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 21:58, 27 May 2009 view sourceWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,044 edits →User:Promethean reported by User:Verbal (Result: ): the obvious← Previous edit Revision as of 22:00, 27 May 2009 view source William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,044 edits →B.manotoc reported by Mbinebri (Result: ): staleNext edit →
Line 531: Line 531:
: Has form. 72h ] (]) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC) : Has form. 72h ] (]) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


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


* Page: {{article|Brent Chua}} * Page: {{article|Brent Chua}}
Line 546: Line 546:


A lot of the reversions/edits came in pairs, so it's somewhat tricky, hopefully I got it right. I have an SPI open right now to see if these two are the same editor, which I'm pretty sure they are, for the intent and the timing of it. Perhaps I should also note that D.manotoc is the article's creator so COI/Own issues are probably at work. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC) A lot of the reversions/edits came in pairs, so it's somewhat tricky, hopefully I got it right. I have an SPI open right now to see if these two are the same editor, which I'm pretty sure they are, for the intent and the timing of it. Perhaps I should also note that D.manotoc is the article's creator so COI/Own issues are probably at work. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

: Now looks stale, and there are hints of compromise on talk ] (]) 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) ==

Revision as of 22:00, 27 May 2009

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.


    Abbatai reported by Marshal Bagramyan

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:

    This is the third time I am returning to this board to report Abbatai for breaking the 3RR. After numerous warnings and corresponding blocks (see the comments by admins made and the warning of sanctionson his talk page here), it's clear that user does not want to play by the rules and, frankly, doesn't even care. His edits have come in the midst of a long range of vandalism on Armenian-Turkish related articles and I believe a more stringent action is warranted (see the comments in my previous complaint filing here). But to put it shortly: he has been edit-warring on this article without pause, and has failed to show a single reliable source to back up his claims. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Frank1829 reported by Sampharo (Result: prot)



    The article reverted by the user contained false references to an existence of a Shia myth in historical accounts and Sunni books. Talk:Umar has a complete explanation of the long discussion and the conclusions that they violate WP:Reliable Sources and WP:verifiability, and are very biased and emotional in nature anyway and therefore violate WP:neutral as well. Moreover, it was a very old version with a huge number of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, stylistic bias and not to mention that the paragraph was written TWICE. Later he edited AGAIN a disruptive edit which reversed the meaning of the whole section explaining Sunni view, to a personal point of view of Shia Here, which violates WP:POV and further represents the polemic views of less than 12% of the muslim population to start with, so it already violates WP:Undue not to mention the three original ones mentioned earlier, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:neutral and WP:verifiability. In the end his only writing in the talk page was charged with emotional tyrade and personal attacks and would not even respond or read that the sources have been disproven nor that the version in specific he is using is obsolete.

    Above all this, he vandalized my User page User:Sampharo in this diff link

    Please block this user until he understands about respecting other editors and that edit warring is not tolerated especially in religiously charged articles.

    Cirt (talk | contribs | block) m (35,938 bytes) (Protected Umar: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)) (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)))) . As to your user page, that looks to be a clueless newbie mistake (except for the bits about lying; thats not acceptable). Explain patiently about the use of talk pages, and point out WP:CIVIL. If they continue to break civility, let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Biblelight reported by User:Farsight001 (Result: warned)

    Never reported a user before, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, especially since the warring encompasses multiple articles.

    User first started editing Vicarius Filii Dei with several edits. History:. Policy was explained on talk page, user continued to edit, article was protected. User continued to complain on the talk page, once threatening me here:. User then moved on to articles Donation of Constantine and Augustinus Triumphus, and made very similar edits there. Policy was crudely explained again in my revert summaries. User Biblelight then moved on to Seventh-day Adventist eschatology and added the same information to that article. Has ceased discussing things with other users and simply re-adds his information. One more revert and he violates the 3RR, which I told him. Here's the 3 reverts so far:

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

    I really don't know what to do because biblelight simply moves his edits to a different article if people revert enough, and nothing I tell him seems to change his mind.

    Again, this is the first time I've reported a user, so apologies if I did it wrong. Feel free to correct me in any way. :) Farsight001 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have left a proper warning for this editor, and notified him of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    Updated status to "warned," since the user appears to have stopped for now. If he continues, feel free to update. --slakr 02:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Extended discussion

    If the sysops will please review the aricles I have been posting to, they will see that I have been trying to post verfied historical information from reliable sources in an effort to counter demonstratably false statements, in particular false information regarding Seventh-day Adventists.

    In the latest incident, to demonstrate the point, I have been charged with vandalism of the article on Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. Gentlemen, I AM a Seventh-day Adventist, and quoting the SDA commentary on Rev. 13:18 is NOT vandalism, particularly when it completely exposes the claim in the article that the same commentary rejects the application of Vicarius Filii Dei to the papacy. That false claim in the article is NOT verified in any manner. It IS demonstrated as false by what I am trying to post.

    Farsight001 is censoring me from posting information that I believe is within Misplaced Pages rules. He charges me with rule violations because he wants patently false information to remain, he is censoring verified reliable from being posted because he does not want that information to be available.

    I request that the matter be looked into by nuetral admins so that I can get a ruling of some sort about the acceptability of the information I have been trying to post, and clear specific reasons why, about what is ruled inadmissable, if anything. Biblelight (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    I see that you have begun a discussion at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology#Recent Revisions. You made a proposal, but two other editors disagreed that your changes belong in the article. You should probably wait to convince them before trying to make the same change again. If you think their views are not representative, use WP:Dispute resolution to get more views on the problem. If you try to force your opinion into the article by reverting, you may be blocked. You are already up to six or seven reverts on this article, so you are walking on thin ice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Here is the unsupported false claim,

    Historically, some Adventists have interpreted the number of the beast, 666, as corresponding to the title Vicarius Filii Dei of the Pope. The chief proponent of this view was Uriah Smith, and he was followed by J. N. Andrews. (They thought that the Latin letters when added equal the number 666.) However, the interpretation is rejected by most modern scholars as well as by the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, and is still held only by a minority.

    According to Burden of evidence "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed", and "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Am I not allowed to follow that rule on an article that purports to represent the church I belong to? Biblelight (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    That statement, though, is in fact sourced. See the very next line in the article. Also - removing what you thought was unsourced material is far and away not the only thing you were doing. You were adding far more to the articles than you were removing. That you ARE an SDA is irrelevant to your ability or right to edit the article as you see fit.Farsight001 (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is a 12 volume set, the Commentary on Revelation, authored by Ranko Stefanovich, Ph. D. which is mentioned in the ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No 139 totally different, not part of the SDA Commentary! But then since he is NOT Adventist, Farsight001 would not necessarily know that. I want him to right this error by reverting to my last post and allow me to continue editing there. Biblelight (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    This discussion needs to continue at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. All parties need to abide by WP:3RR and not try to force their version in by edit warring. A member of the SDA church has no special authority on this article. Use the discussion to present reliable sources for your view. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    86.165.81.180 reported by StarScream1007 (Result: semi)

    • Comments: IP has been reverting edits made by me, and some other users for quite some time. The anon user has been reverting the plot details that were supposed to removed/modified from the article based on a consensus on the Talk:Resident Evil 5 discussion page. The user is ignoring requests from myself and other editors to read over the consensus. Similar IPs have been making disruptive edits on relate pages: 86.143.125.177/86.165.81.180/86.170.16.43 Please leave a comment on my talk page if you further require my help. Thanks --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  08:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Result - Page semiprotected. See Talk:Resident Evil 5#Wesker's "death" for background on this long-running dispute, which has continued in spite of past admin actions. Please comment if you can think of anything better to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Can you please take a look at Hot Fuzz and The Thing (film) to see if semi-protection is necessary there. This user has been edit warring on those too. This my be coincidence or this user may be watching my contributions, as we have several articles in common. Geoff B (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Blocked 86.165.81.180 for edit warring on several articles. 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    He's back as 86.132.133.20, same editing habits, on Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy and Albert Wesker this time. Geoff B (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Blocked 86.132.133.20 24 hours, semiprotected Albert Wesker. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for all your help so far guys. Do you have any suggestion for dealing with this problem if the issue continues? Perhaps a block-ip ban? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Jerrykme reported by Venture79 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    The information being reverted to by Jerrykme on the JetAmerica page is outdated before the airline reorganized under its new name and identity. Sources have been provided for each change, including links to the company's own website reflecting the change. The airline's current reservation system remains outdated as several markets are listed that were dropped due to ending relationships with other company - sources also referenced on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venture79 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Result - Jerrykme has not edited since receiving a 3RR warning, and he is not over three reverts yet, at least on this one article. I've notified him of this complaint, and marked this report as 'Waiting for reply', in case Jerryme may want to respond. Even if it turns out that he is justified under WP:V, his repeated reverts at JetAmerica with no discussion or edit summary could be improved upon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Would it be permissible to correct the information again since I do have valid sources to back up the information (everything is getting documented in discussion as I go on the JetAmerica article)? I don't want this to be an edit/revert war, but the information there is inaccurate based on latest reports. Thanks for looking into this. Venture79 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    There seems to be a genuine content dispute between the two of you, and it's not clear who is right. Since you filed a report at WP:AN3 you should wait till it's resolved before editing any contested items further. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Result - Since Jerrykme did not respond to the edit-warring concerns, but simply deleted Venture79's comment from the article Talk page, he is blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    79.122.9.209 reported by ChyranandChloe (Result: Withdrawn)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is an anonymous user with a dynamic ip-address. A direct message on the user's talk page is difficult: I have placed a message on all known talks which deferred the 3RR warning to the article's talk. A block may pose impractical because of the dynamic nature of this user's ip-address, semi-protect may be a necessary alternative. Full disclosure is on the article's talk page. The ip-address above is the most recent, the remaining are: 94.27.220.95 and 79.122.70.79. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Sorry, need to refresh on 3RR. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Result - Complaint withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Raymond Dundas reported by The Four Deuces (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: May 21 17:48


    • 1st revert: May 22 20:32
    • 2nd revert: May 23 2:56
    • 3rd revert: May 23 18:06
    • 4th revert: May 23 18:07
    • 5th revert: May 24 2:20
    • 6th revert: May 24 2:21
    • 7th revert: May 24 19:02
    • 8th revert: May 24 19:03


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    User deleted 3rr warning then made more reverts. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring. It would be good to see more extensive use of the Talk page by all parties. Raymond Dundas, however, continues to revert out a connection between liberalism and science that appears to be supported by all the other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Plains2007 reported by HLGallon (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    The paragraph in question is badly written and irrelevant to the main topic of the article. It contains a number of WP:SYN claims. The user has accused two editors who have provided good rationale for deleting the paragraph in edit summaries and on his/her talk page of Vandalism. HLGallon (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    92.11.154.60‎ reported by WebHamster (Result: semi)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User under different IP addresses for at least a couple of weeks seems intent on changing the status quo of the article by changing the origin of the band from the explained London to Colchester. There has been no attempt to source this change or discuss it. As it's borderline and I'm already on the verge of 3RR myself I've brought it here. I haven't reverted the editor's last change. --WebHamster 11:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Semi protected for a month William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    130.13.170.197 reported by dave souza (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Having been rebuffed for trying to delete information and source links from ScienceBlogs (linked above as the previous version reverted to), what appears to be the same anon with a slightly different IP changed to adding a slightly derogatory description of the author, without sources and hence a violation of WP:BLP, and repeated this three times so far, the third time after being templated with a 3RR warning. . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    User is back with a different IP (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/130.13.168.237 130.13.168.237] and still reverting to his/her preferred version.--Kevmin (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • 5th revert:
    Semiprotected - This guy just keeps on going with different IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Budelberger reported by Miacek (Result: blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: (note that he keeps changing the infobox mainly; other changes made in the meantime have remained)


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: (note his almost immediate 'response', followed by the 4th revert)

    A clear case of wanton 3 RR violation (we have a content dispute there with User:Ohpuu and me having a dispute with Budelberger). Also note two things:

    1. the user has a long history of making nasty personal assaults here in en.wiki: once calling me 'a savage', 'stupid', even a 'terrorist' referring to another user is edit summary: 'don't waste OUR time with your childish attitude'. This must stop
    2. Please note also Budelberger's long history of cross-wiki intimidation and what people concerned called trolling. This has led to him being permabanned from a number of wiki projects already. I've referred to his fr.wiki adventures here and hence shall not repeat this.

