Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎User:Matthew Anthony Smith reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: ): suggest page protection in preference to block
Line 639: Line 639:
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
—''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
—''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'd suggest resolving this with a limited (e.g. two week) page protection on the affected template rather than an outright user block. This user ''has'' brushed me up the wrong way in the past but he is showing the first signs of active discussion and consensus building. It's far too late at night for me to start building on that now but the first signs are there. It seems appropriate to offer an olive branch at this point in the hope he may yet turn into a valued contributor as opposed to anything that may be construed as punitive in nature. [[User:Crispmuncher|Crispmuncher]] ([[User talk:Crispmuncher|talk]]) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC).

Revision as of 02:39, 7 September 2012

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    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.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Belchfire reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: withdrawn)

    Page: Corporate welfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Dishonorable Disclosures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Belchfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1] and please note the next edit[2]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3][4]

    Comments:
    I am reporting Belchfire for edit-warring, not specifically a 3RR violation, so I'm omitting the specific diffs and instead asking that you look at recent history for the overall pattern of repeated reverts. (Depending on interpretation, he may or may not have exceeded 3RR, but I don't want to base the report on this because it's debatable.)

    I'm concerned that he has either avoided discussion or has been belligerent and uncooperative, all while repeatedly reverting to keep his version in place. The actual edits he makes all seem to have the same basic pattern, which is that they favor the conservative political POV (he is a member of WikiProject Conservatism).

    These are not the only articles he's edit-warring over at this moment, but they're among the clearest cases. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • This report is clearly simple harassment by this user. He's been following me around all over Wikipedia for the better part of two months, doing his best to frustrate anything and everything I do, without regard to reason or sanity. In this case, he's seized upon some edits by this indeffed user User:Orvilleunder, which he then decided to adopt as his very own [5] [6], clearly for the express purpose of creating a confrontation. Admins should note that StillStanding never edited either article prior to today, but simply saw the opportunity to generate fodder for this report. I'm not going to spend the time necessary to dig up all of the diffs, but this is merely the most recent episode in a long string of similar abuses. I would urge interested admins to look carefully at his contribs to evaluate whether this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Belchfire-TALK 07:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ignore the sock puppet revert. That's the one that I said was arguable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For example, on Corporate welfare, he deleted some material and has reverted everyone's attempt to restore it for days now. He gets exactly one free pass for the sock puppet, but the pattern remains. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The two articles today are not isolated occurrences. Here are a few other recent examples of StillStanding following me to a diverse selection of articles for the express purpose of reverting my edits: [9] [10] [11] In each case, he never edited the articles before, but suddenly found them interesting once I had touched them. As one might imagine, this gets old, and it makes it difficult to avoid the guy. Belchfire-TALK 08:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What StillStanding doesn't understand is that Orvilleunder, Belvbelv and both of the IPs are the same indeffed sockmaster. All of the edits coming from the 216.81.*.*/28 IP range are the same disruptive user with multiple blocks to his credit. Not a single one of those reverts count towards edit-warring. Belchfire-TALK 08:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In both of these articles, Orvilleunder is identified as a sock only in the second to last revert. Was he known as a sock before this? If so, why aren't the edits commented with that information? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You knew it was a sock and STILL decided to reinstate his edits on multiple articles. How come? Belchfire-TALK 08:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to withdraw this report, unless you want to be blocked as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur that the report should be withdrawn, but I take issue with "as well". There is no basis to accuse me of edit-warring here. Nada. Belchfire-TALK 08:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Read: "if you want... as well" :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine, I'll withdraw, but anyone who reverts a sock because they're a sock needs to say so in their comments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    thx Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly, I find Belch's explanation a tad questionable. Only one of the accounts was identified in any way as a sockpuppet from what I can tell and Belch clearly reverted most of those instances on the basis of a content argument, rather than sockpuppetry. Accusing Still of filing a bad faith report on the basis that these were all reverts of sockpuppets is thus inappropriate. However, Belch neglects to mention that the initial revert removed long-standing material. The sockpuppet defense doesn't quite add up given that the material was not recently added by such a user.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that similar circumstances apply with regards to the Dishonorable Disclosures article as the material was inserted by AzureCitizen and only later did a sock restore that material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DustyCoffin reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24h)

    Page: Grunge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DustyCoffin (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: [16]. BTW, user knows what edit-warring is; they've been here before.

    Comments: This is a rather silly dispute, with the editor inserting (in an FA) unreliably sourced information taken practically verbatim from the source, to argue that their fave band invented grunge. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:178.36.78.138 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24h)

    Page: America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 178.36.78.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    Previous version reverted to: 07:48, 3 September 2012

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

    Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on editor's talk page:

    Comments:
    I was asked to do some work at the America's Next Top Model articles,[17] and when doing so I noticed many instances of MOS non-compliance so I put all articles on my watchlist. Most recently, User:178.36.78.138 made changes, some of which were not compliant with MOS:CAPS and WP:OVERLINK so I cleaned them up.[18] When the IP restored the edits, I again fixed them and left a message on his/her talk page.[19] When they were again restored I asked the IP if there was anything in what I wrote that they did not understand,[20] but I didn't revert at the time - the ANTM articles seem to be plagued with unresponsive IPs and I fully expected any change I made to be reverted, so I just couldn't be bothered getting into an edit war over such a trivial issue. (The changes were later reverted by another editor.[21]) However, the next time the IP restored the changes, I left a warning on the IP's talk page[22] and conducted a more thorough, but still incomplete, cleanup.[23] Despite this, the IP has again partially restored the changes, breaching 3RR in the process. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2.222.145.203 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: 31h)

    Page: Fong Sai-yuk (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2.222.145.203 (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.222.145.203&diff=510735232&oldid=510735185 ]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

    Comments:
    This user has been at it for months and returns under various IPs, usually editing wrestling and martial arts film articles. Never replies, just changed genres and adds UK dvd info without any citations. I've tried to discuss with them, but they just keep editing this one and many many other articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brandmeister reported by User:George Spurlin (Result: warning, article protected, one editor blocked 24h)

    Page: Ramil Safarov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [28] First instance of the removal of the information from the infobox.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

    Comments:

    Brandmeister keeps removing the motive of the murder from the infobox. George Spurlin (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Collect (Result: 31h)

    Page: Paul Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [37]

    • 1st revert: [38] 13:54 4 Sep
    • 2nd revert: [39] 15:07 4 Sep
    • 3rd revert: [40] 15:40 4 Sep
    • 4th revert: [41] 19:37 4 Sep
    • 5th revert: [42] 20:40 4 Sep

    4 of which are basically related, the other one is, nonetheles, a revert


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43] at 15:44 4 Sep (at the 3RR mark)

    My edits took note of the comments of others and added citations, created compromise wording, and contributed to the organization and prioritization of the articles. They were not edit warring or simple "undo" edits. They were explained in Edit Summaries. It is unfortunate to see that they have been mischaracterized as such.SPECIFICO 22:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Response at [44] and at [45] where he seems to misapprehend what edit war is.


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46] also multiple editors at SPECIFICO's user talk page as well.

    Pretty clear 5RR in under 7 hours as far as I can tell. User made the last revert well after a gentle warning (2 other editors also gently warned the user) . Collect (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a "new user" unless new users add userboxes to their userspace at the start, and know the Wikipedia argot. He also made 5 edits in one day as an IP to the Paul Ryan page [47]. He states at [48] that he is this IP editor. Collect (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    My edits took note of the comments of others and added citations, created compromise wording, and contributed to the organization and prioritization of the articles. They were not edit warring or simple "undo" edits. They were explained in Edit Summaries. It is unfortunate to see that they have been mischaracterized as such. Please also see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SPECIFICO

    I also posted on the Paul Ryan talk page section concerning this section of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Ryan

    This user is clearly inexperienced so I think any sort of administrative action would be misguided and a case of WP:BITE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest otherwise - the user uses Wikipedia argot as though he were Athena newly sprung from the head of Zeus <g>. Considering such a person a newbie is mind-boggling. And the person clearly still does not recognize that he violated a bright line rule - after being warned by three editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Should you suspect sockpuppetry then you should be filing an SPI. However, I do not believe this is the case. Intelligent people can easily adapt to Wikipedia norms and practices to an extent that they would be seen as too familiar to be new editors. Until you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary we should operate under the assumption that this is a new editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    --Collect, for your information, my first edit on Wikipedia was made on Aug 11, 2012. In response to messages from another editor, I created the ID as documented at the link you cited. I am surprised and disappointed at the sarcastic, aggressive, and hostile tone of your remarks. They do not appear to reflect the intention of this community to assume good faith and help newcomers such as myself to get up to speed. On a purely personal basis, I must say that your hostility and hairtrigger attack make me wonder whether contributing to this community is a good use of my time.SPECIFICO 01:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    I would suggest that biting the noob is not the right answer. If anything, the article needs to be protected so as to end the ongoing edit wars and get editors to talk to each other. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are SPECIFICO's edits from Sept. 4. Only edits #1 and #2 are consecutive. Three edits from this list are marked 'Undid' and one is marked 'Replaced.' Looks to me that WP:3RR is broken:
    1. 03:39, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Consolidate and simplify material on health, fitness, and athletic activities.")
    2. 03:42, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
    3. 03:50, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Early life and education */")
    4. 13:54, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2012 vice presidential campaign */ Added references demonstrating that the assertion of lies and misrepresentations in Rep. Ryan's speech was indeed widespread.")
    5. 15:07, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510765188 by Eustress (talk) My revision restored text removed by an editor who claimed no widespread criticism. You should delete some less relevant sources rather than the facts.")
    6. 15:40, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2012 vice presidential campaign */ Restored citation to recognized journalist. Replaced vague "drew criticism" with specific statement, qualified to indicate such criticism was not universally accepted.")
    7. 19:37, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510789085 by Mforg (talk) Ryan cites his father's death as influencing Ryan's philosophy and policies. Fitness is discussed in the Personal section, but is not critical to Ryan's politics.")
    8. 20:40, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510807253 by Mforg (talk)Better solution, remove the grandfather and great grandfather here, since they're cited in Personal section on fitness & didn't directly impact Ryan as father did.")
    SPECIFICO has been rapidly editing a lot of the negative statements in the article (for example edits #4, #5 and #6). It's hard to extend good faith to someone who appears so determined to have the article read in the exact way he prefers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternate interpretation: various editors have been whitewashing the article by removing "negative" (read: true) statements and SPECIFICO has been too hasty in reverting them. This speaks of noobishness, not malice. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope - it is "Athena springing forth from the head of Zeus" time. And I am simply astonished at your appearance here. If SPECIFICO is a noob, then I am William Randolph Hearst <g>. Noobs do not appear with userboxes, knowing the argot here, and making multiple reverts with the edit summaries used (heck - most noobs do not even know what a userbox is (and for sure do not use them), or an edit summary, and for sure do not know the argot here). As to your explicit charge of "whitewashing" -- that is absurd, Multiple editors of all stripes concurred on this one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Hearst, reports of your death were clearly exaggerated. Some editors try to blend in with the more experienced ones by mimicking their behavior. If you really think it's a sock, go to SPI; don't sully this 3RR discussion with unsupported accusations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone had bothered to look at his edits, they'd see his first was to say that he would now be posting under a username instead of an IP. His immediate previous IP appears to be "24.151.25.89", see this link for those contributions. Looking at the history for Talk:Peter Schiff, it looks like IP previously posted under the IP User:24.151.19.17 where he was warned here for edit warring in mid-August. Those IPs go to the same ISP. So this user has almost certainly been warned about edit warring before. There's no reason not to hold them accountable now. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    --I feel that I should reiterate that my edits repeatedly offered compromise or moderating language which addressed the concerns of those whose words I edited and that many also cleaned up awkward or redundant language, checked citations and did other housekeeping. As to my experience here, Jeez I can barely get a reference to create a proper footnote. That's about the limit of my expertise with the mechanics at this point.SPECIFICO 02:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

    --To see the nature of my edits, please read my actual changes, not just that in several instances I began editing by clicking "undo" before working on the text. Thanks.SPECIFICO 02:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

    Blocked - 31 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RightCowLeftCoast reported by User:Viriditas (Result: 48h)

    Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 17:49, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Response */ reinserted word that was removed when it was moved to this section from the lead")
      Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012
    2. 18:16, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "moved content that was previously removed from the lead back into the lead, and merged duplicate content; c/e; added content that meets WP:VER; added subsections, removed tag")
      Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012. Restored "On the lectern used during the speech", from 20:57, 3 September 2012, previously removed at 21:08, 3 September 2012
    3. 19:24, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "moved references, added new references; added wikilinks")
      Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    I have posted on my talk page, why I did not believe that my edits constituted edit warring, and stated that I will stop editing for the given period of time. As said, the above is not a violation of 3RR, and I would argue that others are edit warring, and are tag teaming my edits in an attempt to make the article unbalanced, and thus un-neutral, even if they do so in good faith of what they believe is what is best for the article. I can leave this article, but to do so is allow it to IMHO devolve into an article that is clearly anti-one candidate, and thus pro-another candidate.
    As I have said elsewhere, I understand that due to my attempt to keep the article neutral, and not unbalanced, that my actions are vilified, and as such I have been personally attacked.
    Additionally, should verified content be removed, as was done by others?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, addition of the liberal term was in good faith, even if others do not perceive it to be so, as per WP:VER I had added reliable sources to verify that liberal commentators did state XYZ, this of course was reverted by someone else.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously, it takes two to edit-war. Or perhaps more if there's tag teaming going on. I trust whichever admin decides to look into this, he or she looks into the conduct of all involved edit-warriors. Or perhaps just lock the page until everyone agrees to stop edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reverted some content that the OP edited back in despite having been rejected at the talkpage here. Are you accusing me of tag-teaming too? I'd really like to know... TMCk (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, I didn't bother checking to see who is edit-warring with RightCowLeftCoast because it's obviously impossible to edit-war by yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Note RCLC has not edited the article since the warning, and has said that he would : "stop editing the article until discussions have completed". aprock (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the following: 1, 2. The things that I have gone through in editing contentious articles, even though my balance of edits are not in this field, lead me to want to take a break or quit. Have fun, regards.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your most recent edit warring documented by this report shows a disturbing pattern of sneaky complex reverts buried beneath innocuous edits, as if you were intending to deceive others about your reverts. Your response indicates that you refuse to take any responsibility for your edits. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours for continued warring on the same article where he was recently blocked. Three reverts is not an entitlement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Goethean reported by User:RightCowLeftCoast (Result: Reporter blocked)

    Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Current version


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:You didn't build that#Removed verified content, diff

    Comments:
    I stand accused of edit waring, rightly or wrongly, yet I believe my edits were in good faith and keeping with WP:VER, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV, even if others disagree. As I have said others have been involved in tag teaming my edits in the article in question, and one in particular has come close to WP:3RR, but has not violated it. Therefore, if I am to be accused of edit warring, others should be brought to light here as well.

    I would much rather have the content locked, and that no bans to occur; but if I am to be banned and punished, let it be known that others are not without fault themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2.137.128.27 reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Windows 8 editions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    • 1st revert: [50]
    • 2nd revert: [51] (Today)
    • 3rd revert: [52] (Today)
    • 4th revert: [53] (Today)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    This IP user constantly reverts to reinstate contents that a DRN case ruled as needing heavy sources. He has resorted to using two fake sources that do not verify the issue and the edit summary: "I am not going to allow censorship!" Codename Lisa (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Codename Lisa (talk) do not want this info in wikipedia. I gave two references the first time but Codename Lisa (talk) did not like them. In the last edit I added a Microsoft official reference but he still does not like it. Can we block Codename Lisa (talk) to prevent him censoring wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.149.169 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Earthloves reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Fritz Springmeier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Earthloves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 00:02, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
    2. 04:46, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
    3. 04:52, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    4. 05:48, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510871563 by Dougweller (talk)")

