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
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. |
|
131.156.211.10 reported by User:Rusted AutoParts
Page: Bob's Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 131.156.211.10
Clean version: unvandalized version.
IP has been hopping and refuses to understand Wikipedia guidelines. Revert profile: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Comments:
The IP has been warned that he was reverted. I cannot see why he refuses to add a source or acknowledge this is trivia. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:38 23 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Msnicki reported by User:Grandscribe (Result: Protected)
Page: Bash (Unix shell) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Msnicki (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: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Comments:
As can be seen the definition of Bash needs to be improved. My contributions were done in good faith. Unfortunately Msnicki did not collaborate. He simply engaged in edit warring and has reverted revert my edits 6 times already. He has acted in bad faith by accusing me of vandalism because I did not agree with his reverts. A contribution [9] by user Gronky is trying to help improve the Bash article but Msnicki is also threatening to revert his edits.
--Grandscribe (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that Grandscribe is unhappy. The edits Grandscribe wanted were discussed on the Talk:Bash (Unix shell) page. When it became clear that we could not resolve it, I requested a WP:Third opinion which supported my position, that we should not allow GNU to speak in Wikipedia's voice, as the Third opinion pointed out. Grandscribe ignored the Third opinion and wasn't able to drum up any other support for his position despite what I regard as a misrepresent of the disagreement.
- I only began characterizing Grandscribe's attempts to continue inserting the same (or substantially the same) peacock language as vandalism after I made clear I was relying specifically on the Third opinion. I do my best to follow to rules and correctly use the tools (I'm using WP:Twinkle) to give appropriate warnings. For example, I know from a previous (otherwise irrelevant) experience, editors are generally entitled to warnings about their behavior that got ignored before you have grounds to complain about them. (And, btw, I notice Grandscribe has not done that here.) Here is where I posted the warnings, which Grandscribe promptly deleted, also claiming vandalism. And here is where I explained why I had given the warning. But I'm not perfect in either my knowledge of the rules or in the use of the software. If my characterization is judged unfair by consensus, then I promise to acknowledge my error, make an apology and follow whatever advice I'm given in the future.
- I am committed to following the rules, treating other editors with respect and to the basic principle that this is a consensus project. I am open to suggestions for how I can improve. But all that's going on here is that Grandscribe is unhappy that he wasn't successful in demanding that his view had to be the consensus. Msnicki (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Result: Protected three days. This looks to be a slow-motion edit war. Both Grandscribe and Msnicki have misused the term 'vandalism' in their edit summaries, and I hope it does not continue. Grandscribe seemed to misinterpret Msnicki's 3RR warning template as a 'blocking threat'. Msnicki is not correct in believing that reverting a WP:3O suggestion is vandalism. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment and get it advertised. The RfC could ask which of two versions ought to be in the lead. An RfC sometimes brings in new people to a discussion, which can help to break a deadlock. Nearly all of the recent edits on the article seem to be reverts, so you all need to work on getting consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
User:85.2.10.158 reported by Strikerforce (Result: Semi)
Page: G-WAN (Web server) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.2.10.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 11:40, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Exposed the Cherokee Troll trying to delete G-WAN")
- 12:07, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420132439 by Strikerforce (talk) Vandals at work (again...)")
- 12:09, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134346 by Strikerforce (talk) Not impressed by the Opinion of the guilty "fellow editors"")
- 12:13, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134636 by Syrthiss (talk) Vandal gaming Wikipedia to hide its crimes")
- Diff of warning: here
It should also be pointed out that this user is utilizing a dynamic IP and is currently engaged in a very heated discussion at AfD. There is an RFC open that includes all IPs that this user has used —Strikerforce (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - user has now logged in as User:Bugapi and reverted to their preferred version, per this edit. Link added by Strikerforce Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected by Excirial. Bugapi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked by Excirial. The article has been nominated for deletion. The semiprotection will keep Bugapi's IP socks from continuing to add nonsense to the article during the deletion debate. Notice Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bugapi and WP:Requests for comment/Bugapi. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Keyssence reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Warned)
Page: Northeast Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keyssence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- Note that the 2nd through 5th are within a 24 hour period.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue was discussed by User: Oda Mari and User: Prodego on User:Keyssence's talk page. User was informed that the point xe is disputing is explicitly governed by WP:NC-KO#Sea of Japan (East Sea), specifically because this is a problem that has caused numerous edit wars in the past; as such, a clear, unambiguous set of naming conventions were set up so that we didn't have to debate the same issue again every page this body of water is named on.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Warned. It is too long since the last revert to issue a block. If this behavior resumes, a substantial block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Bugapi reported by Strikerforce (Result: Indef)
Page: G-WAN (Web server) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bugapi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 12:17, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134954 by Strikerforce (talk) Accused of vandalism while I AM THE AUTHOR OF THIS WHOLE ARTICLE")
- 12:36, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420136622 by Tom Morris (talk)")
- 12:42, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420137537 by Tom Morris (talk) Tom Morris removed a (requested) reference showing no vulnerabilities in server")
- Diff of warning: here
—Strikerforce (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Result: Blocked indef by User:Excirial. Another report of the same dispute was closed here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: No action taken)
Page: Guy Fawkes Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [16] -- but not all the time some of the edits are reverts of other intermediate edits.
- 1st revert: diff "These changes turn a clear and concise history of the celebration into a factoid-filled badly-written mess. Reverting as per talk."
- 2nd revert: diff "No discussion needed. Your changes are awful."
Having had two edits reverted rather than continue I (PBS) made a different edit which did not alter anything previously altered:
Change by PBS diff "minor changes new stub section Bonfire Night around the world"
- 3rd revert: diff "Undid revision 420190901 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) What on earth is the point of this?"
Another change by PBS diff "Moved contemporary photo to the top"
- 4th revert: diff "two images in the lead doesn't work"
Edits by Moonraker2 diff
- 5th revert: diffs This is an edit made in multiple parts, and the diffs are complicated, but as an example of a reversal specifically look at the removal of section headers introduced by Moonraker2.
There is no need for a warning as Parrot of Doom is an experienced editor and has been warned in the past see here. I will post a message to POD's talk page that this entry exists
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff is not appropriate see the section Talk:Guy Fawkes Night#Bonfire night is not just an historical event which I created as a new section ten minute before my initial bold edit to the article (that was made at 15:12, 22 March 2011) --PBS (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
It is possible to argue that the fourth and fifth reverts are part of the same revert because they were in a sequence of multiple edits ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). In which case the 3RR is only breached once not twice. But I chose to show them separately because they reverted the edits of two different editors and were not related. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if any admins looking at this could take into account the confrontational approach and WP:CIVIL violations shown by Parrot of Doom on the Talk:Guy Fawkes Night page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a 3RR violation, though the submitter could choose to view this as a complaint of long-term edit warring. As an admin, PBS must be familiar with the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. I have asked him if he has any suggestions for how to resolve this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Blocking would be entirely unproductive at this juncture. Basic dispute resolution would be far more helpful.
Ghmyrtle, you might want to review your own conduct—it wasn't helpful at all for you to tell PoD to read WP:OWN in the manner that you did. NW (Talk) 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. My only comment that, in over four years of (wholly block-free and generally uncontentious) editing, I have never, ever, seen a more blatant case of WP:OWN than on that article. It's unfortunate, but until the editor recognises that there is an issue there and undertakes to edit as part of a collective project, there is no possibility of that article being improved, and that is a shame. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare why would blocking be unproductive? This is about a breach of the 3RR this is not usually discretionary. -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- EdJohnston. Can we narrow it down which of the first four was not a revert? -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- @PBS: All admin actions are discretionary—there is no User:3RR Admin Blocking Bot. It is clear that discussion is proceeding on the talk page. What purpose would blocking serve? NW (Talk) 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I thought it a mistake to combine edit warring with the 3RR rule, and this I think that this rather confirms it! You ask "What purpose would blocking serve?" it would serve as a future deterrent for PoD not to flout the 3RR rule, particularly given the comment by PoD in response to the posting by me of the message to PoD's talk page, which shows no indication of contrition. Second it would give a respite to cooperatively edit the page without someone who has clearly shown their inability to do so by reverting more than three of edits by different editors within a 24 hour period. I am surprised NW, that you closed this debate before a consensus had been reached on what to do, and I think it would be a good idea to reopen it. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, 3RR was broken by PoD. Yes, there was edit warring by multiple parties. Bold, revert, discus seems to have been completely tossed out the window though.[17] As Guy Fawkes Night is an excellent GA, it would have been far reasonable to follow the underlying principles of WP:OWN#FA and discuss on the talk page before you all made the changes you did to an article where the article's primary editor, who is more familiar with the source material than anyone else, was telling you that you were wrong.
I'm not sure how this noticeboard normally works; I pop in here once every blue moon. My apologies if I did this incorrectly. NW (Talk) 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, 3RR was broken by PoD. Yes, there was edit warring by multiple parties. Bold, revert, discus seems to have been completely tossed out the window though.[17] As Guy Fawkes Night is an excellent GA, it would have been far reasonable to follow the underlying principles of WP:OWN#FA and discuss on the talk page before you all made the changes you did to an article where the article's primary editor, who is more familiar with the source material than anyone else, was telling you that you were wrong.
- I thought it a mistake to combine edit warring with the 3RR rule, and this I think that this rather confirms it! You ask "What purpose would blocking serve?" it would serve as a future deterrent for PoD not to flout the 3RR rule, particularly given the comment by PoD in response to the posting by me of the message to PoD's talk page, which shows no indication of contrition. Second it would give a respite to cooperatively edit the page without someone who has clearly shown their inability to do so by reverting more than three of edits by different editors within a 24 hour period. I am surprised NW, that you closed this debate before a consensus had been reached on what to do, and I think it would be a good idea to reopen it. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- @PBS: All admin actions are discretionary—there is no User:3RR Admin Blocking Bot. It is clear that discussion is proceeding on the talk page. What purpose would blocking serve? NW (Talk) 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- EdJohnston. Can we narrow it down which of the first four was not a revert? -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare why would blocking be unproductive? This is about a breach of the 3RR this is not usually discretionary. -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. My only comment that, in over four years of (wholly block-free and generally uncontentious) editing, I have never, ever, seen a more blatant case of WP:OWN than on that article. It's unfortunate, but until the editor recognises that there is an issue there and undertakes to edit as part of a collective project, there is no possibility of that article being improved, and that is a shame. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
User:SuperblySpiffingPerson reported by User:Avanu (Result: 24h)
Page: 2011 Libyan uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperblySpiffingPerson#Your_recent_edits_and_.27Neutral_Point_of_View.27_in_Wikipedia
Comments:
I'm not certain what the proper forum for this is, but the editor above seems to be tearing through Wikipedia at full speed to make changes to as many articles as possible in order to push forward a certain viewpoint, which seems to be somehow biased in a manner to minimize/delegitimize Gaddafi, and present the conflict in Libya as heading already toward a new transitional government. This is leading other editors to have to 'head him off at the pass', in order to stabilize articles that are already heated with many editors interesting in editing.
Most recently the persistent bias was presented in the following comment: "far too much emphasis on one spokesman of the Jamahiriya" which is the editor's way of referring to Gaddafi. Today, March 23rd alone, Superbly has made 60 edits, which include 10 new pages that are moves of existing pages. Other editors are trying to maintain these articles, keep bias in check, and provide sourced material, but I am puzzled how a user that made no edits before March 11, seems to have a firm grasp on page moving and editing so quickly, maybe they're just precocious. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Talkpage discussion has exposed the consensus that a civil war is being referred to by the outdated and minimising term 'uprising'. The two armies are the Jamahiriya and NTC-commanded Transitionists. This war involves vastly more participants than one family. That family name does receive mention, but per WP:Undue not constant and defining mention for all points of the entire war.
Libya isn't under a transition, 'Transitionist' is just a name of one participant in the ongoing war only because they chose to call themselves a national council by that appelation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. You should wait for consensus to be reached on the disputed names. Going ahead and renaming things unilaterally won't win you any friends here. You have also been misusing the 'minor edit' flag. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
User:noclador reported by User:Sloane (Result: No action)
Page: 2011 military intervention in Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: noclador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Two things are being reverted: A paragraph on some Turkish statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_military_intervention_in_Libya&action=historysubmit&diff=420345553&oldid=420341505
And a newly crafted lead: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_military_intervention_in_Libya&action=historysubmit&diff=420366654&oldid=420361542
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's some discussion underway here: [23]
Comments: I'm pretty well aware that I'm almost over the line here myself, as I've done three reverts myself on this page the past 24 hours. The first was after user:noclador's removal of the paragraph on Turkey (a decently sourced paragraph, so I thought blatant removal of it was way too bold). The second is regarding the lead, as I thought user:noclador completely threw away some rather constructive edits by several users and inserted a pretty strong POV. The third revert was again, on the lead after user:noclador tagged my revert as vandalism, which I took as a good faith error on his part. This is clearly developing into edit warring and I'd like an admin to at least address user:noclador on this. His disregard for a 3rr warning and his rather aggressive attitude on this article leads me to think this will develop into an edit war again if user:noclador doesn't tone it down a little. I stopped reverting and left the in user:noclador favour, so I hope admins will take that as a good faith gesture from my part.
--Sloane (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- this is an wrongly filed report by a POV tainted editor, who tried to put factually wrong info in the lead paragraph of the article: a) Turkey is not criticizing the current intervention in Libya nor is there any criticisms in the paragraph that the editor wishes to keep; in fact Turkey is participating in the intervention with 5 ships and one submarine. The paragraph says "prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supports the full-implementation of the resolution" and as Turkey is a participant why keep this paragraph? because it is well sourced? well sourced doesn't mean it makes it correct to keep it in the article. Sloane, in my view, is biased against the intervention i.e. he named this map in a way File:2011 War On Libya Belligerents.svg that for me is not a NPOV of naming a map.
- as for the reverts on the lead paragraph there is only 2 reverts: in the first edit I rewrote the lead as it was factually wrong: the error was "a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US". The error was inserted by Sloane [24]. The coalition was much broader, but only this 5 nations were capable and with units ready in the area to strike first - to say it was a five nation coalition is erroneous! Also he removed any mention for what reason the UN resolution and the intervention are undertaken. And actually I was the one, who told him to take it to the talk page as his edits are factually wrong [25] and after that he began to discuss.
- The problem as I see it is that Slaone is biased and sometimes seems to edit without care about the factuality of his edits: i.e. one of his latest edits "Operational command of the operation has been turned over to NATO,", which I had to revert, because command of the operation HAS NOT been handed over to NATO! Some minutes later he actually corrected his error and put up the correct version [26] but in another article.
- To sum it up in short: this is not an edit war, but an editor, who put up wrong info and I reverted him on that. noclador (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- User:Noclador just made a fifth revert on the article: * [27] No consensus was reached over this on the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- 5th? I did two reverts all day, you bundle various other edits togehter and claim they are reverts, you mostly focus on the Turkish statement and deliberately misquote there to advance your point (see: Talk:2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Arms_embargo for Turkey discussion), then you report me here for writing a new lead sentence which takes out an grave error???? and I put that even in the edit summary??? So, we must now not take out errors anymore? noclador (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since there appear to be dozens of editors and it's an extremely fast-moving article, it's not clear how we can pick out any signal from the noise. Unless one of you can make a very clear and understandable complaint, it's unlikely that admins will take any action. From what I can understand of the above arguments, both of you seem to have some rationale for your positions. You should continue to use the talk page and try to persuade others. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- 5th? I did two reverts all day, you bundle various other edits togehter and claim they are reverts, you mostly focus on the Turkish statement and deliberately misquote there to advance your point (see: Talk:2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Arms_embargo for Turkey discussion), then you report me here for writing a new lead sentence which takes out an grave error???? and I put that even in the edit summary??? So, we must now not take out errors anymore? noclador (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- User:Noclador just made a fifth revert on the article: * [27] No consensus was reached over this on the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Result: No action at this time. Please continue to discuss and try to get the opinions of more editors. Focusing on the Turkey issue might be the easiest. Admins are not likely to issue any blocks unless there is an obvious talk page consensus which the other editor is refusing to accept. It is hard to see that the talk page has reached any definite conclusion on these matters. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
IP Range 78.177.41.127 reported by User:Wikicious (Result: Wrong wiki)
Page: Vajinismus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.177.41.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajinismus&oldid=9152091
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The given IP user uses this article for commercial purpose adding their links to end of article. Given links for CISEAD in subject article is Assosiation for purpose of enlightening people about this phsycological problem, no commercial purposes. The IP I'm complaining deleted links of CISEAD as I deleted their links because of commercial purpose. Also I know that CISEAD had applied and gave licenses for usage of their resources in Wikipedia.
Declined I'm sorry but we cannot help here with problems at the Turkish Wikipedia. You will need to find the correct page at tr.wikipedia.org to report the matter. CIreland (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Vyx reported by User:Eraserhead1 (Result: Blocked, 24h)
Page: Personal computer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vyx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
- 0th revert (outside 24 hours): [31]
- 1st revert: [32]
- 2nd revert: [33]
- 3rd revert: [34]
- 4th revert: [35]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]
Comments:
User:Pensionero reported by User:Hittit (Result: 1 month)
Page: Pomaks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bulgarians in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pensionero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Original version Pomaks: [38] Original version Bulgarians in Turkey: [39]
Article Pomaks
Article Bulgarians in Turkey
Diff of edit warring / Tendentious editing : [49] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51] [52] [53]
Comments:
User:Pensionero has a recent ban due to egaging in an edit war. He has been involved in numerous reverts and tendentious editing, he has been warned on the talk page by me and other editors. Above examples of countless reverts within in 24 hours on two separate articles. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated.
Please before blocking view edit history I reverted twice in the both articles User:Pensionero 19:27 24 March 2011 (UTC) In Bulgarains in Turkey i reverted here [54] and here [55] , In Pomaks: here [56] and here [57] User:Pensionero 19:36 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Blocked one month. Pensionero has made 11 reverts at Pomaks since 16 March, and his edits are very contentious. This is clear from a viewing of Talk:Pomaks, where nobody supports him. He has been blocked twice for edit warring since February, most recently for 3 days. His own talk page holds a dozen warnings from many different editors. The Pomaks are an ethnic minority in Bulgaria. I am notifying Pensionero of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
User:98.254.83.35 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: declined)
Page: The Yankee Doodle Mouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.254.83.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [58]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65] and [66]
Comments:
User wanted to insert this content while the page was protected, was told it did not meet verifiability requirements, in addition to being original research. Started edit-warring to insert it as soon as the page protection was lifted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Declined No more reverts after the warning. Sandstein 06:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
User:174.54.34.187 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Already blocked 1 week)
Page: Tim Wise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.54.34.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [67]
- 1st revert: [68]
- 2nd revert: [69]
- 3rd revert: [70]
- 4th revert: [71]
- 5th revert: [72]
- 6th revert: [73]
- 7th revert: [74]
- 8th revert: [75]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]
That was not a resolution of the dispute, you have been ignoring the consensus of multiple other editors for quite some time in order to whitewash (ironic isn't it?) the article. 174.54.34.187 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
I was not edit warring, I was reverting vandalism and censorship from 2 editors with an obvious ideological bias. THEY reverted me and continued to remove sourced information. These editors do not WP: OWN this page and should stop wiki lawyering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.34.187 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Already blocked For a week by Elockid. Sandstein 06:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Memills reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 24 h)
Page: Evolutionary psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Memills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 19:48, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420368667 by Logic prevails (talk) See the book "Evolutionary Psychology" by Gaulin & McBurney -- there is stuff to back up "this crap"")
- 20:58, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420371707 by Logic prevails (talk) Don't revert again -- getting close to vandalism. This is sourced, the same material appears in several evol psyc textbooks.")
- 21:02, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420372055 by Logic prevails (talk) Way overstated -- and the ref is over 35 years old. Take this to Talk page if you like.")
- 21:17, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420382776 (talk) It is uncontroversial that there is a correlation between bipolar disorder & creativity. Do a literature search, or read the refs provided.")
- 23:37, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420402788 by (talk) Do your own homework - read the friendly references. And, don't delete the entire section if you have an issue with a sentence.")
- 17:27, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420495673 by Logic prevails (talk) Per the Talk page, this is sourced info convered in two EP textbooks. Add counter perspectives if you wish, don't delete.")
- 17:28, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420499767 by Maunus (talk) Sourced, relevant info. Edit if you wish, don't delete. Deletions of sourced info are approaching vandalism.")
- 17:54, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420523836 by (talk) Discussed on the Talk page, without consensus. Again, fully sourced material from evolutionary psych textbooks. Edit it. We need to go to arbitarion if there is another revert.")
Note: In the last 24 hours, long-time contributor Memills (talk · contribs) reverted eight times on evolutionary psychology, reversing the efforts of at least two different editors (User:Logic prevails and User:Maunus). Memills is aware of the edit warring problem, as the article was fully protected due to previous edit warring approximately one month ago. Just several days ago, Memills himself said on the talk page that "suggestions to reduce edit wars on this page would be greatly appreciated."[78] I would therefore like to address Memills query and suggest a nice long block. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Viriditas has a penchant for wikilawyering, hounding, and is the subject of 162 user complaints. A search of her username on the evolutionary psychology Talk page shows a series of unhelpful and uninformed comments.
- Had she been following the discussion, she would have noted that editors in conflict have already reached a compromise to deal with the issue on the Talk page, and are already working together collaboratively to deal with the section in contention (see the bottom of the section linked in this sentence). Memills (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for proving that I am uninvolved in your COI-driven, five-year, NPOV-violating ownership dispute on this article, which you, as an unambiguous single-purpose account, have attempted to control against the consensus of Wikipedia editors, by reverting anyone who dares to edit the article, which by every given assessment, is in worse shape now and has not improved during your five-year reign as self-appointed owner. I not only maintain that you should be blocked for this ongoing behavior, but for attempting above to spread false allegations against me in order to distract from your continued disruption. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me like Memills did make 6 reverts (2&3 are one and 6&7 are one), but it also looks like user:Logic prevails made 7 reverts within 24hours and 2 minutes on the same page so I wonder why that user was not reported too. An admin may also want to look at Logic prevails for being an SPA and possible DUCK. Passionless -Talk 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Considering you can't get the names right, I'm not sure we should depend on your analysis. Memills very cleary made 8 not 6 reverts, and I have not edited the article. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I copied the wrong name over, fixed now. And the reason why there are really only 6 reverts is because "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."-from WP:EW. But it doesn't really matter, 3RR was easily broken. Passionless -Talk 06:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Memills
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours A standard first-time editwarring block. Logic prevails
Warned Sandstein 06:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch (Result:no vio)
Page: Miral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GoetheFromm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [79]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]
Comments:
It all began when User:GoetheFromm edited the Miral article here, adding the text: , the Deir Yassin Massacre,
Extended content
|
---|
The Discussion page at Miral does not explicitly designate the article as being subject to the terms of WP:ARBPIA, hence the 1RR restriction which would otherwise apply there by virtue of its being a film about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may not in fact apply in this case. However, this particular instance of edit warring transcends that page alone and constitutes a disruptive pattern unto itself that demands Admin attention and involvement. After the Deir Yassin edit just mentioned – which, it ought to be noted, was not accompanied by an edit summary – I left a message on User:GoetheFromm's Talk page explaining that her unsourced addition was problematic per WP:BOP and that the page has recently been subject to anonymous IP edits that have compromised the integrity of the article. I concluded by requesting that she produce a WP:RS or else self-revert. When she failed to do either – she did not self-revert and the sources she added were not WP:RS – a previously uninvolved editor restored the article to its former condition, explaining in his edit summary that the sources did not qualify as WP:RS. User:GoetheFromm's reaction was to revert back to her previous edit and then to charge, "There seems to be a group of individuals who seem to want to avoid including the reference of the Deir Yessin Massacre..." on the Discussion page.[86] Not four minutes passed and she reverted an addition to the article – entirely unrelated to the Deir Yassin dispute – by the same user as earlier (cf. WP:OWN).[87] Eight minutes passed next and, as I was occupied watching a basketball game at this time and could not address myself to inspecting the sources she provided, User:GoetheFromm yet again reverted an attempt by User:Plot Spoiler to restore the original page pending resolution of the dispute in the Discussion page.[88] At around halftime I composed a reply to User:GoetheFromm at the Discussion page imploring her to remain calm and be patient while I looked through her sources. Her response was to argue, "it quite clear to me what is occurring on this page, as I am sure others can also see."[89] Though not all of User:GoetheFromm's comments were as WP:BADFAITH as those just cited, they are nevertheless important for the insight they offer into User:GoetheFromm's borderline paranoid frame of mind. (And I've chosen those words carefully.) Indeed, she would later confess to me: "Listen I know that you are pro-zionist, and I sympathize with you, but you are going to have to allow relevant information to be on wikipage, even if the unsavory material doesn't conform to your viewpoint on life"[90] – this despite the fact that I took no part in her edit warring and never once acted in a way that could be construed by her as biased in favor of a "Zionist viewpoint." On the contrary, as I told User:GoetheFromm in my first message to her, I was equally as concerned with her Deir Yassin edit as I was with the preceding edit by an anonymous IP who labeled one of the Palestinian characters in the film a terrorist. Regrettably, User:GoetheFromm insisted on interpreting my behavior as being prejudiced against her and reacting to my genuine attempts at constructive dialog with suspicion and uncooperativeness. The fourth revert I listed above, I should clarify, is not from the same page as the first three, wherefore strictly speaking it doesn't belong in the same group. (As I'm somewhat new to these things, I'm not entirely sure if WP:ANI would not have been a more appropriate forum for my complaint.) However, as it was a symptom of User:GoetheFromm's overall conduct throughout the whole exchange, I trust the reader will agree that its inclusion is warranted. In the course of our dispute on the Discussion page at Miral, User:GoetheFromm suggested that I follow a wikilink in the article to the Hind Husseini page.[91] I took her advice but upon doing so discovered that the first reference at Hind Husseini had rotted and that another reference was to a user-edited website. The rotten reference was (and still is) cited seven times throughout the article – which has but four references to begin with – and the user-generated reference was (is) cited twice. I immediately tagged the first reference with Template:Dead link.[92] Then twenty-five minutes later, upon further contemplation, I acknowledged that the article is so short that if two out of the four references are unreliable, it is enough of a reason to flag the article with Template:Unreliable sources and Template:Refimprove.[93] I immediately created a new section in the Discussion page to explain why I had flagged the article.[94] Less than twenty minutes after I flagged the article, User:GoetheFromm proceeded to revert my edit, and instead of explaining the reason for her revert on the Discussion page, scorned me by saying, "Keep up the good work, BioSketch."[95] Later she claimed that she in fact meant that as a compliment. I would like to know if the Admin reviewing this case honestly thinks she was being sincere or if her ostensible apology was a duplicitous for-the-record retraction. Anyway, at this point I resigned myself to the reality that I was up against an edit warrior and, after communicating to her the offense I had taken to her remark, threw in the towel and called it a night.[96] (User:GoetheFromm, I see now, has since gone on to harass User:Plot Spoiler at Victoria Affair and stalk me here and here purely for spite.) The Admin may disregard my immediately following comment as personal reflection and an afterthought, but I feel it necessary to add: I did not refer User:GoetheFromm to the EW noticeboard on a whim in real-time just because I was frustrated with her behavior. I allowed the experience to settle over a night's sleep, convinced it would fade and seem trivial by morning. However, I now feel that by forbearing, User:GoetheFromm will have been sent the wrong message – that I condone her behavior and that her conduct is acceptable. That could not be further from the truth. Now even more so than yesterday, I understand that User:GoetheFromm was aggressive, uncivil, unjustly suspecting, stubborn, disruptive, and obsessive. I ask that, at the very least, she be warned that impulsively reverting good-faith edits and attacking users who are critical of her discourages constructive participation from other editors, is frustrating to editors with gentler dispositions than hers, and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.—Biosketch (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC) <-The 3 sources used now, Haaretz, Ynet and tinymixtapes (don't know the last one) support the content so the content issue looks like it is resolved. I'm familiar with most editors in the I-P conflict topic area but I don't know GoetheFromm and looking through their edits they don't seem to edit in the I-P topic area very much. I assume GoetheFromm isn't familiar with the discretionary sanctions. No one should be editing I-P conflict related articles without reading those and complying with them. I've added a link to the top of the Miral talk page together with the 1RR template. Perhaps the best way forward is for GoetheFromm to simply read the sanctions, particularly the "Editors reminded" section and try to follow them. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
second, I was complimenting you, not insulting. Sorry that you took it the wrong way. Perhaps you need to cool off the topic a bit. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)" GoetheFromm (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
|
- No violation, the fourth revert is from a different article. 3RR is per editor and per article. Please note that I've only examined the diffs, as the wall of text above is squarely in the tl;dr category. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Iaaasi reported by User:Nmate (result: indef)
Page: Hungary–Slovakia relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [97]
- 16:23, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 420310534 by CoolKoon; This article refers to the realtion bteween Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic. (TW))")
- 16:48, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 420511934 by Iaaasi; content does not fit here. (TW)")
- 16:59, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "I've explained to you very clearly, if you continue I'll file a reportReverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW))
- 22:44, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW)")
- 10:36, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "(Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW))")
- 10:42, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW)")
Familiarity with 3RR : [98]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99][100] These are my attempts to explain why this content obviously does not fit here. The second diff is a link to my comment, consequently my attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. I was not reverting-without-talk (Iaaasi (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
Comments:
The user is willing to discuss edits without wanting to adhere to the 3RR rule as has also recently been blocked for a whole week for a violation of 3RR.[101] Also, it is important to note that the user had already been blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing from which got a second chance for the return.[102]--Nmate (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Vandalism does not count as a revert in an edit war. It is an obvious vandalism, User:Koalicio was even warned by the admin User:Anthony Bradbury for that: "one more vandalism edit will result in your being blocked from editing". It is a clear explanation on the talk page why the respective text does not fit in the article. I invite the admins to see it, because it is an obvious inappropriate addition (Iaaasi (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
Unhelpful discussion
|
---|
On a semi-related note: please stop adding additional content to your posts after you hit the "Save page" button or label them as such. It's really annoying to get in constant edit conflicts because of these actions and it makes some of the replies look awkward too. Why don't you just gather your thoughts carefully, look up all the links/article names carefully and post your reply ONLY after you have all the details in place? CoolKoon (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC) To show you that I am a flexible user who seeks dispute resolution, I've opened a thread at WP:ECCN (Iaaasi (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)) |
Urgh, that is really ugly edit-warring, and the later reverts falsely label the content that is being removed as vandalism. Considering that Iaaasi has been previously blocked indefinitely for similar disruption and was only unblocked upon the condition of good behavior ([104]), I am reimposing the indefinite block as a normal admin action. In view of his previous WP:DIGWUREN warning ([105]), I am also imposing the following restriction to take effect in the unlikely event that the block is ever lifted: In application and enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Iaaasi is indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per month per page, if the page or the action being reverted are related to Eastern Europe. A "revert" is any action that undoes the action of another editor, in whole or in part, as explained at WP:EW. Sandstein 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)