    I suggest he be blocked for 3 RR violation, additionally be put on a parole and if it does not help in the future, sent to eternal holiday from our project, too.Miacek (t) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    Page protected — Aitias // discussion 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    What? 3RR no longer holds? Calling other users terrorists, savages and what not is ok for you? This guy shamelessly violates every basic rule of Misplaced Pages and now gets away with his preferred version page protected? Has someone gone crazy?! --Miacek (t) 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)The mistake has been fixed. Miacek (t) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Unless I'm missing something, this edit was technically not a revert. Therefore the 3RR has not been violated, as far as I can see. — Aitias // discussion 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    It looks like you are indeed missing something. It is a very clear revert to this revision. Colchicum (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Oh, yes, you're right. Thanks for the pointer. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, I tried to explain above that this is partial revert so to say. The user concerned removed the User:Ohpuu's changes and reverted back to the statement that Livonian is extinct ('28 February 2009, when Viktor Berthold died.'). Also, I suggest the user's troublesome record be considered here, I don't think it's worth wasting our time to start a new thread somewhere else. Miacek (t) 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Ward3001 reported by User:Garycompugeek (Result: Agreement)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This editor refuses to accept a change in consensus. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    He hasn't broken WP:3RR because he's only got three reverts. –xeno 00:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    This is true, however this user refuses to accept consensus in the face of overwhelming support against his position. I trust that he is currently being watched now and will hopefully correct his behavior. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've notified Ward3001 of this discussion, and invited him to respond here. I hope he will express his willingness to search for a compromise, and propose what the next step should be. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    I believe that there is a conflict of interest in this case. Ward3001 is a psychologist and as per his organizations ethics is trying to remove evidence about the tests they use. This secrecy is at odds with the purpose of Misplaced Pages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    If I edit warred, I think it's a safe bet that Garycompugeek did also. And Doc James has (as he has done in the past) misrepresented the situation simply because he can't convince everyone that he's an expert on a psychological test when he's a physician and not a psychologist. I do not represent the American Psychological Association here. I represent myself; I have profressional ethics that guide my opinions. Am I not supposed to have those Doc James? Ward3001 (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Two editors here have both made three reverts in 24 hours, Ward3001 and Garycompugeek. (A sanction for edit warring does not require four reverts). I think this case might be closed with no further action if both parties will agree not to revert the disputed item for one week unless a clear consensus is first obtained on the article Talk page. If only one party agrees, the other will be in a bad spot. If neither agrees, we should consider full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I had already resolved not to revert the article for at least a week; so I have no difficulty with that suggestion. As for my willingness to compromise, please see the lengthy details in the archives. The current dispute actually arises from an attempt to scrap a previous, hard-fought and difficult compromise. There has been much compromise by editors on various sides of this issue in the past. I recognize that anyone can challenge a previous consensus that brought peace to the article for almost a year, but please don't think that compromises have not occurred. Ward3001 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Clearly consensus in this matter has changed regardless of Wards denial. I was supporting Xeno, an uninvolved admin, claim that consensus has changed. Many other editors and admin have valiantly tried to impress logic upon Ward but he refuses to see it. I have no qualms about and agree not to revert the article for at least a week. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Gary and I have a difference of opinion about whether consensus was achieved. But let me clarify a misconception he has created. Xeno was an uninvolved editor in the Rorschach debate. Xeno himself/herself acknowledges that he/she was not functioning as an admin on that page. Ward3001 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Result - Closed with no admin action, since the submitter and the other party have agreed not to revert the article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Viriditas reported by User:Mosedschurte (Result: Closed by agreement)


    This is an expecially egregious case of WP:3RR, because the reversions also involve the deletion of several Talk Page comments by at least three other editors -- User:Mosedschurte, User:Biophys and User:Yachtsman1 -- in violation of WP:TPO, which explicitly states "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (bold emphasis in original Misplaced Pages guidelines). Thus, not only is it a WP:3RR violation, but it also cuts to the core of the spirit of the project by deleting other editor's Talk page comments about subjects.


    User:Viriditas's straight reverts (note: these are just of his latest Talk page WP:Edit War only):

    update: (even more reversions linked in the replies below)

    More details of the complaint

    User:Viriditas's complex reverts (note: these are just of his latest Talk page WP:Edit War only):

    On a different ANI thread (see below), mention by another editors was made of User:Viriditas's repeated Talk Page deletions "Now User:Viriditas is edit warring on an Rfc. (link to deletions). This is amazing.". It was then that he switched to a more complex style of reverts -- changing the location and section titles to effectively take the comments out of the comments section:

    • 1st Complex revert (move of Talk Page comments to take them out of Rfc comments): User:Viriditas moved same the talk page comments from their Rfc section, in edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States&diff=292288758&oldid=292288216 here.
    • 2nd Complex revert (changed section title to take Talk page comments out of comments again): User:Viriditas then later changed of the comments section in which the talk page comments were located to effectively take them out of the normal comments section to "These comments need to be merged into the RFC so that they properly reflect the position of Yachtsman1 and Mosedchurte. The RFC is designed to solicit outside opinions. That is its purpose.": here


    Diffs of 3RR warnings:


    Modification of other editor's comments at article talk page is a blockable offense (see this block by Durova, for example), and I warned Viriditas about this. In addition he violated 3RR rule in Human rights in the US. I asked Virididatas to revert himself back: , but he posted same message back to me , although I made only one edit in this article during 24 hours.Biophys (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    And further deleted my civility and other warnings here on her talk page: ]. I have also asked the editor to stop editing comments and to cease personal attacks/uncivil comments, to no avail to date.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Continues to edit war by removing an entire section of RFC discussion to a separate portion of the talk page: ]. Stated reason is that it's a "distraction" in summary, complicated edit with five subsequent edits after the move not allowing an editor to revert.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Response from Viriditas

