MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 10 thread(s) (older than 48h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive127. |
Pantherskin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 221: | Line 221: | ||
: Not sure whether [[User:Varsovian|Varsovian]] broke 3RR here, as some of the diffs above are not technically reverts. It also seems that [[User:Howelseornotso|Howelseornotso]] is edit warring on the same article. A newly registered account, and first thing this account does is edit warring. Even more worrisome are that mysteriously three anon SPA's appeared ({{userlinks|69.165.137.203}}, {{userlinks|76.10.167.207}} and {{userlinks|69.196.131.85}}) at the article and another article, with the only purpose to revert Varsovian's edits. It seems that sockpuppetry is the problem here, not edit warring. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin|talk]]) 23:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) |
: Not sure whether [[User:Varsovian|Varsovian]] broke 3RR here, as some of the diffs above are not technically reverts. It also seems that [[User:Howelseornotso|Howelseornotso]] is edit warring on the same article. A newly registered account, and first thing this account does is edit warring. Even more worrisome are that mysteriously three anon SPA's appeared ({{userlinks|69.165.137.203}}, {{userlinks|76.10.167.207}} and {{userlinks|69.196.131.85}}) at the article and another article, with the only purpose to revert Varsovian's edits. It seems that sockpuppetry is the problem here, not edit warring. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin|talk]]) 23:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:: Add this ip {{userlinks|69.196.129.91}} to the list. Not sure whether a range block is possible, otherwise the page should be semi-protected. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin|talk]]) 06:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:FreddyPickle]] reported by [[User:Turian]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:FreddyPickle]] reported by [[User:Turian]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 06:42, 4 April 2010
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Turian reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: Stale)
Page: Jake Hager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Turian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
- 1st revert: 15:10, 31 March 2010
- 2nd revert: 15:50, 31 March 2010
- 3rd revert: 15:54, 31 March 2010
- 4th revert: 16:57, 31 March 2010
- 5th revert: 17:40, 31 March 2010
- 6th revert: 17:11, 31 March 2010
- 7th revert: 17:58, 31 March 2010 (user was warned of 3RR violation after this edit)
- 8th revert: 18:22, 31 March 2010
Just a bit of explanation, the issue at hand here is about whether spoilers belong in wikipedia pages. Last night, the WWE's World Heavyweight Championship changed hands at a taping which will not air until Friday. Naturally, some users have been adding these events to pages, while others feel that we should wait until the change airs. Turian feels that it is vandalism, but it's really just a content dispute since there is no obvious vandalism. Both sides have a point, there are sources for it, but some believe we should wait until the change airs. -- Scorpion0422 18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:12, 31 March 2010
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I myself haven't been heavily involved in the dispute, but there are discussions currently at WT:PW and Talk:Jake Hager
Comments:
Removing perfectly sourced information is vandalism, and I will revert it every time I see it. I even added three more sources so people would shut up about 'ruining it for other people'. I discussed it with people, yet the IP continued to bother the situation. If you wanna block me for putting in the facts, then expect something to be done. (Not a threat, just saying that this is a very fine line for administrators.) It is not a content dispute either, since Wikipedia doesn't mourn the ruining of the moment (WP:SPOIL). –Turian (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also like to mention that it is stated everywhere else where it can be, yet people only go to this page to revert it. It's simple vandalism, and I reverted it. –Turian (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by NickCT This debate essentially centers around whether Turian can insert "spoiler" info into the article in question. I think Turian's reading of WP:SPOIL is correct here, and the content he's trying to put in can be legitimately included; however, Turian has been overly agressive in trying to include this material against the wishes of multiple editors and has clearly crossed 3RR. I suggest a symbolic 1 hour block for Turian. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Blocks are meant as a preventative measure, not a mere punishment measure. Stating that I should be blocked for being right is absurd. –Turian (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Stale. It's over 24 hours since Turian's last revert, and several others have edited since, so there is no need for a block to stop an edit war. If this happens in the future, a block may occur, since restoring a spoiler is not immune from the 3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reverting vandalism is not a violation of 3RR, and I will continue to revert vandalism as long as I see it. Removing well sourced information because you don't want to spoil it for everyone else is a violation of WP:SPOIL and is vandalism. So no, I won't be blocked for such behavior. –Turian (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify the policy issue, WP:VANDAL makes no reference to removal of spoilers. So if someone raises a new 3RR complaint about you on a similar topic, you should expect that you may be blocked. If you don't like this situation, you are welcome to try to get removal of spoilers added to the WP:VANDAL policy. The page entitled WP:SPOIL is a style guideline, not a policy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Removal of well sourced content is vandalism. They just happen to be spoilers. Content, then spoilers. –Turian (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not according to current policy. Under your theory, how would an article ever be shortened to improve its style? Normal editing sometimes causes well-sourced content to be removed, in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is obviously a different case than just removing. It was a current event, and people doubted the validity of it, despite it being sourced. Just because you don't want to believe it, does not give you the right to remove it. I don't give a crap about spoilers or anything similar. Removing content as in this situation is vandalism, and I will revert it still. And if I violate a rule, I'll just use IAR as my reasoning to maintain the quality of the wiki. –Turian (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, making Wikipedia subject to broadcast times is absurd. I agree with Turian that willfully removing information so the article becomes less informative is vandalism. No-one is disputing that the content is notable and verifiable enough for inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
User:CoralRosie reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Semiprotected)
Page: List of Castle episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: CoralRosie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
There are two main points of contention in the edit war in progress; placement of "(Part 1)" and "(Part 2}" and use of the phrase "or have they?" in an episode summary.
- Article version before the edit war
- Diff of first change of (Part 1)/(Part 2)
- Diff of first removal of "or have they?"
- 1st revert: [2] (also introduced errors)
- 2nd revert: [3]
- 3rd revert: [4]
- 4th revert: [5]
- 5th revert: [6]
- 6th revert: [7]
- It was at this point that I warned the editor
- 7th revert: [8]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]
Comments:
The edit war over the placement of "(Part x)" is ongoing. Concern over "or have they?" is new. User:CoralRosie's talk page states that she is a long term Wikipedia editor,[11] so this isn't a case of a new editor not understanding the rules. After I warned both involved editors (the second is reported below) there was a period of less than 21 hours before CoralRosie made the 7th revert. CoralRosie is the subject of an open SPI case. She is most definitely a sock but the evidence is starting to lean toward her actually being the sock of another editor who is involved. Regardless, the fact that concerns us here is that she is actively edit-warring and shows no sign of stopping. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Article semiprotected. It appears likely that CoralRosie will wind up indef blocked due to the currently-open sock case. The semi will stop the reverting for four days, which may be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
User:76.170.30.67 reported by MythSearcher (Result: page semi)
Page: Lucky Star (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 76.170.30.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [12]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] none, but at least tried to state in edit comment, in which the editor ignored.
Comments:
The user had a few vandalism edits, at least one related to this article(the author of the manga) before adding in info that is totally incorrect into the article(which is countered by the link in the paragraph, the episode list) the user was reverted but not warned per AGF, since s/he might simply be mistaken. However, s/he ignored the edit comment and reverted the article with no explanation persistently even being reverted by 2 different editors. I can ABF and just give the 4th lv warning or report it here, I guess I will do it here for a better assumption of faith. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Page semi-protected - this is a bit stale for a block now, so I have semi-protected the page for a week. Black Kite 12:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
User:138.28.128.188 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Semi, warning)
Page: Eva Golinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jojus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 138.28.128.188 (talk · contribs)
Previous version reverted to: [17]
- 1st revert: [18]
- 2nd revert: [19]
- 3rd revert: [20]
- 4th revert: [21]
- 5th revert: [22]
- 6th revert: [23]
- 7th revert, by newly registed account Jojus [24]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25] Diff or unsourced addition and original research warnings: [26] [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]
Comments:
Because the sources are in Spanish, I will explain. The IP and later a newly registered account Jojus is adding text, sourced to a Venezuela gov't release, that says Golinger's credibility is called into question because she is funded by the Ven gov't. The source does indicate she is funded by the Ven gov't, and although that certainly does affect her credibility, the source does not say that-- the IP/Jojus is adding original research and opinion. The information from that source-- that Golinger is funded by the Ven Gov't, is already in the article, from that source. The IP/Jojus are using the source to add original research, saying that her validity and credibililty are called into question because of the funding-- while probably true, unsourced original research and personal opinion unsupported by the source, which merely reports the Ven Gov't funding. They have now received five warnings, but continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Article semiprotected. I am warning Jojus not to add negative material to a BLP unless it is supported by an exact reference. The IP has made seven reverts over the last three days and it is believable that Jojus is the same editor as the IP. Jojus, a brand-new account, has made only one edit to the article so far. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
User:216.239.82.80 reported by User:LiberalFascist (Result: 48h)
Page: Faster-than-light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 216.239.82.80 (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: [35]
Comments:
This user has been pasting virtually the same comment into the article for a few days now. He also seems to be editing as 99.233.164.50 (talk · contribs), which has done similar reverting and pasting.
—Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Both IPs blocked 48h. Sandstein 19:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Ronn Torossian
Mosmof a user who has commented on this page extensively is adding serious accusations against something which accured nearly 2 years ago, and was debated ad naseum in a debate he lost. There have been no charges nor anything of the like. Torossian's firm was recently named one of the largest in the US but this is whitewashed. Help revert to original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Varsovian reported by User:Howelseornotso (Result: )
Page: London Victory Parade of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [36]
- 1st revert: [37]
- 2nd revert: [38]
- 3rd revert: [39]
- 4th revert: [40]
- 5th revert: [41]
- 6th revert: [42]
- 7th revert: [43]
- 8th revert: [44] including removal of source
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46] [47][48]
Comments:
Past Arbcom sanctions warning: [49] for tendentious "original research" and aggressive edit-warring.
To my mind user is being disruptive and ignoring WP guidance and policy.--Howelseornotso (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure whether Varsovian broke 3RR here, as some of the diffs above are not technically reverts. It also seems that Howelseornotso is edit warring on the same article. A newly registered account, and first thing this account does is edit warring. Even more worrisome are that mysteriously three anon SPA's appeared (69.165.137.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.10.167.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 69.196.131.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) at the article and another article, with the only purpose to revert Varsovian's edits. It seems that sockpuppetry is the problem here, not edit warring. Pantherskin (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Add this ip 69.196.129.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. Not sure whether a range block is possible, otherwise the page should be semi-protected. Pantherskin (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
User:FreddyPickle reported by User:Turian (Result: )
Page: American Idol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: FreddyPickle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [50]
- 1st revert: [51]
- 2nd revert: [52]
- 3rd revert: [53]
- 4th revert: [54]
- 5th revert: [55]
- 6th revert: [56]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]; Post warning: [58]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]
Comments:
This is getting insanely ridiculous. It isn't a straight 3RR, since he is doing it over a period of time of 3 days. Despite being shown a map, and despite having the article American South showing that Arizona is not in the American South, he continues to be disruptive. Multiple editors have told him he is wrong. Multiple people have reverted him, yet he continues. He then tries to call us vandals, when he is blatantly ignoring the facts shown to him. I highly doubt he is going to stop, so a week block, I believe, would suffice for now. This is definitely not a content dispute, since it is well sourced (although the information is dated, which I tagged as such a month ago). –Turian (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)