    —Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Borxdeluxe reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Iron Man 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Borxdeluxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [56]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

    Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Iron Man 3#Gravitons POV/OR changes to the starring list

    Comments:

    Despite ongoing discussion and a notice that new cast members are to be put in order that they joined the film, the edit war has unfortunately continued with the same POV/OR edits to the cast section and the info box. Also, Graviton 4 has been doing the same thing and was warned by Darkwarriorblake to discuss the issue on the talk page. What is the best way to resolve the situation? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eptified reported by User:Activism1234 (Result: 24h)

    Page: Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Eptified (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    • 1st revert: [62]
    • 2nd revert: [63]
    • Article is under 1RR/ARBPIA.


    Editor is well aware of ABRPIA and 1RR - editor claims on userpage to be an alternate account of Factomancer, after losing password. Factomancer has a long history of being blocked in the area for multiple times of various lengths, and is familiar with the rules.

    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm X 01:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Widescreen reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: 24h)

    Page: Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

    Comments:

    Widescreen has violated an agreement reached at the dispute noticeboard and has been edit-waring. He has been in an edit war previously as well. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) Widescreen reported himself for this a few days ago (see above) and was cleared. This was before his last reversion, which caught my eye as it claims that Freud cited "aliens" as sexual excitations in infancy (as opposed to "the preconditions for hysterical symptoms" which was made in prior edits.) That change was made by the person reporting the edit warring/3RR, CartoonDiablo, and as far as I can tell was not discussed on the talk page. We should take into account Widescreen's recent good faith towards reporting himself to this board, that he simply reverted to the prior version edited by BlueLikeThat like so, that this doesn't meet 3RR due to the time period, and a reasonable claim that his reversion was made due to unsourced content/vandalism. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All three of the CBT reverts were today but yeah discount the last one, I accidentally did a revert with other content and didn't realize it was a legitimate revert (with the aliens etc.). However, Widescreen was not doing a good faith edit in the CBT article which is what the bulk of this is about. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) In which case, you should report the edit warring solely on the CBT page, rather than on two separate pages. He has three reverts on CBT, one on Psychoanalysis (the one which mentions aliens), and wasn't given a proper 3RR/edit warring notice (I think it's nice to write something custom but I've found it far more effective in situations like this to use the standard template.) This is just some helpful advise for dealing with edit warring in the future, please do not take it personally. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did actually give a proper warning afterwards but the point's taken. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, that's not an edit warring/3RR warning. That's the an3-notice, which is different. This is clearly edit warring but for 3RR you should place {{subst:uw-3RR}} on their talk page. There's a good reason why the AN3 template recommends that you give a user a proper warning first. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, any four reverts are enough. As for being "cleared", that's not the case. He self-reported but it was rejected as nonsensical. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a comment on Widescreen's talk page. They can either continue dispute resolution by starting an RfC, they can propose an alternative version of the prose on the talk page, or they can leave the issue alone. They must stop removing the text, which there's reasonable support for so far. So I we can leave this open until we get a response, but if they can't agree to stop reverting a block is probably going to be necessary. Swarm X 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On the article talk page, I recommended an RfC, too, and insisted that they stop touching those passages until the RfC is resolved. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be worth reverting it to what it was? All RfC aside, Widescreen "stops" reverting when it's reverted to the version he does even despite the consensus against it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Clear edit warring, but I will wait to see if Widescreen responds to comments on his talk page before placing any block. The disruption has stopped for now, and a block can be instituted should he resume the edit war. --Chris (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Stopped edit waring aside, it seems ridiculous that someone can get away with 4 reverts and not be violating 3RR. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a violation, but remember that blocks are preventative and not punitive. I'm willing to wait and see how the user will respond to comments on their talk page before any block is placed. If they agree to stop edit warring, then no block is required. --Chris (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NB, User:Widescreen is known for his tactical edit warring on de.Wikipedia. Widescreen is lone record holder for community ban petitions, his most recent one De:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Widescreen 7 (in which 48% voted for a community ban) was finished only yesterday... Widescreen is one of the earliest de.wiki users, yet one of the most controversial. That he's continuing just after he escaped the ban is not surprising, apparently Widescreen will never learn. --rtc (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info, I will keep that in mind as I continue to evaluate this situation. --Chris (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rct, here on en:wp! Rct is still annoyed, because we've had a dispute, Rct lost and I was right. He was one of the POV-Users run a ban petition against me. He canceled it, because he found it was hopeless and trys to run another. This second was also canceled because of protests by other users. I think my work for wikipedia was never being criticised. Except POV-users like Rtc. The last ban petition was because I offer critic about admins :o). The results speak for itself.
    I explain my reverts here. Please have a look and dicide for yourself if it was unjustifyed. 18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widescreen (talk • contribs)
    Reverting may be justified, but that is not what is under discussion on this noticeboard. Whether or not reverting is justified, edit warring over such a revert is never justifiable except in very specific situations. This is not one of them. --Chris (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry about that. But this "prose" was mainly a complete fabrication. The reason is, the author of the text has no clue of what he is writing about. I offered him to support a well sourced and correct passage. [64] But he won't take it. I discuss this theme since June. But he won't assume not one of my annotations. So what can I do? Discuss this till next year? What makes you believe he will trust my notes next year? I've had a lot of such disputes. Mostly other users notice such a conflict and expain the point to my offenders. But it takes weeks of useless discussions. And CD seems to be really stubborn. After the "result" at DRN that no table is desirable, CD load up a picture of the Table now been listed for deletion. But I try to to bring CD to reason. Again if you want to? --WSC ® 19:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What shall I say to this kind of proceed --WSC ® 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Widescreen just reverted an edit in the psychoanalysis article, the thing we agreed to in the dispute resolution. I don't see any doubt that he will stop doing so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No violation)

    Page: Domestic violence in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff for 1st, 3rd and 4th reverts, diff for 2nd revert


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been warned about edit warring many times before and was under 1RR about a month ago.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion

    Comments:
    User:Darkness Shines is removing valid content completely from the article citing it is undue in the lead section and edit warring on it while the article is on main page. --SMS Talk 16:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you enjoy filing bogus EW reports? Two of those edits are one after the other, hence only 1R. And if you had not misrepresented a source, used an opinion piece for statements of fact two of the other reverts would not have happened either. So I have 3 reverts on an article which is on the front page, this is due to your source misrepresentation. You even reverted[69] after I had started a discussion on the talk page[70]. There is no violation of 3RR here, and this should be closed as entirely bogus. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation Darkness shines is only at 3 reverts. Although I don't usually look at content in these situations (the DYK is why I looked), I tend to agree with DS, particularly as SMS was adding the opinion piece to the lead when it had no support or context in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a report for edit warring. I would like to clarify here that I was working on the article while this was reverted out, I was going to expand further using the same source and another on this issue. And I was trying my best to make it worthy for the main page by avoiding issues like: one source in the lead is disputed at RSN, I didn't remove it. Another statement in the body (most probably written by DS) was without a source but I didn't add {{Cn}} tag and tried to find source for it, but the content I added was removed right away from the article. If it was undue in the lead, it could have been moved to another section. --SMS Talk 17:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LiamFitzGilbert reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: )

    Page: Liberalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LiamFitzGilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [71]

    • 1st revert: [72] 13:07, 6 September 2012
    • 2nd revert: [73] 16:14, 6 September 2012
    • 3rd revert: [74] 16:38, 6 September 2012
    • 4th revert: [75] 17:11, 6 September 2012


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76] 6 September 2012 (edit)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

    Comments:

    Note that the discussion thread was set up several days ago after the editor made the same changes and edit warred. The edit discussed in the thread] is essentially the same as the first three listed above. TFD (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how the third example given above constitutes a revert.... who was I reverting?
    At any rate, I hope common sense prevails. It should be clear to admin that TFD is playing games here. There was no reason whatsoever for him to revert me when I simply deleted an erroneous, unsourced sentence - except to goad me into this revert game. He only ever went to the Talk page AFTER reverting. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've self-reverted to avoid this possible 3RR. But I would very much like to know if the third example given above constitutes a revert? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your self-reversion is a bit late. TFD is also correct that you have a history of edit-warring on this article in the last several days. The third example is a revert. Read the policy: " Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Almost any change to the article, particularly in the midst of a war, constitutes a revert unless it's consecutive or exempt.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am surprised that that constitutes a revert. Very well, if I have done the wrong thing according to the letter of the law, then I cannot complain about being sanction. But I would like to ask you - do you think TFD's conduct has been totally above board here? If you look at the history of the edits in a chronological order, you will see that every time he reverted, he had done so BEFORE using the talk page. If you look at the Talk page now, you will see that he still hasn't engaged. And then this apparently purposeless revert on the English Civil War + Cold War sentence - what was the point of that? Even his explanation on the Talk page, I don't understand (something about me trying to prove it is older or something, it doesn't seem to make sense). Do you not think he was, for want of a better phrase, "playing me"? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I don't think it's a bit late. How could I have done it any earlier? While editing I had no inkling whatsoever that I was in danger of breaching the 3RR rule. When you posted this link on my userpage, I was shocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamFitzGilbert (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Shocked? You're not helping yourself. See what you call "obscene".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:‎Juanmatorres75 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Disputed status of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Juanmatorres75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    ‎Juanmatorres75 has been inserting a number of POV edits into this article for some time. He has been reverted by multiple editors [82], with editors pointing out the problems with his edits. Sole contributions in article space is edit warring on this article see [83]. Some of his contributions are especially problematic, with the insertion of claims that are not supported by the source he cites. I haven't tried to resolve this on the article talk page but I have tried to on his talk page. My patience is exhausted.

    Note earlier attempt to avoid 3RR by editing from IP 87.223.139.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Much of the material he is trying to insert is WP:OR but after 2 reverts I'm not going to revert again and risk a block myself. Other material is directly lifted from [84] and is based on minority and fringe views such as Britain maintaining Gibraltar as a front for "shameful illegal activities".

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85], [86]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87], [88]

    Comments:

    User:DePiep reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24h)

    Page: Death of Asher and Yonatan Palmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [89]

    • 1st revert: [90]
    • 2nd revert: [91]
    • 3rd revert: [diff]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]


    Comments:
    The article is under 1RR and part of WP:ARBPIA area.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a second. The 1RR warning was posted on his talk page four hours after his edits. Did this user have any way of knowing that he was in violation of a special edit restriction? A block for normal, civil edits - note that his objection has brought better sourcing in for the claim he contested - that are completely fine in other settings, but specially restricted on a particular article, seems arbitrary, harsh, unjustified, and a gross overreaction. I would encourage Chris to remove the block immediately and reexamine his (her?) knee-jerk imposition of punitive sanctions, specifically paying attention to the post times of edits and warnings. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The talk page of the article says, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you're saying that reading through the talk page is now required for editing, otherwise you are going to have nonsensical blocks imposed. Glad to know that things aren't arbitrary and capricious around here. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 23:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying anything. Arbcom said it. And tone down your rhetoric.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming that it's not arbitrary and capricious to have a "warning" posted to your talk page, and then be blocked without having done anything else? I can't even imagine what you think a warning is if you think it is remotely appropriate to block someone when they've been given a warning and they haven't repeated the behavior. My rhetoric is completely cool, if sardonic, but there are serious problems with the conduct of the blocking admin in this case, and I've seen nothing to indicate that random blocks won't be wantonly imposed in the future. As someone who cares about this project, I find this to be a grave state of affairs. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 00:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matthew Anthony Smith reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: )

    Page: Template:Infobox CPU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Matthew Anthony Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [93]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

    Comments:
    Technically not within 24h, but:

    —Ruud 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'd suggest resolving this with a limited (e.g. two week) page protection on the affected template rather than an outright user block. This user has brushed me up the wrong way in the past but he is showing the first signs of active discussion and consensus building. It's far too late at night for me to start building on that now but the first signs are there. It seems appropriate to offer an olive branch at this point in the hope he may yet turn into a valued contributor as opposed to anything that may be construed as punitive in nature. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=511164671"