    Response from Viriditas and comments by others

    This appears to be a simple misunderstanding of how the talk page is used. Most of the material the users claim was removed, was actually moved into an ongoing thread and preserved as part of a continuing discussion (Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina). Because of the length of the talk page (before I archived half of it), the users appeared confused about the location of the discussion and continued to post the same comments that were moved higher up on the page and by then, had new comments; As a result, two duplicate discussions were created. One user, Biophys, was informed of this, but didn't seem to understand. As for the RFC, it was refactored by many editors in preparation for its release. This is standard procedure and again, discussion was initiated with users, all of whom failed to understand how an RFC works and why they should merge their comments into the RFC itself, as it was designed to solicit comments from outside, uninvolved editors. It is unfortunate that in the process, I managed to make several of these editors more upset, and in hindsight, I should have taken things slower, and tried to hold their hand a little tighter. I apologize. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    So, your edit warring at the article talk page was a "standard procedure"? Some of the diffs were outright deletions, others were moves made regardless to my objections. But it does not really matter since you violated 3RR rule.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Re: "As for the RFC, it was refactored by many editors in preparation for its release. This is standard procedure and again, discussion was initiated with users, all of whom failed to understand how an RFC works and why they should merge their comments into the RFC itself, as it was designed to solicit comments from outside, uninvolved editors." (Viriditas)
    That is such a brazenly false statement on an ANI board -- simply unreal -- that it will almost certainly hurt, not help, your case.
    There is absolutely ZERO "misunderstanding." You flat out DELETED, not moved, several comments that had to be replaced by users every time, as outlined, just to begin with, in the straight reverts. You had simply decided that comments by "non-outsiders" should not belong to the Rfc, and FLAT OUT DELETED THEM. They each time had to be replaced by users, and you just deleted them again. Such as:
    --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Biophys and User:Mosedschurte -- users had to replace them on the page)
    -- Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Biophys and User:Mosedschurte-- users had to replace them on the page )
    --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Yachtsman1-- users had to replace them on the page)
    --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte-- users had to replace them on the page)
    --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte-- users had to replace them on the page)
    --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte-- users had to replace them on the page)
    Note that this is different from the numerous moves of other's talk page comments (which also angered others). I didn't even count those among the slam dunk WP:3RR flat out revert deletions you made. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, your own diffs prove that I moved the Katrina material into Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina before the timestamps of the diffs you provide. Here is the diff of my merge, timestamped at 02:16, 25 May 2009. Does this make sense to you? If you look at the timestamps and the content, you will discover this to be true. The timestamps for the material you claim was "deleted" shows that the material was still in the article, but located in a different thread (Katrina) where apparently you failed to see it. Look at the diff you posted above. The material is already there. You posted a duplicate of the discussion. Nothing was deleted. The exact, duplicate material was already in the article, higher up. What is interesting (and ironic) is that this material was not originally posted to this talk page. It was initially posted by me to User talk:Biophys at 21:20, 24 May 2009. Biophys moved my talk page comment to the article talk page at 00:20, 25 May 2009. And finally, to recap from above, I in turn, merged the discussion into the already existing Katrina discussion at 02:16, 25 May 2009. That should clear that up for you. As for the RFC material, I was in the process of merging it into the RFC statement, and I recall getting edit conflicted due to the massive number of reverts from you and Yachtsman. Some other material was refactored, and included comments from myself as well. I believe this is an accurate recall of the situation, and I hope that people like yourself will not be so quick to revert in the future. Usually, there is a good reason to refactor the talk page. In this case, there were two: 1) the Katrina section was duplicated twice and was merged back into the original discussion; 2) The RFC was incomplete and required positions from involved editors to be merged into the statement per Jayen's instructions. Both you and Yachtsman were contacted on your respective talk pages and asked to help. Both of you refused and deleted my comments. I understand that you disagree with my assessment, but if you also slowed down a bit and tried to focus on communicating effectively instead of edit warring, we might be able to move past this and collaborate on the article. So far, that has been impossible, because you seem to have trouble following the discussion threads, and the same discussions (and the same comments verbatim) continue to get reposted in duplicate threads. I think my solution of placing a link at the bottom finally worked. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    From Viriditas: As for the RFC material, I was in the process of merging it into the RFC statement, and I recall getting edit conflicted due to the massive number of reverts from you and Yachtsman. Pray direct me to these "massive reverts" you are talking about, because I have not a clue as to what you are talking about. Your comment on my talk page asking for "help" was as follows: The Rfc is used to solicit opinions from uninvolved editors outside the talk page. Please do not respond to it. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC) ]. Can you show me where my "assistance" was requested? I would be interested in seeing that as well.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for asking. I made a request on both of your talk pages and at least two requests on the article talk page to both of you. At User talk:Mosedschurte, I wrote: If the RFC does not reflect your position, then change it. And, on User talk:Yachtsman1, I said: Then edit the question per Jayen's comment above. Or did you not read it? Edit the RFC directly. On Talk:Human rights in the United States, I requested the assistance of both editors several times; First to Mosedchurte: Please merge your comments above into a very small paragraph explaining your position. If you don't agree with how Jayen described your position, Mosedchurte, then either alter it or change it. And to you, Yachtsman1, here:Condense your positions into small statements and find consensus for the RFC itself. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    A request for what? There was no request on my talk page for "assistance" or "help" in any manner. Indeed, quite the opposite. The link shows that as a matter of fact. The comment you direct our attention to was made after you have already deleted my comment on the talk page, and you only asked for me to reframe the question, not for "help" and/or "assistance". The "massive reverts" you referred to previously appear to be non-existent.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I would note that this was in no way a "refactor" or "move". These were flat out deletions of comments that cut against your position on the Rfc. It was literally that simple.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    I don't know what you are talking about. My "position" on the RFC has never been under discussion. Perhaps you are referring to something else? My only concern was with wherther the RFC represented all sides fairly. It does not represent my position, if that is what you mean. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Re: "At User talk:Mosedschurte, I wrote: If the RFC does not reflect your position, then change it." (Viriditas)

    This is simply a RIDICULOUS mischaracterization. You then posted directly on my Talk page that:
    --" Do not repond to the RFC with your position."(Viriditas) and
    ---"We did not submit this RFC to solicit your opinion. Do you understand? " (Viriditas) Mosedschurte (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    At this time, I have chosen to stop refactoring the talk page without consensus. Any further changes on the talk page will entail discussion and consensus, first. I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    That's great, but you didn't just refactor or move on the Talk page. You DELETED comments wholesale -- only those that disagreed with your position. Then went to each person you disagreed with Talk page and told them they were not to post comments -- such as '" Do not repond to the RFC with your position." and "We did not submit this RFC to solicit your opinion. Do you understand? " -- then simply deleted every comment they posted again.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    We must be talking past each other. At no time have I ever stated my position. I actually never was given a chance, and I chose to remain neutral as a result. In any case, I have chosen to stop refactoring the talk page without consensus. Any further changes on the talk page will entail discussion and consensus, first. I apologize. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Your apology is great, but it's not what you were doing. And, of course, you did state your position on these issues before the Rfc -- you argued directly in favor of keeping in the Katrina and Abu Ghraib sections. You weren't "refactoring" anything. You were just deleting Talk Page comments of all of those who disagreed with your position (to keep in "outside the U.S." human rights issues) -- such as me, Biophys and Yachtsman1 -- and directly told us that you didn't want our comments on EACH OF OUR TALK PAGES. It's all laid out in detail above. Then you simply deleted those comments when they were re-added to the article. Repeatedly.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


    Result - Closed per my understanding with Viriditas that he will stop refactoring, moving or deleting comments at Talk:Human rights in the United States. I have reminded him of the need to follow WP:TPG in this message. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    LebaneseZp/72.10.109.105 reported by George (Result: prot)

    Note: LebaneseZp had previously identified them self as 72.10.109.105 in edit summaries when reverting; I've already filed a check user request.


    Note: There are quite a few things being edit warred over by this one user, so there isn't a single previous version being reverted to.



    Diffs of 3RR warning:


    A review of the history of the Lebanon article shows this user (as both LebaneseZp, and their IP address) involved in prolonged edit warring with several different users on several different statements for at least the last week. A review of the IP addresses talk page will show that the user has been warned numerous times about this article. ← George 02:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Article has been semi'd (not by me). Contiguous edits count as one, so you don't have 4R. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/LebaneseZp says the anon is Lz but that doesn't help you. says you are reverting vandalism, in which case you want WP:AIV William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Where is the best place to report general edit warring over a prolonged period that does not explicitly exceed four reverts in 24 hours? The user seems to repeatedly skirt 3RR by logging out or switching to other accounts (still pending check user confirmation), or staying just below the four reverts per 24-hour threshold, but I still consider their protectionism (in the face of reverts from several other users) to be edit warring. I was more interested in the "disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page" line from the policy page. Also, I only consider one of their edits to be vandalism – the user seemed to get frustrated that other users were reverting their additions, and acted out by removing additional material to make a point. Since it was only one case, I don't think AIV is the proper place for it, but I'm open to suggestions. ← George 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Where is the best place to report general edit warring over a prolonged period that does not explicitly exceed four reverts in 24 hours? Here. CU is confirmed. I'll have another look William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    Still not obvious to me, sorry. Maybe it is to you. If you care to list reverts by Lz/72, removing contiguous edits, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    So, maybe it's easiest to focus on the two most contentious statements the user has been pushing. Here's the details about when they were added:
    • 01:08, April 23, 2009 – Statement #1: 72.10.109.105 first adds statement regarding Phoenicians paying taxes to invaders as a reason that modern day Lebanese are descendants of Phoenicians
    • 16:04, May 12, 2009 – Statement #2: 72.10.109.105 first adds commentary regarding Lebanese not being Arabs
    Now for the revert history, broken down by when they occurred, who performed the revert, and what was reverted. I've only listed the contiguous edits once in this list, but made a note when an edit contiguous to the one listed touched one of these two statements:
    Please note that I listed the reverts by two users and three IP addresses that I consider to be the same user. Unfortunately a check user was never performed, though there seemed to be a consensus that LebaneseZp was 72.10.109.105. All three IP addresses are from Connecticut (one a University, the other two residential), and the later two (24.151.25.180 and 75.27.148.7) have only performed edits to the Lebanon article, that are strikingly similar to edits by LebaneseZp and 72.10.109.105. Furthermore, the editing behavior (time of day, what statements they added or reverted) is very similar amongst all three IP addresses and the two accounts. Joetoril popped up as soon as LebaneseZp becomes inactive in editting, performed the same revert to the same article, and I found it suspicious that the IP address first edit was a bit of vandalism to the Lebanon article that included the statement "ugliest spot in the world and is ran by JOE the OWNAGE". ← George 23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, I've just noticed that Cirt actually protected it, not semi-protected. That makes all this moot. You should now be using the talk page to discuss the conflict, and/or lobbying Cirt to unprotect William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    I had invited the other editor to join the discussion (which I had started on the talk page prior to the page being protected), but they chose not to. Even after the page was protected, the user hasn't joined the talk page discussion, instead moving over to the Phoenicia article and starting an edit war with another editor over there (again, skirting just under 3RR – that editor warned them about 3RR, but the anonymous editor removed the message from their talk page). The Lebanon article will automatically drop protection in a couple days, and I suspect that the user will return and take up edit warring again. I'll probably file an ANI for disruptive editing when I have time. Thanks for you help. ← George 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Daymeeee reported by User:Geoff B (Result: 72h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    There is a dispute on Resident Evil 5 currently about the possible ambiguity around the fate of one character. Daymeeee does not believe there is any ambiguity, and insists that if this character did possibly survive, so did others in previous Resident Evil games, even when there is no ambiguity there. Geoff B (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    B.manotoc reported by Mbinebri (Result: stale)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: Not necessarily a revert, but after I edited the article to comply with neutral POV stardards decided on WikiFashion's talk (specifically that "supermodel" should not be used in leads and only used in the article itself when the instance of being deemed a supermodel is notable in itself to avoid POV pushing) B.manotoc returns the POV pushing info and adds a blog ref. I undo this and explain why on the user's talk.
    • 2nd revert: D.manotoc ignores my explanation and reverts the edit, as well as removes the refimprove tag and begins returning "supermodel" to the lead sentence.
    • 3rd revert: Thinking I was only restoring the refimprove tag (D.manotoc erroneously thought it was an unsourced tag), using Twinkle, I blunderingly undo B.manotoc's previous/2nd reversion, which came at the last second. He/she reverts it a third time and adds a pair of sources.
    • 4th revert: To avoid an edit war, I edit the article in way that I hope can be a compromise between our positions and leave a cautionary note about further reversions (rather than an actual 3RR warning). Minutes later, the IP 124.197.109.101 (no other edits and likely B.manotoc using an IP to avoid 3RR issues) reverts this.
    • 5th revert: I tag the article as a COI, which 124.197.109.101 reverts before adding another non-RS ref of the variety B.manotoc was attempting to add.

    A lot of the reversions/edits came in pairs, so it's somewhat tricky, hopefully I got it right. I have an SPI open right now to see if these two are the same editor, which I'm pretty sure they are, for the intent and the timing of it. Perhaps I should also note that D.manotoc is the article's creator so COI/Own issues are probably at work.  Mbinebri  01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Now looks stale, and there are hints of compromise on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Kurfürst reported by Piotrus (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: varies, but all edits remove existing info; all but the last one remove the paragraph that begins with "From the beginning of the war...".


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: user has a history of 3RR violations and blocks


    Form; 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Justthefacts 101 reported by Pinkadelica (Result: indef)



    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: (1st warning)
    • (2nd warning)

    Another user who was banned previously tried adding some POV wording to the article earlier today. After being reverted and subsequently banned for a username violation, this new account popped up making similar changes. Justthefacts 101 was advised by 2help to go to the talk page to discuss the changes but failed to do so. I also advised them to do the same via edit summary due to the previous drama that surrounded the article (see the talk page archive). It took a very long time, but a consensus was finally reached regarding the article's current wording and the ideas that are presented. Pinkadelica 06:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sock. Indef'd. 2help cautionned to avoid 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Jeneral28 reported by Aoi (Result: 31 hours for Jeneral28+ip)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Reverts #3 and #6 are under the IP address 81.23.56.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is seemingly the same user as Jeneral28, evidenced by this comment written under the IP address being signed by Jeneral28 less than a minute later. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — both the user and the ip. Without even running a checkuser it's evident that between the overlap in their contribution topics and the timing of a logged out revert of the exact same edit war issue—right after being warned of a 3RR violation—that they're the same person. --slakr 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, right, and there's this, which just further solidifies the issue. :P --slakr 12:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Promethean reported by User:Verbal (Result: 24h)

    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎ (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Promethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 17:34, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "RV: Requesting further review, Previous admin did not take into account the miuse of demeaning edit summeries as seen at the top. These are unprovked one way violations")
    2. 17:39, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "Your not an admin ,please do not close requests for further review as it is a form of disruption")
    3. 17:45, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "No thanks, Im after a different admin. You clearly disregarded key parts that were not reliant on any evidence require of me, Such as the edit summary abussage.")
    4. 18:31, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 292715249 by DreamGuy (talk) - Do not edit archived sections")
    5. 18:37, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 292716712 by DreamGuy (talk) - Same rules apply to all, I cant reopen it, you cant edit it, its finished, move on.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Verbal chat 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    2009-05-27T20:42:58 Sandstein (talk | contribs | block) blocked Promethean (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: violating WP:3RR at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎‎) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic