Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:19, 22 November 2008 view sourceSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,777 edits →Roaring Siren reported by Collectonian (Result: ): 12 hours← Previous edit Revision as of 22:55, 22 November 2008 view source Locke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,922 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 710: Line 710:
Despite three other editors reverting his addition, Roaring Siren continues to revert, ignoring the 3RR warning and making edit summaries, as noted above, indicating he intends to continue. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Despite three other editors reverting his addition, Roaring Siren continues to revert, ignoring the 3RR warning and making edit summaries, as noted above, indicating he intends to continue. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
*Blocked for 12 hours. If this carries on the next one will be much longer. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC) *Blocked for 12 hours. If this carries on the next one will be much longer. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

* Page: editor performing massive edits despite an ongoing dispute (, ], more discussion on the dispute at ])
* User: {{userlinks|Date delinker}}
** Bot operated by: {{userlinks|Ohconfucius}}

* 1st edit:
* 2nd edit:
* 3rd edit:
* 4th edit:

* Diff of dispute warning:

*This editor has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chose to enforce their POV by performing massive edits to hundreds of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere '''sampling''' of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of ], it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of ]. I believe this does however meet ], especially if you read the first section:

{{"|Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.|]}}
and
{{"|Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.|]}}

—] • ] • ] 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:55, 22 November 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son


    User:Redking7 reported by User:Kransky (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:

    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    • 6th revert:

    • 7th revert:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Diplomatic_missions_of_Ireland&oldid=249726400

    (listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)



    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Please see Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland

    Redking7 argues that because Ireland does not have diplomatic missions with Taiwan, Diplomatic missions of Ireland should either (a) not list a quasi-Irish government office in Taipei which performs de facto governmental services, or (b) list the office with a disclaimer about Irish non-recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty and exclude the Taiwanese flag. I have also said that we name countries according to how they identify themselves (although I said I would not pursue the matter since it was a rule that was not consistently upheld).

    I have repeatedly told Redking7 that we include such unofficial missions in these articles as they essentially perform the same duties as diplomatic missions and take direction from Governmental authorities. Whereas I had first considered that the office perhaps was not directly supported by the Irish Government, another editor then provided a link to the office, and it appeared to have some de facto legitimacy (eg: visa form downloads, the same phone/fax numbers as those listed by the Taiwanese ministry of foreign affairs).

    I repeatedly asked Redking7 to discuss the changes on the category page, including the principle that quasi-diplomatic missions are excluded from these articles. I said I had an open mind on the matter, but any rule applied here should apply to all other articles in the Diplomatic Missions by country category, and not just for Taiwan but for other states with recognition or nomenclature issues. I warned him that if we were to keep these articles consistent to I would need to make several chagnes that could lead to other people expressing countering views. He said to the effect it was none of his business what went into the other articles. In turn I said it would be unreasonable for a new editor to drive a signficant policy change, but not put in the hard yards of making all the substantial edits that would be required - and to defend them when others will inevitably complain.

    This attitude makes it hard for me to believe he is editing in good faith. No doubt he has similarly negative views about me. But I think we both would like some guidance on the matter. Kransky (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

    No action. This is not a 3RR case, but an edit-warring case. Though Redking7 appears stubborn, so does Kransky. (They are the main participants in the edit war). Any block for edit-warring would have to be given to both. I suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. For instance WP:3O or WP:RFC. Since the question of how to deal with diplomatic missions in quasi-countries is of wider interest than just Taiwan, perhaps you can find a WikiProject to get advice from. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    Follow-up: Since Redking7 continued to revert even after the close of the original 3RR case, and in spite of an explicit warning to stop, he's been blocked for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    Actually I agree with RedKing that this is not a subtle change; even though on inspection it might seem trivial, there are a whole host of sensitivities attached to whatever decision is made. I have been careful to avoid these articles becoming battlegrounds for people with different agendas concerning the names or sovereignty of certain places (as I have seen on matters relating to Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Taiwan, Kosovo, Macedonia and Abkhazia). Misplaced Pages's self-identification principle provides some procedural cover to the convention of treating states according to how they identify themselves, thus stopping tendentious editors making errant changes or claiming bias when encountering views from opposing editors.
    I must emphasise that the decision does not end with the Diplomatic missions of Ireland article, it will affect all articles featuring countries of which sensitivities exist. Consequently I have moved the debate to Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country, and have alerted Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations.
    I will keep an open mind on whether non-sovereign states should be included or excluded. My prime goal is to ensure consistency - a non-negotiable Misplaced Pages requirement.

    Kransky (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    201.31.242.162 reported by Smalljim (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: (He made minor changes, but it's still a revert)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: .

    He also had a 3RR warning on his older IP address: User_talk:201.52.40.246, under which he reverted several editors during October, for instance: , , , .

    He has a predilection for the version that begins "Although uncommon to be eaten today in the United States…" I'm obviously too involved in this lame edit war to consider blocking him myself. (How did I get sucked into it?)  —SMALLJIM  10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    Debona.michel reported by User:AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 12h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    12h. You managed to confuse me by posting a warning that post-dated the reverts. However there was an earlier one too William M. Connolley (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    Resess reported by Zigger (Result: Protected )



    • Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-11-16T23:52:25 UTC

    Related: AFD, AN, checkuser

    --Zigger «º» 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    Diff of 1st revert should be . --Zigger «º» 15:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    FWIW. the page was protected shortly before I listed this, so it was not the "result". My concern was that the user was then editing related articles with similar history. The account has since been indefinitely blocked due to other abuse. Thanks to all who assisted. --Zigger «º» 01:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Pinkman111 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24 hours )

    Pinkman111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)



    User:88.110.202.50‎ reported by SandyGeorgia (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version:
    • 1st revert: 15:42, November 17, 2008
    • 2nd revert: 18:28, November 17, 2008
    • 3rd revert: 21:38, November 17, 2008
    • 4th revert: 21:42, November 17, 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    IP has previous recent warnings about edit warring on other articles, and has made no attempt to discuss on talk in any case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    I support the block. The anon's current attitude isn't welcomed on Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    Van Briggle Pottery

    Please could someone have a look at this article. I have made efforts to improve an article, especially removing overblown claims that were unsupported by references. The response has not been welcoming and the discussion pages are now slipping towards abuse (I'm not innocent in this, but I'm only human and I was reacting to what I received). The big issue about the article is the subject is known to be a significant influence on Art Nouveau in the United States - this is accepted and supported by the given citations. But editor/s have tried to extend this to being a significant influence globally. This is incorrect, unsupported by the citatiosn and impossible given the dates when active. I will try again (!) and flagged up the 3RR. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.42.88 (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Dear Stifle. I am sorry you are not prepared to asssit simply because as I am unfamilar with a non-user friendly procedure. I was trying to help ensure Misplaced Pages is not damaged; I didn't realise this required a detailed prior knowledge things called "template reports"

    And there you have a small sample of the belligerent behavior that 119.224.42.88 is displaying. He seems to feel discussion and proper Wiki procedure and etiquette are not warranted, as his decision on any topic is final and indisputable. If he senses you are crossing him, he gets mad and insulting. He seems to have reserved it to himself to be the arbiter of what is allowable or not, and his discussion skills seem to end with his one-word reasoning: "no." 72.11.124.226 (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    80.4.33.59 reported by JD554 (Result: Already blocked)




    I also attempted to engage the anonymous IP into a discussion on the issue with this notice on his/her talk page: 15:38, 17 November 2008 and this notice on the article's talk page: 15:35, 17 November 2008. --JD554 (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Added a fifth revert. --JD554 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    Already blocked By MBisanz. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Elohimgenius reported by User:collounsbury (Result: Malformed/Incomplete)


    • Previous version reverted to:

    In Reverse Chron, 16 Nov. all

    Etc.

