No edit summary |
The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 462: | Line 462: | ||
:::Okay: Ckatz refers to [[Talk:Dwarf_planet#RfC:_What_is_a_dwarf_planet.3F|this]] section as an RfC, apparently from [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_21#Dwarf_planets_-_what_is_the_standard_for_Wikipedia_labelling_an_object_as_a_DP.3F|this]] request he made at WProject Astronomical objects, and that's likely what Ruslik was referring to. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::Okay: Ckatz refers to [[Talk:Dwarf_planet#RfC:_What_is_a_dwarf_planet.3F|this]] section as an RfC, apparently from [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_21#Dwarf_planets_-_what_is_the_standard_for_Wikipedia_labelling_an_object_as_a_DP.3F|this]] request he made at WProject Astronomical objects, and that's likely what Ruslik was referring to. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Nassiriya]] reported by [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Nassiriya]] reported by [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy]] (Result: 24h) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Nazareth}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Nazareth}} <br /> |
||
Line 490: | Line 490: | ||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
||
[[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
[[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}}. I'm tempted to do 48, but I'll stretch my [[WP:AGF|AGF]] meter a bit here. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Mokejk]] and [[User:Walter Görlitz]] reported by [[User:Abhijay]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Mokejk]] and [[User:Walter Görlitz]] reported by [[User:Abhijay]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 03:26, 14 January 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:Ekr219 reported by User:Sionk (Result: Warned)
Page: AECOM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ekr219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
5 January 2011
28 November 2011
31 October 2011
28 November 2011
Message left by Sionk on User talk:Ekr219
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Comments:
User seems to only edit the AECOM article. On 17 November 2011 I came across the article and removed hyperbole and a large amount of information sourced from this large company's press releases. I replaced the 'advert' tag with a 'refimprove' tag and highlighted some statements where citations were required.
On 28th November Ekr219 updated the company's financial stats (unsourced) and reverted my removal of the press-release sourced list. I happened to notice this and, upon closer investigation of the article's Edit History discovered Ekr219 had also reverted similar edits by two other editors in October 2011. I repeated my edits and left a message on Ekr219's talk page explaining my actions and inviting them to discuss it.
On 5th January 2012 Ekr219 again reverted my edits with no explanation. They removed the 'unreferenced section' tags.
- Warned — The editor may be blocked if they continue to revert without any discussion. So far, they have never left a talk comment or an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:76.71.207.58 reported by User:Halaqah (Result: Protected)
Page: Religion in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.71.207.58 (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: [12] and [13]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]
Comments:2 editors have reverted this guy, told him to use the talk page, every day for the last 4 days he has been without listening inserting information which is a. already dealt with in the article, b, not accurate, c.a weight issue and d. removing value content in the process. Talk page continues to say he is right and that is that.The ip editor also goes by various other ips — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halaqah (talk • contribs)
- Page protected — Article has been fully protected by User:Qwyrxian. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Z0wb13 reported by User:Freshfighter9 (Result: Stale)
Page: David Wilcock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z0wb13 (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: [19]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]
Comments:
User:Z0wb13 has consistently attempted to revert accurately sourced information regarding the classification of a book which he admittedly has refused to read, due to his own personal beliefs. Attempts to reason with him via the article talk page have been futile. He simply resorts to going off-topic with comments about my "voice (moving) from active back to passive" rather than discussing the disputed content.
Freshfighter9talk 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stale Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:86.181.135.97 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Page protected)
Page: Indians in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Afghanistan–India relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.181.135.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [21]
- 2nd revert: [22]
- 3rd revert: [23]
- 4th revert: [24]
- 1st revert: [25]
- 2nd revert: [26]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: & terror attacks
Comments:
Given this IP is just recently off a block [27] for disruptive editing and edit warring, and has gone straight back to it. He has obviously not learnt his lesson. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- User i using a dynamic IP to edit war, last revert (no4) was as 31.52.184.22 addmits to being the same editor here [28] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Page protected by Magog the Ogre Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:NotoriousQRG reported by User:somearemoreequal (Result: Stale)
Page: R v Peacock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NotoriousQRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The user is repeatedly reinserting a reference that describes themselves as an "expert" in the field and contains a link to their blog. I don't think it's notable so have been removing (as has another user) Somearemoreequal (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stale. Furthermore, considering this edit of theirs, a block now would only be punitive. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:115.248.154.196 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 h)
Page: Madurai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115.248.154.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:115.248.154.196#January_2012
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Jsolinsky (Result: novio)
Page: Global warming controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 18:07, 10 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv: oh come on: feel free to find such a paper, but people have tried")
- 09:49, 11 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv unexplained deletion back to sensible version without the pointless cn. DS: you you really want to blow your credibility over this?")
- 14:06, 11 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 470790827 by 165.123.211.234 (talk) the A/G stuff is just NN (as well as being wrong)")
- 14:10, 11 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 470789703 by Jsolinsky (talk) as before; we don't need WUWT dictating article content")
- Diff of warning: here
- He has since deleted this warning with the comment "nope, I have 3R".
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41] [42] [43]
Comments:
Connolley is refusing to engage constructively. He is instead making false assumptions about who I am and apparently rejecting my concerns on that basis. His talk page comments and most recent edit comment tell the tale. Along the way, he has made four self declared reversions to the same page in a 24 hour period.
Connolley is an experienced editor and former administrator. He has a history of previous infractions. ArbCom has previously warned him about Edit Waring and taken away his Administrator status: [44] In short, he knows better than to behave this way (edit warring, 3RR violation, refusal to engage constructively on talk page), and has been more than adequately warned.
Connolley is very smart. He is quite capable of deciding to deliberately violate the Wikipedia policies he knows so well, with the expectation that the positive consequences of his violations will exceed the negative consequences of any enforcement actions. In an ideal world, the enforcement would be of sufficient magnitude to discourage any such decision making process. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reverts 3 & 4 are contiguous, so count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note that JS, like me, now has 3 reverts to this page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unlike William, I am a newbie to these types of proceedings. I believe that this is the first time I have ever reported somebody for edit warring. It is my impression that the first of my edits would be considered a change, not a reversion. Although all parties agree that I have not violated 3RR, I would still like confirmation that my understanding is correct (or not).
- Aside from the technical question of whether or not it was a revert, it seems like an edit that was very much in the spirit of Wikipedia. We had two editors who questioned some material and one editor who reverted their deletions and citation needed notes. The one editor recused himself from editing the page, so it seemed natural to restore the page to its state prior to the recused editor's last edit. I'd also solicit advice on whether or not this understanding is incorrect. (Especially since the recused editor never provided any justification for his edits on the talk page) Jsolinsky (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- - comment - Hm, this is quite a strong report - a warning given with a good faith request to the user being reported to self revert - the person making the report then waited over an hour after the warning and self revert request comment before making this report. The reporter has also in good faith notified the user of his report. A very strong good faith report imo. The reverting is a judgment for an administrator. As a user recently with a recently relaxed editing arbitration restriction in this sector should the user be getting involved in revert wars in the area like this so soon after the relaxation? Is his standing on the redline in such a case actionable considering the recent arbitration? Youreallycan (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Time for the vultures, I see. But you know that 2 contiguous edits count as one, so you know this is weak, not strong. You also know (because you checked the diffs) that the first revert just removes a cn tag, not text, so it isn't even 3 reverts of the same material. OTRR, why don't you do something useful? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- One of my useful things that I am doing right now is to attempt to raise the standard of good faith reporting at this noticeboard. This report is very strong in good faith and the reporter is to be commended. Your apparent refusal to self revert and return to discussion under the circumstances is not. Youreallycan (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Raising the standard is great. Start with yourself, OTRR: do you understand that two contiguous edits count as one, and hence that I haven't broken 3RR? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wish to point out that you can be edit warring even if you do not technically breach WP:3RR. Now, my advice would be to selfrevert. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, you can. But I disagree that I was. And I have no intention of touching that article again for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I also dispute and object to your calling me a "vulture" - I support your reintegration to your primary topic area, and as and when clearly your contributions support it, the relaxation of your restrictions and my desire is that you become as beneficial a contributor to the project as possible. - Youreallycan (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, you can. But I disagree that I was. And I have no intention of touching that article again for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wish to point out that you can be edit warring even if you do not technically breach WP:3RR. Now, my advice would be to selfrevert. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Raising the standard is great. Start with yourself, OTRR: do you understand that two contiguous edits count as one, and hence that I haven't broken 3RR? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- One of my useful things that I am doing right now is to attempt to raise the standard of good faith reporting at this noticeboard. This report is very strong in good faith and the reporter is to be commended. Your apparent refusal to self revert and return to discussion under the circumstances is not. Youreallycan (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Time for the vultures, I see. But you know that 2 contiguous edits count as one, so you know this is weak, not strong. You also know (because you checked the diffs) that the first revert just removes a cn tag, not text, so it isn't even 3 reverts of the same material. OTRR, why don't you do something useful? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Wasn't WMC on a 1RR with all global warming related articles, or has that expired? If not, should a 1RR be reinstated? Seems like a good idea, with all his technical "two reverts in a row, only counts as one."--JOJ Hutton 18:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- it's hardly a technicality if it is mentioned in the definition of a revert in WP:3RR. The rule this noticeboard is partially about. It makes sense anyway, counting consecutive edits as seperate reverts, would result in promoting in making one big edit instead of incremental ones. And he isn't on 1RR as can be seen here 94.208.67.65 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Malulay reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: declined)
Page: Maloy Lozanes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malulay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [45]
- 1st revert: [46]
- 2nd revert: [47]
- 3rd revert: [48]
- 4th revert: [49]
- 5th revert: [50]
- 6th revert: [51]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]
Comments:
Conflicting user, uses sock-puppets (example User:AdministratorMLML and very many IP's: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Malulay), two edit-war in short time. This is report of the second edit war, between him and four! other users. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Declined — If you have concerns about sockpuppetry, please consider opening a case at sockpuppet investigations. As for this page, it looks like the user was trying to request deletion of a page he created and finally figured out how to AfD. Unless he keeps edit warring on the page, it looks like he's stopped (having understood the deletion policy. --slakr\ talk / 01:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:109.70.140.167 reported by McGeddon (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page: Earthenware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.70.140.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 12:08, 12 January 2012 (edit summary: "It is glost firing")
- 13:19, 12 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 470956514 by Theroadislong (talk)")
- 13:24, 12 January 2012 (edit summary: "Glost fired is the recognised term")
- 14:22, 12 January 2012 (edit summary: "revert to recognised term following unhelpful edit and false claim of vandalism")
- Diff of warning: here
Comments:
Three different IPs were removing the same synonym last week; 109.70.140.167 popped up today to revert to that version again, four times.
—McGeddon (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
User:194.145.185.229 reported by User:Schrodinger's cat is alive (Result: Declined)
Page: Erast Fandorin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.145.185.229 (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: [User talk:194.145.185.229#Erast Fandorin]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Both parties are edit warring here. Schrodinger should tone down the "vandalism" accusations in the edit summaries, since it clearly isn't vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Apols - it's something that has been going on for a day or so and I've tried to point out that if they read WP:RED they will see that they are deleting the links inappropriately. I also acted in a slightly rash manner because of the mildly abusive postings on my talk page and I reacted against that too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Declined — After considering the personal attacks in both directions, I'll close by advising both editors to cool it. It is hard to disagree with the IP's point that {{main}} should only point to articles that exist. I assume that Schrodinger intends to create an article on He Lover of Death rather soon. If warring continues about the redlinks, action may be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:123.238.25.3 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24h)
Page: Chauhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 123.238.25.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [57]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]
Comments:
THe IP is now talking at Talk:Chauhan but is not getting it. A 24 hour break while they read up on the policy links etc might still be useful. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Noetica reported by User:Born2cycle (Result: Page protected)
Page: Wikipedia:TITLE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noetica (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: [67]
Original discussion about two versions (V1 and V2) goes back to December 21. Noetica claims there is no consensus, but nine editors expressed support for V1, and there are no arguments for V2 in all these weeks. How long are we supposed to wait? Kotniski apparently thought we had waited long enough today, and inserted the V1 wording. Noetica reverted back to V2, JCScaliger restored V1, Noetica reverted again, I restored, and he reverted a 3rd time. He refuses to present an argument for V2 or against V1 on the talk page, but insists that there is no consensus for V1 despite nine editors favoring V1, and none expressing any substantive arguments to the contrary. It starts here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost The latest discussions: User_talk:Noetica#Article_titles and Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Protected
Comments:
Noetica reveals knowledge of being on 3RR thin ice by claiming an exemption in the edit summary of his 3rd revert: "I claim immunity from 3RR on the basis of the admin". I call B.S.; there was no emergency. He could and should have notified an admin instead of doing the revert, but I suspect he did not want the page locked to the version he opposes. He reverted three different editors today -- First Kotniski, then JCScaliger, finally me. He's an experienced editor who knows better and is knowingly pushing the envelope.
Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I realize there were only 3 reverts so technically not a 3RR violation, but WP:3RR says "any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Since this was a policy page and involved the same editor who knows better reverting 3 different editors over the same material, I thought it should be reported. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I protected the article today for a week. I gave a warning a couple weeks ago, and the edit warring stopped till now, though apparently without resolving anything. It doesn't appear that anything has moved through DR. If anyone can see the purported consensus, which I can't find, feel free to change the article to that version. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Inital issue explained here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost.
- Nine editors -- Born2cycle, Kotniski, EdChem, PBS, Kai445, Powers, WhatamIdoing, JCScaligera, and Enric Naval -- support V1 over V2; no editors support V2 over V1, here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording.
- If that's not consensus, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's up to others to decide. I don't see it. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss consensus. It's the 3RR board. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Those links weren't for you but for whoever you were addressing. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's up to others to decide. I don't see it. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss consensus. It's the 3RR board. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Response. I thank admin Kwami for his comments here. I was aware that he was taking an interest in safeguarding the page (a vital policy page) from edit-warring and instability. Therefore, after reverting changes to the page that were done while discussion was underway at the talkpage (and clearly tagged with a template at the relevant section of the policy page), I approached Kwami and asked that he review the situation. I am pleased that he saw fit to protect the page. As for urgency, it is strange that the complainant finds an urgent need to restore a disputed wording that had not been in place for seven months, when Kwami had reverted that restoration on finding that no satisfactory resolution had been achieved. For me, it is urgent that stability be preserved in policy. The page is appealed to continually in RM discussions, so it is imperative that provisions not fluctuate rapidly while they are in progress.
- I am indeed an experienced editor, and I deplore edit-warring. As a specialist committed to the orderly development of WP:MOS, I also take an interest in title issues, and I am very keen to see that due process is followed in the development of the relevant policy. We are instructed at the top of this page "not to continue a dispute on this page", so I will not go into detail here about the abuses of process and the litigious threats levelled against me when I have called for calm, slow discussion before editing policy.
- I have not infringed the provisions of 3RR. It would take a major distortion of the facts to make a case that I ever violate its spirit. Much could be said about the complainant's behaviour; but this is not the place for that. I ask that the complaint be dismissed, as an attempt to harass an editor with a long record of efforts at unbiased, methodical consensus-building.
- NoeticaTea? 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, "the complainant" has no urgent need to do anything, but he and others have been patiently waiting since December 21 for someone, anyone, who disfavors the V1 wording, to at least provide an argument in support of that position. After so many weeks of no such argument, there were three attempts by three different editors to insert the V1 wording today, each one reverted by Noetica who still refuses to substantively explain his position. His only action in all this is edit warring and disruptive/non-substantive discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to Born2cycle: If any of that were so, it might be appropriate to take action. But not here. I have explained elsewhere that I am not happy to engage in discussion where I am subject to intimidation at my talkpage, and there is conspiratorial discussion about the timing of possible litigation against me at the complainant's talkpage (when his own actions are less likely to be implicated!). Let's just settle the present situation and move on amicably. I hope the real issues can eventually be dealt with consensually at WT:TITLE, for a durable solution that will meet the Community's needs.
- NoeticaTea? 08:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ♥
- "Subject to intimidation"? "Conspiratorial discussion"? "Possible litigation"? These are lame and disruptive excuses to avoid discussion because you have no argument (since I haven't seen one and this has been going on since Dec 21, that's the only reasonable conclusion). Again, you edit war, repeatedly, and you won't discuss anything substantively. These games are why we're here. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, "the complainant" has no urgent need to do anything, but he and others have been patiently waiting since December 21 for someone, anyone, who disfavors the V1 wording, to at least provide an argument in support of that position. After so many weeks of no such argument, there were three attempts by three different editors to insert the V1 wording today, each one reverted by Noetica who still refuses to substantively explain his position. His only action in all this is edit warring and disruptive/non-substantive discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Page protected by Kwami. Unfortunately, although I understand the issue in progress, this is not the place for deciding on the same. Yes, there is edit warring, but I shan't block unless 3RR has been crossed. I'm closing the case right now. Will follow post the unprotection. Wifione Message 09:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0 reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: )
User being reported: Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The links below are for deletions of POV tags, not the disputes leading up to placing the tag.
Page: Template:Moons of dwarf planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [68]
Page: Makemake (dwarf planet) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 1st revert: [73]
Page: 90377 Sedna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 1st revert: [74]
Page: Ceres (dwarf planet) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 1st revert: [75]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77], disc. at Makemake, disc. at Haumea
- At NPOV board: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Moons_of_dwarf_planets_template
- At RS board: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dwarf_planets
- At ANI: [78]
Comments:
There is an ongoing dispute over NPOV issues with dwarf planet and related articles, where certain editors want to downplay or remove RSs that do not support their preferred POV. The argument has been going on for months, but Ruslik0 is consistently nasty, claiming that I am editing in bad faith, lying, falsifying sources (even though they are accepted as legitimate by other editors on his side), etc. For example, at {{Moons of dwarf planets}}, Ruslik0 reverted me for adding a couple dwarf planets accepted by several experts in the field.[79][80] Another editor (JorisvS) advised that I separate the objects into two rows: one for the ones Ruslik0 accepts, and another for the other two, saying specifically who accepts them (or, as the NPOV folks said re. this case, "when reliable sources disagree, we document the dispute without taking sides"), which I did.[81] Ruslik0 reverted that.[82][83][84] I then consolidated it back to one row, but with a footnote indicating who accetpts them,[85] and Ruslik0 reverted that.[86] Rather than continuing the edit war, I have started tagging the articles in question with {{POV}} until this is resolved.[87] Ruslik0 is now edit warring over deleting the POV tags (links above). This is beyond ridiculous, esp. given that the articles are mostly FAs.
User:Ckatz, an admin, is also deleting the POV tags from these articles, but I just warned him and will wait to see how he responds. — kwami (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that User:Kwamikagami is inserting POV tug just to make a point. There is a consensus that there are no POV issues with any of dwarf planet related articles and templates. So, he is edit warring against this consensus. In the last October he was already blocked for such kind of behavior behavior. Ruslik_Zero 15:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- (1) You are not psychic, so you can't know my motivation. But this follows your entire approach, which is that since I disagree with you, I must be dishonest or editing in bad faith. That does not give you an excuse to edit war.
- (2) You are involved in the dispute, so you should not remove POV tags from the version you support. Denial that the dispute exists does not make you uninvolved.
- (3) There is clearly a lack of consensus, and references to some of the top astronomers in the field to back it up. Denial that a dispute exists is also not an excuse to edit war. — kwami (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Look, you're both edit warring. I could block both of you, but I'd rather solve this in a more civilised manner. Both of you, please stop reverting each other and discuss the issue. If WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN do not help you solve this dispute, try WP:DR. But please stop this, it's just silly. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- But the whole point of the POV tag is to mark the article while it's being discussed. It's entirely appropriate to tag an article that's being disputed, and very bad form to delete those tags until the dispute is resolved. Edit warring over the deletion of tags is like edit warring over vandalism. How exactly would you suggest I proceed, if I can't even mark the article for discussion? — kwami (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it's bad form to remove a POV tag while a discussion is still ongoing, but to edit war over it is silly... It doesn't improve the article and disrupts all attempts at solving the dispute. That's why I'm appealing to you both to leave the articles alone and concentrate your efforts on dispute resolution. A block would most definitely not be helpful, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that edit warring is not an optimal way to resolve disputes. However I must tell you the whole story. Beginning from the last October we have been having a discussion on Talk:Dwarf_planet#deleted_section about the issue. At one point it was even a formal RFC. As you can see most editors agreed that the disputed four bodies should not be called dwarf planets. You can also note a POV tag at the Dwarf planet article, which I have not removed. That is fine. However in December, when Kwamikagami realized that he could not get his way in that discussion, he started multiple discussions on talks pages of many dwarf planet articles (and on other noticeboards) and placed POV tags on many them as well, effectively forum shopping. I think placing so many POV tags and forum shopping is disruptive. What do you think should be done in such a situation? I am at loss. It is infeasible and extremely time consuming to argue about essentially the same issue all over again in many different places. Ruslik_Zero 17:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Going through the dispute resolution process—the NPOV and RS boards, RfC, etc—is not "forum shopping". Obviously outside people need to be brought in to resolve this. If I take Salvio's advice and continue at DP, which would mean mediation, would you dismiss that as "forum shopping" too? As for the tags, they were a way to stop the incessant edit wars you engage in: Kheider and I and the others reach a compromise wording, then you come in and unilaterally decide to revert it (Kheider's edits as well as mine and others), and then start edit warring to protect your version, so I tag it rather than continue the edit war. Then you start edit warring over the tag. And then you accuse me of OWN. — kwami (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that edit warring is not an optimal way to resolve disputes. However I must tell you the whole story. Beginning from the last October we have been having a discussion on Talk:Dwarf_planet#deleted_section about the issue. At one point it was even a formal RFC. As you can see most editors agreed that the disputed four bodies should not be called dwarf planets. You can also note a POV tag at the Dwarf planet article, which I have not removed. That is fine. However in December, when Kwamikagami realized that he could not get his way in that discussion, he started multiple discussions on talks pages of many dwarf planet articles (and on other noticeboards) and placed POV tags on many them as well, effectively forum shopping. I think placing so many POV tags and forum shopping is disruptive. What do you think should be done in such a situation? I am at loss. It is infeasible and extremely time consuming to argue about essentially the same issue all over again in many different places. Ruslik_Zero 17:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it's bad form to remove a POV tag while a discussion is still ongoing, but to edit war over it is silly... It doesn't improve the article and disrupts all attempts at solving the dispute. That's why I'm appealing to you both to leave the articles alone and concentrate your efforts on dispute resolution. A block would most definitely not be helpful, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- But the whole point of the POV tag is to mark the article while it's being discussed. It's entirely appropriate to tag an article that's being disputed, and very bad form to delete those tags until the dispute is resolved. Edit warring over the deletion of tags is like edit warring over vandalism. How exactly would you suggest I proceed, if I can't even mark the article for discussion? — kwami (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Kwamikagami has been pushing his personal perspective with regard to dwarf planets for well over a year and a half now. This has translated into a seemingly endless series of highly disruptive actions at the main article dwarf planet, as well as equally disruptive edits at related articles. Ruslik should not be punished by association simply because he (along with numerous other editors, myself included) has had to repeatedly clean up the mess that Kwamikagami has created. Kwami has utterly refused to listen to the outcome of the extensive and prolonged discussions related to this matter, and insists on repeatedly inserting his POV. [has already been blocked at least once through this forum for the same issue], and was [at that time to avoid editing the dwarf planet article]. Given his continued disruption, and the fact that he insists on expanding the disruption to as many articles and forums as he can, I feel that it would be appropriate to extend that advisory to include all related articles as Kwami shows no sign of ceasing his behaviour. --Ckatzchatspy 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- My behaviour is trying to enforce WP policy on featured articles, something which as an admin you should support. You speak of the "outcome" of the debate, but that outcome is merely a 2:3 split along NPOV vs. authority. I am bewildered as to how you can flout our policies so casually, and then accuse those who don't of acting in bad faith. — kwami (talk)
- Kwami, I cannot and will not support your disruptive behaviour, especially given that you are an admin and should know better. I find it quite sad that you are trying to tarnish the reputation of an established, positive contributor such as Ruslik. I note that you're looknig to position Ruslik as working against a supposed collegiality you have with Kheider, yet in Kheider's own words "you keep starting a debate on every dwarf planet page and dispute page that you can in hopes more editors will support your Sheppard2011-POV pushing". I'm thinking this has long since moved beyond a simple 3RR issue; you have long since exhausted any and all good-faith measures and a more severe sanction is warranted. --Ckatzchatspy 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming any collegiality with Kheider. But as much as I disagree with him, he is at least willing to work together. Ruslik has been uniformly nasty and apparently dishonest: any source I quote is "imaginary" or a "lie", even though you and Kheider accept it (accept that it exists, at least). How you can characterize that as "positive" is beyond me.
- As for exhausting good faith, I feel the same of you: Adamant insistence in flouting WP policy for no point that I could ever see. You even edit war to delete POV tags, which as an admin you should know better than to do. Of the three of you, Kheider is the only one who is reasonable (well, apart from starting half (2 out of 4) of the debates on the DP articles, and then complaining about them in the quote you just gave, which is surreal). — kwami (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have tried to read the discussion Ruslik links to above, but I abandoned it halfway through because I could not wrap my head around it. I really know nothing of the topic, so feel free to disregard my input, as I'm unfamiliar with the underlying content dispute. What I know is that disputes such as these have an unpleasant tendency to end up before Arbcom... Ruslik and Ckatz, if Kwami accepted to stop making the contentious edits for the moment, would you be willing to try WP:DRN or mediation? Kwami, if Ruslik and Ckatz accept to try one of those venues, would you be willing to stop adding the POV tag? This compromise should be acceptable to both parties for the moment... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. I tagged them because the discussion was going in circles, even when for example the NPOV board said we should reflect all RS's, which has been the whole point.
- There's not a lot to understand, actually. It's a matter of whether a statement by an expert in the field that X "is" a dwarf planet or "is likely" a dwarf plant justifies us calling it a dwarf planet, or not calling it a dwarf planet, or saying some think it's a dwarf planet, and whether we should treat all objects so mentioned the same. IMO a straightforward case of NPOV on the one hand and WEIGHT on the other. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, for DR, we should have the other two editors involved, User:Kheider and User:JorisvS. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have tried to read the discussion Ruslik links to above, but I abandoned it halfway through because I could not wrap my head around it. I really know nothing of the topic, so feel free to disregard my input, as I'm unfamiliar with the underlying content dispute. What I know is that disputes such as these have an unpleasant tendency to end up before Arbcom... Ruslik and Ckatz, if Kwami accepted to stop making the contentious edits for the moment, would you be willing to try WP:DRN or mediation? Kwami, if Ruslik and Ckatz accept to try one of those venues, would you be willing to stop adding the POV tag? This compromise should be acceptable to both parties for the moment... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note This is woefully unacceptable. I'm actually at a loss of what to do here, because especially as admins, you both should be blocked for edit warring—you should freaking know better. Furthermore, I'm not sure what's more disruptive, the edit warring to begin with, or the subsequent edit warring over a legitimate editor placing a
{{POV}}
tag where he thinks it belongs, presumably because he has a legitimate concern over the template. Unreal. I feel dirty having even seen this, and I need a shower. --slakr\ talk / 22:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)- I'd support Salvio or Slakr taking whatever action they think appropriate, but meanwhile I'd like to ask anyone (from the above discussion) to explain why there are no WP:RFC templates visible at Talk:Dwarf planet. Do you consider that there are any actual RfCs on that page? If so, has anyone made a request for them to be closed? Of all people, admins should know how to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what Ruslik was referring to by a RfC. I don't remember one. I did ask for input at the NPOV and RS boards, linked above.
- Okay: Ckatz refers to this section as an RfC, apparently from this request he made at WProject Astronomical objects, and that's likely what Ruslik was referring to. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd support Salvio or Slakr taking whatever action they think appropriate, but meanwhile I'd like to ask anyone (from the above discussion) to explain why there are no WP:RFC templates visible at Talk:Dwarf planet. Do you consider that there are any actual RfCs on that page? If so, has anyone made a request for them to be closed? Of all people, admins should know how to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Nassiriya reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: 24h)
Page: Nazareth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nassiriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [88]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]
Comments:
New account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of edit warring on an article under ARBPIA restrictions. He received an ARBPIA notice on his talk page before making the second revert.
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I'm tempted to do 48, but I'll stretch my AGF meter a bit here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Mokejk and User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Abhijay (Result: )
Page: David Crowder Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Talk:David Crowder Band (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mokejk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [93] (talk page) and [94] (article page)
- 1st revert: [95] (article)
- 2nd revert: [96] (article)
- 3rd revert: [97] (article)
- 4th revert: [98] (talk page)
- 5th revert: [99] (talk page)
- 6th revert: [100] (talk page)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101] and [102]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]
Comments:
This appears to be a rather complex edit war. It appears that both editors have been reverting each other's edits on the article and the talk page. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)