report had been included as a source in the article for a long time, supporting the additional claim that Hebron was subjected to a full six months of curfew.
- Then he deleted American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s reaction to the statements made by Powell and Annan in the “International reactions” section. I see no reason to exclude it. Activism1234 also gave no reason for this deletion.
- Then he changed the term “fighter from Hamas” to “Hamas militant” claiming that the former implied glorification of this person. I don’t think this is a particularly important point. But I believe that “fighter” is more neutral than “militant” and therefore more appropriate in Wikipedia.
- I made a rash decision and I am therefore guilty of violating the 1RR rule, at least technically. For that I’m sorry and I promise to be more careful next time. I’m also prepared to take my punishment for this.
- It is however apparent that me and Activism1234 cannot solve our differences on our own. He is pushing his political agenda very strongly. I feel Activism1234 does not seriously discuss the issues on the talk page. He repeatedly comes up with his own interpretations of events but never supply any sources backing this interpretation.
- His idea is that any information that he disapproves of, however well-sourced, should stay out of the article until we “reach consensus”. But that will never happen. We need the help of a third party. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- if it was a rash decision, and you truly regret it, why don't you simply go to that article and undo your last edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by They think it's all over (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have but I didn't realize my mistake until I was reported here. By then it would probably be seen as a hypocritical gesture. I am sorry for violating the 1RR rule. But I will continue trying to have the section included in the future. Without violating rules. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would actually work in your favor. I've seen a number of these reports closed with no adverse effect on the violator when they simply said "sorry, I've undone my violation and won't do it again". — Preceding unsigned comment added by They think it's all over (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to note that it's been over a day and Jokks has refused to revert... Apparently doesn't have any interest in doing so, and thus we have an edit of a 1RR violation remaining on the page for over an entire day... --Activism1234 23:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
?? It's been a few days and no decision has been made. Jokks himself wrote above, "I made a rash decision and I am therefore guilty of violating the 1RR rule, at least technically. For that I’m sorry and I promise to be more careful next time. I’m also prepared to take my punishment for this." --Activism1234 22:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Declined. I'm not going to block for a few reasons in no particular order. First, enforcement of the 1RR restriction is not mandatory ("may be blocked"). Second, the report is somewhat stale now, and Jokkmokks has not edited anything for a couple of days. Third, Jokkmokks has acknowledged the error and promised not to do it again, which, to some extent, makes any block punitive. Although I understand Jokkmokks' comment about self-reversion being seen as "hypocritical", I agree with They think it's all over that it would have still been seen as a constructive, even if belated, gesture to self-revert. I will leave a warning on Jokkmokks' talk page advising them that any future breach of the Arbcom restriction may be met with more severely than an apparent first-time violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Tjo3ya reported by User:Drew.ward (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Do-support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tjo3ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Do-support&oldid=512194142
- please see article history here: Do-support&curid=27357385&action=history
User has made a change from the aforementioned version that includes his opinion. This original change was unsigned as he was not logged in. I reverted and specified that the added statements were opinion. User logged in and reverted the change. I again reverted back and pointed out the reason. This has gone back and forth. In nearly each revert I have specified that the change requires an inline citation/reference to a source supporting this change if it is fact because otherwise it's just opinion. Previous discussions regarding this article have centered around specification that all statements in it have specific sources to back them up. This user has been one of the people making that demand but now refuses to provide proof for his own changes.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This behavior follows a pattern that has become all too common in linguistics and especially English language linguistics and grammar articles in which the person making a change is free to do so without sourcing yet then clamours that the editors reverting the unsubstantiated changes provide sources for their opposition. Sources for and discussion of changes should occur BEFORE making changes to an article and it should be up to the person proposing to change what already exists to prove his case, not the opposite with free license to claim anything and then requiring that the status-quo be justified instead.Drew.ward (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Funny, Tjo3ya has reported Drew at WP:AN for the same edit war (as well as some other things). I hate to say "blocks all around" even though users have violated 3RR here. It's possible that User:Victor Yus stopped the conflict with his own edits. How about an affirmation by both parties that they understand this sort of thing is inappropriate? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have repeated acknowledged that I too (unintentionally) also violated 3RR, but have also pointed out that as soon as I realised this and recognized that the dispute with Tjo3ya had become or was destined to become/continue to be an edit war, I walked away from the situation, leaving his change intact. That's the point at which I opened this report here. Regardless of what is thought of my views, my intentions are good and whether some feel that the debates that ensue are exasperating or not worthy of discussion, I think that if you look at the various threads, that I try to start every one as a friendly discussion but usually they deteriorate into personal attacks on me or insulting attacks on my views on the part of other editors. All I ever ask for in such discussions is equitable treatment and for everyone to hold themselves to the same standards of proof and sourcing and such that they demand of everyone else. Most seem unwilling to do so and behave along the lines of since they feel their argument is the accepted or standard one, that they don't have to provide anything to back up their views. I don't accept this and I don't think it's within the intent of wikipedia's policies. As to Tjo3ya's problems with me, I don't think it has anything to do with "do-support" or linguistics, but rather that I would have the gall to dare question his expertise which makes him angry and defensive as is obvious in his exchanges with me which instead of discussing whatever topic are just filled with personal attacks and insults.
- I had no intention of violating 3RR nor do I intend to do so in the future. I also had no intention of edit warring with Tjo3ya and tried to avoid that by repeatedly saying why I was reverting. Neither of us behaved in the best character toward the end, but when I recognized a problem I walked away. I am fine with the bulk of Viktor's changes and have been having a pleasant civil discussion with him regarding these on his talk page (something I rarely get the chance to do on here). Had Tjo3ya simply bothered to provide an citation for his changes, I would have gladly left his statements in place within that article as well (even though I don't agree with them). However, he wasn't willing to do that. And further, as we see from Viktor's version, it was perfectly possible to accomplish the original goal of improving the introduction without the opinions that Tjo3ya had added. Had he been willing to discuss the topic on the talk page, perhaps he and I would have come to agreement that resulted in something similar, but he chose a different route.Drew.ward (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- To judge the extent of the problem, I suggest spending a bit of time reading the exchanges. See Drew's behavior at the following pages: talk:do-support, talk:auxiliary verb, and currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Despite many attempts from me and from numerous other editors to get him to produce literature to back up his points, he will not do this. He prefers instead to overwhelm the exchange with excess verbiage filled with bizaar claims. The recent edit war between him and me at the article on do-support may have been necessary to draw attention to the greater problem. --Tjo3ya (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Would you believe that that actually doesn't justify edit warring or 3RR violations? Disruptiveness to draw attention to something is what's called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- To judge the extent of the problem, I suggest spending a bit of time reading the exchanges. See Drew's behavior at the following pages: talk:do-support, talk:auxiliary verb, and currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Despite many attempts from me and from numerous other editors to get him to produce literature to back up his points, he will not do this. He prefers instead to overwhelm the exchange with excess verbiage filled with bizaar claims. The recent edit war between him and me at the article on do-support may have been necessary to draw attention to the greater problem. --Tjo3ya (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Aeusoes, I'm not sure that this fits any of the guidelines identifying disruption. It certainly constitutes edit warring, but I don't think it constitutes pointy behavior. If you read the examples in the page you linked to, none fits the current scenario. In particular, I find the following message at the end of the page:
- A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that s/he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition.
- I was reinstating additions to the article that I believe in. My actions were in no way misrepresenting my belief about what is good linguistics and what is good Wikipedia information.
- Here's the basic problem: if noone draws full attention to Drew's behavior, he will continue the disruptions. From my point of view, I want as many editors to examine Drew's behavior as possible. Perhaps an unfortunate trait of humans is that nobody really pays much attention until there is real controversy. The controversy draws the attention that is necessary to perhaps move the situation toward a resolution.
- Furthermore, I find this statement on the page concerning edit warring and how to avoid/resolve it:
- The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute.
- Tjo3ya, seriously, what is wrong with you? Disagreeing with you is neither disruptive nor bad behavior. You have yet come up with a single example of ill-willed editing, disruptive editing, obstructive editing, or anything else on my part. The only thing you've shown is that when presented with a situation in which one of your (unsigned) edits was reverted due to it expressing unsourced/uncited opinion, rather than going to the talk page to discuss the matter, you yourself started and carried on an edit war. My mistake was letting your immature behavior drag me into it with you. If you really truly get so offended that someone would question your edits or expect you to actually defend your claims in open discussions, then why are you even on wikipedia? This whole situation has turned into a childish mess!Drew.ward (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Aeusoes, My suggestion is to block us both equally for a couple weeks. That will allow the administrators to remain on the fence - no danger to them about taking sides. We will both have some time to cool down. Anything to get this guy to shut up (for at least awhile). --Tjo3ya (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, let me try to make this situation more clear. I will now provide some diffs that illustrate how Drew operates. Here is one of the more extreme examples of the lengthy incoherent ramblings that he produces as he attempts to back up up his unsupported claims (unsupported because he does not back any of this up with literature):
- Here's an example of how he reacts when he is confronted with information that is not contained in his limited exposure to the linguistics literature:
- Here's an example of how he trashes the work of others (who have performed this work in good faith) as he begins a discussion:
- These three diffs are just a very small sampling of how this guy operates. Please spend a bit of time to take in some of the comments surrounding these diffs.
- To be clear, I don't think you were actually being pointy because I don't think you were deliberately thinking "I know this is disruptive but I'm going to do it anyway to draw attention to Drew Ward's behavior." I'm sure you edit warred because, as you said, you preferred your version. I was responding to your claim that, although you edit warred, it was okay because now it's allowed for a venue for administrators to scrutinize Drew's behavior. That doesn't justify it and it's probably not going to work. As I mentioned at the ANI you opened yesterday, if your intent is to draw administrative attention at problematic behavior by Drew Ward, the proper venue is not the ANI. Perhaps an WP:RFC or WP:Wikiquette assistance. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Tjo3ya, blocking is meant to prevent likely detrimental actions. I have neither ever intended nor performed detrimental actions and you have not been able to provide a single example to support such a claim. I doubt your activities have been based on intention on your own part to cause detriment to Wikipedia either. According to the rules, we both violated 3RR and we both participated in edit warring -- you intentionally, me unintentionally -- which regardless of intent is against the rules. In other words, both of us broke two rules. I neither intended to break those rules nor do I intend to break them in the future. Unless you yourself plan to break those rules again, I fail to see what the point in blocking either of us.
- Your continued attacks on me and your endless complaints about the way I write on talk pages make no sense, are baseless, and do nothing but make you seem childish. We are both adults. We are both linguists. We are both educators. Is it too much to ask that we act like it? If you so vehemently disagree with the points I raise in discussions, disagree with them. If you are certain I am wrong, then (without disparaging me or my views) explain why. If you have specific sources that support your views, post them. You keep saying that I don't tend to provide sources for the points I raise. You leave out two very important details in that statement. Such sourcing is within the context of discussions on talk pages, not in articles. You and others who have expressed frustration with my "style", generally instead of discussing and talking about something, just yell for sources and never bother to address the points raised. Second, the usual reason I don't bother to take the time out of my busy day to dig out sources and post them for you and others is because you constantly demand sources from me, yet refuse to provide sources for your own arguments. If you want me to actually take the time and effort to provide you a source, precede that request (and yes, it is possible to politely request rather than angrily demand), with sources for your own arguments! As I keep repeating when you guys demand one thing of others yet refuse to hold yourselves to the same standards: practice what you preach, and, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you post proper sources, I'll take the time to read them before responding to you. But if ever you ask me for a source, make sure you're willing to do the same. It makes no sense to provide a source especially one you probably won't bother to read because I have as yet not been in a single discussion with you in which you were the slightest bit willing to actually consider someone else' viewpoint when it differed from your own), if you're just going to ignore it and continue to argue or as usual, try to turn things into personal insults.
- Regarding this edit war and your proposed change to the "do-support" article, your continued reverts served no purpose other than adamant opposition to me. You have made it very very clear, and you continue to say everywhere on Wikipedia that you think you can find an audience, that you don't think I am competent enough to even be on here and especially not to edit or contribute to linguistics articles. You didn't keep reverting your change because someone disagreed with it. You reverted them because Drew.Ward disagreed with them! You've made that clear and you made it clear on your comments on the change log. You seem to have assumed you know a considerable amount about me. And you seem to obviously assume that I have ill intentions. You are incorrect in all of it. What you have however publicly shown and demonstrated through your actions is that you yourself did in fact commence and maintain an edit war with the active negative intent to break the rules so that you could spite me and so that you could attempt to find a public forum to berate me. You have even fabricated lies about me. And, you have made repeated statements that come very close to feeling like threats against me and promises to obstruct my activities as an editor.
- I have been editing articles and participating in discussions on this site for years longer than you have. Until now, I have never had to deal with anything even remotely related to this childish attempt to eliminate someone who you seem to have a personal problem with. I will continue to monitor articles and contribute to them. If I see a change or statement I feel runs counter to the policies of WP, I will take proper action as I did with your change on "do-support". I will also continue to question anything I don't agree with in talk pages and discussion boards because that is what they are for. I will also continue to not back down in the face of bullying. If you want to participate in such discussions and debate things in a civil way, I welcome it. However, if you feel you are unwilling or unable to effectively debate me or participate in academic discussions with me, or maybe if you're just not up to the task, or even if you simply feel it's not worth your time, then LEAVE ME ALONE! Don't comment on those threads. If you have nothing to offer a conversation, then stay out of it. But quite whining that someone should block me or kick me off wikipedia just because you get pissed off when someone disagrees with you and doesn't accept your self-confidence as sufficient grounds for ending a discussion.Drew.ward (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Although both editors were edit-warring, I blocked Tjo3ya because they changed the article after this report. That made no sense in light of this extensive argument, mixed in with confessions, accusations, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong here, Bbb23, it's not my intention to challenge your judgment, but your rationale doesn't make sense. You aren't saying that Tjo continued to edit war after this complaint was posted, are you? It was close, with Tjo's final revert preceding Drew's initiating this discussion by 12 minutes, but that last revert preceded Tjo' s own report by 12 hours, and the notification of this discussion by almost a full day. If you're referring to these two edits, I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you saying Tjo shouldn't have edited the article at all considering the contention around it? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Nlsanand and User:Kingjeff reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Protected)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Page: 2012 Toronto FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nlsanand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nlsanand engaged in an edit war with me over this subject less than 36 hours earlier.
Previous version reverted to: [4]
- 1st revert for Kingjeff: [5]
- 1st revert for Nlsanand: [6]
- 2nd revert for Kingjeff: [7]
- 2nd revert for Nlsanand including the taunt: [8]
- 3rd revert for Nlsanand: [9]
- 3rd revert for Kingjeff: [10]
- 4th revert for Nlsanand: [11]
- 5th revert for Nlsanand: [12]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both editors are experienced and Nlsanand even uses 3RR as a hammer to stop others from editing. He is well aware of the policy.
Kingjeff: [13]
Nlsanand: [14] and [15]
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page that's not getting very far.
Comments:
I invoked 3 revert rule at 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC), Walter then insisted on goading a new entrant to undo my edit without first reading the talk page. If you read the talk page, I always explained my edit clearly, and another poster was shown to see what I said accurate. Nlsanand (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd add that I took steps to neutralize the wording and told the other editors to take it to admin if they wanted. I'll own what I wrote. User:Walter Görlitz tried to disprove me first at various points then backed off. He then just tried to get another user to re-start the edit war. Nlsanand (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. I simply pointed-out the discrepancy on the talk page. No goading required. No goading was required for an editor to make 5 reverts on the article though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't an edit war three days 36 hours before either. It was civil. talk had reverted an edit of mine in good faith. I pointed out that his source was incorrect, by explanation in the talk page. Just to make it clear, it could be disproved in simple words and said that I would invoke the 3 revert rule if he chose not to engage me and simply revert. You can read the talk page and see the sequence. Then, Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who chose not to read the same talk page) made the same mistake. Instead, of making Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aware of the same mistake, talk said (and I paraphrase), "You should go ahead and edit it again" That sounds like goading to me. Nlsanand (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. It was an edit war. I changed it (my first revert). You changed it back (your first revert). I reverted based on the supplied RS (my second revert). You changed it back (your second revert). Seems like an edit war to me.
- From Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."
- My exact comment was "Then you might want to update the lede to reflect that". It was simply an acknowledgement to Kingjeff that the lede and body no longer agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. It was an edit war. I changed it (my first revert). You changed it back (your first revert). I reverted based on the supplied RS (my second revert). You changed it back (your second revert). Seems like an edit war to me.
I added reliable sources that clearly backed-up my point on the talk page. The first source came last night and I added two more sources. Walter Görlitz added a fourth source. All four sources are credible. I have asked Nlsanand to provide a credible source. He has failed to do so up to this point. He has only provided a message board as a source on the talk page. If you take a look at Nlsanand's edits, on both the article and the talk page, you will see that he has provided nothing more than original research. Whereas I have provided credible sources. Kingjeff (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kingjeff stopped at the bright line, but as edit warring goes, sources don't give us leave to edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I want to make thing clear. I believe I am correct and Nlsanand is wrong. Nlsanand is in violation of WP:OR. He has failed to produce a credible source that backs him up after being asked too. I personally added three sources and Walter Görlitz added a fourth. I don't understand why my name was added here since my edits were in compliance of WP:OR. Kingjeff (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I've protected the article. No comment on the edit warring, but constant reverting can't be tolerated. GedUK 11:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of IDHT, it's a matter of sources, and it seems both have a point. The fact is the edit war is unacceptable and the actions of the editors should now be addressed.
- And when I say now, I mean that this issue is close to 24 hours old and nothing has been done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am citing WP:CALC, as another poster has alerted me to it. Again, the math is self-evident. I have still not seen Walter Görlitz state that he disagrees. He simply keeps deflecting and saying (and I paraphrase) that "There are sources that say they were eliminated on the 12th". Nlsanand (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Walter: Agreed, edit warring is unacceptable whether you think your edits are correct or not. However, I'd point out that you yourself made four reverts within 48h ([16], [17], [18], [19]) so you're hardly blameless in this. Yes you stopped short of the bright line of 3RR, but you WP:TAGTEAMed with Kingjeff to insert the date of the 12th into the article in spite of the lack of consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fully agree that I made 4 edits over 48 hours, but the fact that Kingjeff and I have the same opinion at the outset does not explain why I reverted in the end and my edit summary is clear as to why I made mine. If you're counting my 4 over 48 then Nlsanand is at seven. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look, then I'm going to point out, another editor also noted how it was clear they were eliminated on the 6th (take a look at the talk page. Furthermore, Kingjeff's talk page contributions showed a general misunderstanding of the issue, and a general unwillingness to engage in discussion (or at least an inability to understand the issue at hand). An experienced editor like Walter Görlitz understood that when he encouraged this general misunderstanding. Nlsanand (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fully agree that I made 4 edits over 48 hours, but the fact that Kingjeff and I have the same opinion at the outset does not explain why I reverted in the end and my edit summary is clear as to why I made mine. If you're counting my 4 over 48 then Nlsanand is at seven. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Walter: Agreed, edit warring is unacceptable whether you think your edits are correct or not. However, I'd point out that you yourself made four reverts within 48h ([16], [17], [18], [19]) so you're hardly blameless in this. Yes you stopped short of the bright line of 3RR, but you WP:TAGTEAMed with Kingjeff to insert the date of the 12th into the article in spite of the lack of consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am citing WP:CALC, as another poster has alerted me to it. Again, the math is self-evident. I have still not seen Walter Görlitz state that he disagrees. He simply keeps deflecting and saying (and I paraphrase) that "There are sources that say they were eliminated on the 12th". Nlsanand (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Buddy, anyone who looked at the talk page would see a clear pattern of not engaging in consensus building. I feel like you're trying to use my lack of knowledge of Wiki rules (I'll own it, it's clear that I didn't really fully understand the 3-revert rule) to hide the fact that you're trying to claim ownership of the article and not willing to admit that you got it wrong. Kingjeff's edits were just clearly wrong, so my reverts had to be done. Even if his math was accurate, his edits were still wrong; he was using the 13th, not the 12th. Your most recent posts show a clear lack of civility on your part. I will note that you had the decency never to lie, but you have deflected from the fact that my math was clearly correct (which is supported by at least two other users who have opined on the talk page). You seem to be using your knowledge of the rules to attempt to piss people off, and in this case it at least seems like you're not really doing it with any intent of making the article better. If my violation of a bright line rule warrants a block, I'll accept that from the administrators. However, if you review the content, the talk page, and the malicious editing against which I was defending the article, I don't believe it's warranted. Moreso, I think it calls the pair of you a lot more into quesiton. Nlsanand (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
My edits were wrong? I put in a statement and I sourced it. How are my edits are wrong? A contributor's edits are not wrong just because you disagree. Kingjeff (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Page protected - Ten days, by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Terrible precedent. I am marking this decision not to block for going well past 3RR and will point to it as my only reason for doing so myself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:DePiep reported by User:WaitingForConnection (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Hillsborough Independent Panel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26] [27] [28]
Comments: There was also an attempt to remove a CSD tag despite being the creator, an acknowledgement of what 3RR was after the warning, and the latter two diffs above were reverts of two uninvolved admins, who both concurred with my decision to redirect.
—WFC— FL wishlist 22:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I created the page in good faith (the very need to mention this). WFC accused me of 3RR ("technically"?!) when I only had done 3 edits in toto: [29]. I removed CSD tag? Read my "oops". Here are three edits by WFC, quite early in the process: 1: change page into redirect 2: again 3: adding tag Speedy. How is that for warring? The notion that some edits were reverts of two uninvolved admins does not weigh: I am not to know that it is an admin who edits, nor should it matter. I am to weigh an edit by quality, not by admin's arrogance. Interestingly, and annoyingly, another editor upped that same argument: [30][31]). In general: WFC does one-sided counting & observing. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- My initial redirect was on the basis of Talk:Hillsborough disaster#Hillsborough Independent Panel article. My second redirect was because I strongly believed that it was in the interests of the reader to be directed to the Hillsborough disaster article unless the new page went significantly beyond the information there, and based on my belief (which has subsequently proven correct) that other users would concur. Once reverted a second time, I tagged under CSD A10, to get the attention of an uninvolved administrator, who answered the tag by redirecting. I have made no subsequent edits to the page, and have several times attempted to explain my reasoning. My assertion about a technical breach of 3RR was in relation to the corresponding edits DePiep made to the hatnote at Hillsborough disaster – in hindsight this was incorrect, as it goes without saying that if a specific article exists, a hatnote should point to it. Nonetheless, 3RR has been breached – a status quo achieved through a breach of 3RR and editing regardless of the talk page comments made by myself, Struway, Peridon and others cannot be right. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- DePiep, you are just coming off a block for a 1RR violation of ARBPIA restriction. I've seen you around to think you are intentionally being obtuse here. You're often quick to note how every admin is arrogant and abusive, yet you claim you don't know one when you see one. My points on your talk page and the article talk page speak for themselves, and the history at the article is clear. I've tried to just end the problem, but I will leave this up to the neutral 3RR specialists to do the counting, since I've warned you about 3RR in other cases, and had to decline an unblock request from you just the other day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Also for multiple removals of the speedy deletion tag as the article's author (you don't have to "remember" the rule - it says so on the tag in bold). Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Afgtnk and User:144.132.28.156 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 hours for both)
Page: Sport in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Afgtnk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 144.132.28.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 10:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
User:Afgtnk contributions
|
---|
|
- Diff of warning: here
User:144.132.28.156 contributions
|
---|
|
- Diff of warning: here
The whole thing is a mess. —Bidgee (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Bandwidth47 reported by User:KnowledgeisGood88 (Result: 24 hours)
Page: High Point University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bandwidth47 (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: [37]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]
Comments:User Bandwidth47 has deleted a passage of text six times without comment, four times within 24 hours, and four times marking the changes a minor. I have added comments when replacing the deleted text, and on the talk pages above explaining that the text contains factual references to a reputable national publication and is pertinent to the article. User has not responded other than by repeated reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeisGood88 (talk • contribs) 15 September 2012—
- Comment by non-admin user: A quick check of the article showed that User:Bandwidth47 has introduced large tracts of text copied verbatim from copyrighted sources, hence massive WP:COPYVIO violations. I rolled the article back to the last stable version (see diff here) and suggested that the policy be read carefully before attempting to re-introduce the material. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. AzureCitizen, thanks for catching the copyright violations. I have posted a warning about the violations on the editor's talk page to make sure they know about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Sayerslle reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Both blocked 72h)
Page: Hafez al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I told user that he should take the problem to the talk page, but insted he continued edit-warring. He adds this source that can't be verified and the claim is not at all generally accepted by the reliable sources. I don't know who stated this in this documentary, it can be someone's personall oppinion or an interview.
In his edit summary, the User called me "a dictator" ("its hard to talk to dictators") and accused me of censoring.
--Wüstenfuchs 20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. 3RR violation on both sides, both editors have a block history including edit warring. --Chris (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria reported by Rreagan007 (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page: Ray Farquharson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 04:07, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "image placement")
- 12:46, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
- 15:37, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
- 01:49, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
Comments: Upon viewing today’s featured article, I was surprised to discover that there was no image in the infobox, as is standard formatting on Wikipedia when a free use image is available per WP:Images. I then added the available free use image to the infobox along with a couple other parameters to the infobox. Upon viewing the article again a few hours later, I discovered the image had been removed. I assumed it was just a routine case of vandalism of today’s featured article as often happens, so I added the image back.
I just now looked at the article again, and I discovered the image had disappeared yet again. I then took a look at the article history, and discovered that Nikkimaria had been reverting any additions to the infobox by me and at least 4 other good faith editors within the last 24 hours. This activity clearly violated the 3 revert rule. I then took a look at her user page and was shocked to discover she is actually an administrator.
Not only that, but it also appears from her edit summaries that she was using Twinkle rollback privileges to do these reverts, which is a clear violation of the Twinkle abuse policy and would be, on its own, grounds for a block.
There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior by an admin, as an admin is expected to know and follow Wikipedia policies, and should be setting an example for other editors to follow. Per Administrator conduct policy, “Administrators are expected to lead by example… Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies”.
An admin blatantly violating Wikipedia policies in this manner is totally unacceptable conduct by an admin and must be dealt with accordingly.
—Rreagan007 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, wasn't using Twinkle, all these edits were manual. I was, however, maintaining the quality of a featured article that was then on the main page, which does allow for some leeway under the edit-warring policy. If, in the process of monitoring changes and vandal edits to that article, I stepped over the line, I apologize for that. I invite Rreagan007 to discuss his/her views on image placement on the talk page, where this discussion belongs, and entreat him/her not to engage in such disputes while an article is mainpaged. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Declined. Not the appropriate forum to request review of an administrator's actions or request sanctions. Best would be to work it out in light of Nikkimaria's apology.Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User:CristofolR reported by User:Ravave (Result: Protected)
Page: Salvador Puig Antich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CristofolR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ravave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In the last days i had a little edition war with CristofolR about the nationality of Puig Antich, when i'd be wrote is a "Spanish anarchist", he was born in Catalonia (region), Spain (country), but the user seems to be dislike and undoing me. A few days another user we warned if we continue with this, we will blocked. 7 september i contact with him in his user tak page with the hope to reach an agreement, but days later he answer me without reach and acord and turns to edit. I just say he was an Spanish anarchist cause Barcelona is Spain, you see the history page for its last editions
- 1st revert: [43] 16-sept
- 2nd revert: [44] 28- aug
- 3rd revert: [45] 22-aug
- 4th revert: [46] 17-aug
- 5th revert: [47] 16-aug
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
In the talk page, for reach an agree, i ask days ago to Christofol to reach an agree, but he hasn't Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48].Ravave (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Revision history
6 reverts in one day, user in constant edit war, was warned by other user he would break the rule but still continued.
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. (There were not six reverts in one day.) Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Sopher99 reported by User:2001:470:4B:59:A800:32FF:FEEA:B701 (Result: Declined)
User has been in long edit wars and has been warned by another user he would break the rules and still continued
Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512874644&oldid=512841646
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512881723&oldid=512881024
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512885014&oldid=512883614
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512900320&oldid=512899687
- 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512907277&oldid=512904628
- 6th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512912361&oldid=512908259
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:4B:59:A800:32FF:FEEA:B701 (talk • contribs)
- Declined I'm declining for various (mostly procedural) reasons. First, despite the comment at the top, I couldn't find any edit-warring warning. Second, there was no notification of this report; despite my decline, I've notified Sopher99. The IP address just started editing yesterday, and with the exception of one edit to another talk page, the only edits have been to create this report - I suspect block evasion based on the article and blocking history.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to contest this. I was not warned on my talkpage about the edit warring, and some of those reverts were me reverting vandalism (obvious breaches of Wikipedia policy) Sopher99 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User: 116.71.16.36 reported by User:Electriccatfish2 (Result: 72 hours)
Page: Mouse (computing) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 116.71.16.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- Note: The edit war is still ongoing, so please check the article's history for more diffs.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User:Dr. Blofeld reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Declined)
Page: Phallic architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [54]
This is a dispute about an {{{{expert-subject-multiple}}}} template I added to the newly-created Phallic architecture article. As I've explained on the talk page, I think the article needs expert attention, but Dr. Blofeld seems intent on edit-warring over the template without ant discussion beyond an assertion that "it is... ridiculous to suggest that phallic architecture has an 'expert' who is likely to edit wikipedia" (edit summary to this revert [59]) As I've pointed out in the ongoing discussion on my talk page "The subject clearly isn't just 'architecture' anyway - it is as much about sociology and anthropology for a start." (see User talk:AndyTheGrump#Phallic_architecture). Essentially, as I see it, Blofeld is asserting that there are no 'experts', so nobody can improve the article, in spite of the obvious flaws I've indicated on the talk page, and he seems to want to edit-war over it. He is only at three reverts so far, but clearly refuses to address the issue properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Does any admin here seriously think that an article on architecture which resembles a penis will have an army of experts swarming to come to wikipedia and improve it. The tag is about as pointless as you can get. I'm not an expert on most of the subjects I edit, I'm a good researcher though and work well if I'm allowed to happily edit without obstruction. I am keen to constructively address the article providing you back off and stop being a grump basically. I've requested the article from JSTOR you wanted from Bgwhite. If you spent more of your time trying to solve what you think is the problem yourself instead of removing a lot of material, fussing about it on the article talk page and then wondering why other editors think your slopping an "Expert tag" on the top of a highly obscure article is highly inappropriate you'd get on a lot better with your fellow editors. You've gatecrashed this article from the moment I started it and you've put me off working on for fear of you reverting me and me wasting my time. Just back off.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Declined. As Andy acknowledges, only 3 reverts by Dr. B. I'm not going to block Dr. B. for edit-warring alone, particularly on a tag issue. Rather than lock the article, how about seeking dispute resolution on the tag.Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm open to constructive comments or valid actions. I'm not in the habit of challenging others. Somebody placed a tag on Osiandrian controversy which I agree with. But I think placing an expert tag in an article on buildings which look like a penis looks more of a joke than the article itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a constructive comment - how about reading WP:OWN? I have as much right to comment on the article as you. Probably more so, since I seem to be approaching it as a serious subject, not a 'joke article' thrown together for a DYK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm open to constructive comments or valid actions. I'm not in the habit of challenging others. Somebody placed a tag on Osiandrian controversy which I agree with. But I think placing an expert tag in an article on buildings which look like a penis looks more of a joke than the article itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)