    Although not involved in this, I have been an editor of the Moors article. The edit war seems to have been set off by this editors strong POV edits. Discussion seems to have occured, but rather one sidedly on the user pages of the two editors. (collounsbury (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    From a check of the history, I believe this case might have deserved a block if it were timely filed. (Though the URLs are to versions rather than reverts, you can see the reverts if you append '&diff=prev' to the end of each one). The reverts listed are two days old (Nov. 16). Since that time, other editors have removed the inappropriate POV and original research from the article, so the issue is less pressing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    Wonderful. Well I only came up on this today, as for the fucking report form, one reason I detest this bloody process is it geared to internet nerds. Thanks for your bloody help, goddamned Wikiwhankers. (collounsbury (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
    There's a few people watching this article now. That should help. It is traditional that admins don't take action on stale reverts, since that means the edit war could be over. You might also get assistance at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if the champions of this unusual point of view continue to try adding it to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    User1389 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: 8 hours & 24h & 72h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    Serbia/Kosovo edit warrior took a month off and has now reengaged. Is blind-reverting general article fixes as well as country names. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    Now off his block, the user has re-reverted the article again . keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    Sigh. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    And...he's back. With a somewhat amusing edit summary, considering his behavior: . keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Gave notice; further reverts will result in an extended block. seicer | talk | contribs 14:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    84.69.64.206 reported by RolandR (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Not obvious that #1 is a revert. No reverts since your warning. No vio, unless anything further happens William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Sachingolhar reported by Touchdown Turnaround (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Only 3R, and none since the warning. No vio. Be a bit more understanding to newbies William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Rave92 reported by Nikola Smolenski (Result:Editors warned)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Nikola (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    No, thats not a warning, thats you reporting him here William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    If you guys continue on like this I'll have to lock the page and eventually block your accounts. C'mon. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    71.200.54.6, User:BaldPete, User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II reported by CIreland (Result:IP blocked, editors warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: Irrelevant
    • Diff of 3RR warning: All users show talk page evidence that they are aware of the three-revert-rule.

    CIreland (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked IP. I'll warn the other two. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    Zbrink89 reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24h and 8h)



    24h for Z. 8h for K William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    86.11.175.170 reported by Kevin Forsyth (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This editor appears to be the same person who has performed the same edit in the past, from this and one other ISP: see , , and . Repeated requests for a reliable source have resulted in edit warring accusations and profanity. Their response is always the same, reverting with shouted warnings about "edit waring" while themselves violating 3RR. The edit in question is their attempt to add a term for Grimbarians that is intentionally derogatory. (The term has also been denied by an editor who claims to be from Grimsby.) Each time their edit is removed, it sets them off with these results. Truth be told, I have violated 3RR myself to revert this edit which I consider disruptive, but as far as I can tell only I and editor Keith D seem to be aware of the disruption. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    2008-11-20T17:56:27 Keith D (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 86.11.175.170 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: first violation of 3 revert rule) (Unblock). Consider yourself lucky not to get a gentle tap yourself; the claimed vandalism exemption is dubious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Simon2239 reported by User:User:71.178.193.134 (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert (done in 3 continuous edits): , &
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This user has become belligerent and refuses to discuss any edits. He appears to be taking ownership of the article and is reverting other good faith edits as well. This article is also up for deletion with overwhelming support for deletion. He has since deleted the 3RR warning.71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    • I have already protected the article and we usually allow new users a little slack. Deleting the warning is fine. He knows the score now and will get blocked if there is further edit warring. Spartaz 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole

    Dabomb87 is performing dozens of edits (and if you go back further, hundreds) which are currently disputed at WT:MOSNUM. Specifically, he is unlinking full dates and despite a good faith discussion and RFC forming, he is refusing to stop his automated edits pushing his POV. I believe this is "edit warring". —Locke Cole • t • c 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comment – Abstaining from any action on this subject due to prior interaction with Locke Cole, but other parties should note WP:AN#Special:Contributions/Tennis expert, WP:ANI#Locke Cole. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Coment. Date-linking is something on which the community has not yet made up its mind. Admin action taken from this noticeboard might have trouble winning general support. I suggest that you add any complaint about this editor's work to the existing thread at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Certainly there's no harm in stopping these mass edits from being performed is there? It doesn't help the ongoing discussion and debate when you have this editor (amongst others, I might add) using a single script (created/maintained by Lightmouse (talk · contribs)) to make so many automated edits that the opposing side just throws its arms up in disgust. See my notification diff which quotes a recent ArbCom decision stating that just these types of acts are wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    So that makes your nearly-automated edits (and that of Tennis Expert) correct or more respectable? Conducting such edits in a matter of seconds over dozens of pages hundreds of times is just as nasty as an automated account. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Actually my reverts, when I was doing them nearly a week ago, were done entirely by hand. Trust me, if I chose to address this as my opponents do (mass scripted edits with little or no actual checking of their work) I could probably do a thousand edits a day. But that would be just as disruptive as the edits I'm reporting here. Or do two wrongs make a right now? Give me the word and I'll proceed immediately to automatically undo all of their edits. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    As an aside, can you tell me how Dabomb87's actions are not in violation of this ArbCom decision? — Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli —Locke Cole • t • c 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    The thing is, there has been consensus to not link dates since August. See the MOS archives, Featured Articles and Featured Lists, and this page. I do check my work, the thing is, do you (Locke Cole)? See these edits ( and ); not only did you link the dates against MOS, but you introduced inconsistencies in date formats within the article. If that is not an example of making an edit without checking work, then what is? (P.S. Locke Cole, you could have informed me about this thread instead of letting me find out for myself) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Twelve editors in an unadvertised straw poll are not consensus to undo something across the entire wiki. Fascinating as the idea may be, it just doesn't work. Especially when at least as many editors have came to the page since this was "decided" and registered their dislike for the change (only to be told, effectively, to go away; or simply ignored). Now I invite you again: stop unlinking dates and join the discussion/RFC at WT:MOSNUM. This would 1) cease your disruption of Misplaced Pages and 2) allow you to voice your opinion on date linking. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    You forgot this. seicer | talk | contribs 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    No I didn't. I just don't see the relevance. I asked them to stop for a week or two before finally caving and joining them in their disruption. I'd really rather NOT be disruptive though, and despite being asked (often times repeatedly) to stop, they choose to continue. There's an RFC being discussed and more at WT:MOSNUM and it's clear (to all but the most arrogant) that this practice is disputed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think this is edit warring, without implausibly stretching the definition. Provide clear evidence of edit warring if you believe otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    This user's edit warring date-delinking record and intentions, as evidenced by his edit summaries, are clear. For example:
    Casey Dellacqua: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).
    Jessica Moore (tennis): (1), (2), (3), (4).
    Hurricane Fifi-Orlene: (1), (2), (3).
    Air raids on Australia, 1942–43: (1), (2), (3).
    Roscoe Tanner: (1), (2), (3).
    Steve Shak: (1), (2), (3).
    Chuck Jones: (1), (2), (3).
    Christina Fusano: (1), (2), (3).
    Jamal Sutton: (1), (2)
    Robert Ssejjemba: (1), (2).
    Diplomatic history of Australia: (1), (2).
    List of surviving veterans of World War I: (1), (2).
    Darlene Hard: (1), (2).
    Tennis expert (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    You forgot this (and more). seicer | talk | contribs 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Irrelevant and unbecoming of an administrator. Tennis expert (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    In the spirit of compromise and dispute resolution, I am willing to voluntarily stop my delinking edits with the script. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    I believe that is part of the solution. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    done Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    (e/c) Hmm, OK, from it seems quite clear that TE, LC, D87 and 2O are indulging in edit warring. appears to confirm this. I can't see any reason to single out D87. It is clear that the issue should be settled on the MOS talk page and that no further linking/unlinking should be done till that discussion is settled on way or the other William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you, William; that sounds like good advice. While the community decided on the removal of date autoformatting and links to irrelevant date-fragment pages in August and much earlier still, respectively, there's a small band of loud complainers—none of them representative of WPians or readers at large. I note that these complainers are increasingly resorting to dramatic techniques to shout down hard-working editors who are striving to assist general users to bring their articles into compliance with the style guides. This page is just one of those techniques, which include the posting of threatening, bullying messages on talk pages; I'm sorry that your time and that of others has been taken up in dealing with it at this point. Tony (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    195.210.193.210 reported by Eklir

    This IP has reverted a legitimate reference source four (4) times so far: , . , ; for no apparent reason other than that its language is German instead of the English or the Russian used in the other references. I came accross these edits on patrol on issues in languages and linguistics. I have checked out the legitimacy of the contested reference.

    This user is also engaged in blanking historically attested alternate names for this language. Eklir (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    2 reverts in last 24h, none subsequent to your warning, no discussion by anyone on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    75.64.248.238 reported by CH52584


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:


    • I warned him about ownership of articles on his talk page: , which he blanked before making his most recent revert.
    • I then warned him that he is not providing an argument against the current consensus on the discussion page:

    He's insisting that because the Ole Miss-Mississippi State football game wasn't called the Egg Bowl before the 1930s, all games before then shouldn't be listed on the page. There is no precident for this practice for any other named rivalry, and I've asked him to take it to the discussion page to build consensus, which he has not done.

    I have also noticed that he is making the same changes to the Jackson, Mississippi article as well, using the exact same message in his edit summary, quote, "restore original content and original flow of the article before it got all mucked up." This has been his exact edit summary for all three reverts of Egg Bowl and the exact edit summary for several reverts of Jackson, Mississippi. CH52584 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    You've reverted just as often. You've made no attempt to discuss it on the talk page. You haven't warned the anon of this report. I could just as well block you, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Srkris (result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:

    (listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Too late, he reverted too quickly for me to issue an advance warning.


    User:Dbachmann removed academic references and reverted one of my edits. I inserted the reference back and time and again he removed the same without any justification. He seems to be quite rude and obstinate and made the reverts in very quick succession before I could warn him about 3RR. I could not understand why he was removing a reliable academic reference, and he doesnt seem bothered to explain any of his reverts although I tried to bring sense to him, no avail. He accuses me of pushing POVs, but the very version before his reverts will show I sought to establish NPOV and reliability to that article.­ Kris (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    Also see his simultaneous violation of 3RR for Vedic Sanskrit also below


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:

    (listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)


    Too late, he reverted too quickly for me to issue an advance warning.


    He seems to have reverted this article too, making it a double-3RR in a single hour.­ Kris (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    24h. No 3RR vio, but edit warring, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    May I enquire why Srkris was blocked, but not Dbachmann? PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    PhilKnight, this editor has been nothing short of disruptive in the past few weeks. Calling him a "good editor" on his talk page as you did is simply not accurate. Edit-warring is one thing; making this sort of commentary is another, and then allowing it to slide is not something we can afford to be doing. There's been wikistalking/wikihounding concerns too in addition to inserting factual errors in Misplaced Pages. He clearly is a net liability to this project if he continues editing and making unacceptable comments in this atrocious manner - his edits on his talk page since being blocked clearly show that he's going to continue to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground. Given the variety of concerns, I'd like the duration of this block to be increased so that if he is to return to editing, this is not going to continue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    I can't give PK a particularly good answer. Now 3RR has become edit warring, the lines are blurred, and things become more a matter of judgement. I reviewed S's edits, and the ANI thread, and decided he was at fault. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of block becomes more common, if the feature creep here continues. I'm still comfortable with the block William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks for the reply. I would have probably given Dbachmann a shorter block - perhaps 12 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Endorse block for User:Srkris, could have been much longer. Good call, William. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Tocino reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 72h)



    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: ,

    All additions are violations of WP:RS and WP:BLP as well. Thanks, Grsz 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Veecort reported by User:McJeff (blocked 24h)

    A very brief synopsis of the events. Veecort was previously very active on the ITT Tech article, but took a several-month break from editing. His first edit upon return was to revert the article to the last version he had edited, as seen here. He then continued to revert war by readding the things he wrote in the "controversy" section.

    McJeff (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    I'm fairly sure that I was only at three reverts, and I was being conscious of my revert count as seen here, where I asked another editor to step in. I'm familiar with 3RR (having once gotten myself blocked for getting careless and forgetting it) and the clause that one isn't entitled to 3 reverts per 24 hours. McJeff (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Roaring Siren reported by Collectonian (Result: 12 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: link
    • 1st revert: link
    • 2nd revert: link (in edit summary he states "we could be at this all day")
    • 3rd revert: link (edit summary of "thanks but no thanks")
    • 4th revert: link
    • 5th revert: link
    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    Despite three other editors reverting his addition, Roaring Siren continues to revert, ignoring the 3RR warning and making edit summaries, as noted above, indicating he intends to continue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Date delinker reported by Locke Cole (Result: )

    • This editor has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chose to enforce their POV by performing massive edits to hundreds of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does however meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

    Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    and

    Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    —Locke Cole • t • c 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic