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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:06, 20 August 2011 view sourceNick-D (talk \| contribs)Administrators106,249 edits →User:Newzpaperman reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: 24 hours): block lifted due to circumstances← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:35, 20 August 2011 view source MiszaBot II (talk \| contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 48h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive165.Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:
	<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->		<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	<!-- dummy edit -->		<!-- dummy edit -->

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Water memory}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Rainbowwrasse}}

	'''Time reported:''' 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

	# <small>(edit summary: "minority support")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "inconsistent with laws of physics")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Minority view significant; article mostly about controversy, not the theory itself")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 445011383 by ] (]) partial rv 'not accepted' is weaker than 'generally rejected' (passive v. active)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "How's this then? Most homeopaths support it (do you have a good ref for 0.01% of scientists? would be nice to add this)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 445018340 by ] (]) I'm not claiming it's science, but it has some support. Shall we take the discussion to the talk page?")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 445030000 by ] (]) What was wrong with this bit then?")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "generally: without reference to or disregarding particular persons that may be an exception. scientific community is not a cohesive unit")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "the statement makes no mention of a consensus, only of the community, and universality is not supported by refs. Please comment on talk page.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "consensus")</small>

	* Diff of warning:

	'''Comments''': Warned of edit warring in edit summaries, article talk page, and his talk page. He doesn't appear to understand ] based on his responses. He appears to be editing in good faith, but he's well over 3rr, and still reverting.   — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
	:Agree he doesn't understand ] or ], but the only edit after the warning (#10, I believe) is not a complete revert. However it does revert "not accepted" to "rejected", so it may qualify. — ] ] 02:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	::I will notify the subject of this report and see if he will agree to stop warring. ] (]) 02:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::I have made various edits to this page, mentioning both support and rejection of the theory. My edits directly mentioning supporters were quickly reverted, saying they were a fringe minority (this concerned the majority of homeopaths and ]). I have reverted the deletion of this text, but have not added it again. Negative edits were accepted without quibble. The second contentious edit concerned an absolute statement that was not supported by the cited sources. My edit was quite minor (changing '...not accepted by the scientific community.' to '...generally rejected by the scientific community' to reflect that the claim was largely rejected, barring a few, but notable, exceptions), but even the word 'generally' was considered as too supportive of the minority view. The most cursory search reveals multiple supportive opinions, including notable members of said community, and even the cited sources mention supporters. I subsequently changed the wording to '...refected by the scientific consensus' (without 'generally'), but again this was too much to ask. This was the only edit after the warning, and it was clearly an attempt at a compromise. I had previously asked for discussion on the talk page (twice), but my edits were reverted without comment. When comments eventually came (only after my last edit), they were limited to telling me to stop editing and placing the burden of proof on me. I have provided sources for my statements, but no arguments or sources were forthcoming from any other editor. A lot of WP policies were thrown at me, but no tangible sources. The current statement is not an accurate reflection of the cited sources and contravenes the requirement of verifiability. ] (]) 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	::::The accuracy or compliance of ]'s edits with Misplaced Pages policies (other than ] and ]) is irrelevant to ] claim, and not very relevant to an ] claim. — ] ] 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::::So in your view the accuracy of an edit is irrelevant as long as you can aggressively revert it without proper explanation, avoid discussion and then get an edit war accusation lodged before the other person does? Doesn't that just give carte blanche to people trying to force their own personal opinion on an article? You could just always revert any new content and then cry 'edit war!!' if someone dares to question it. All the better if you can get a couple of other editors behind your cause. My edits were accurate, correct and well sourced, so there was no rationale for deletion, besides just saying 'I don't like it' and 'someone else also doesn't like it'? On a more personal note, I would appreciate if you would refrain from referring to me as 'he', thanks. ] (]) 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Blocked 48 hours. After I saw this report, I Rainbowwrasse to comment here and to agree to stop warring to avoid sanctions. As you can see above he did not do so. His statements give no evidence he is willing to follow our policies. It seems to be a dispute with him on one side and everyone else on the other. ] (]) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	*:It's a clear 3RR violation, with one edit after the warning, but I don't agree that she "did not do so" -- she commented here, and did not revert further on the article, but rather discussed on the talkpage.--] 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::I'm arguing that the original report merited a block, but my offer on R's talk page was an 'escape hatch' to avoid the block. I requested a promise to stop warring. Since R. did not give such a promise, I felt that a block was justified. Merely ceasing to revert was not enough to accept my offer. ] (]) 17:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	::::Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. --] 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31h) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:History of Afghanistan}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Akbar Khan89}}

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	Comments:A very disruptive user, making unconstructive and controversial edits. Addding a totally unrelated image from ], ], in the Afghanistan history template. Explained to him that he's wrong but he doesn't wanna listen.] (]) 03:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	:User:Ksmdr was also violating 3RR, as they also rv'd more than 3 times. This also seems to be a ] issue here, though I could be wrong. ] (]) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	::I only reverted 2 times. Akbar Khan89 made 4 reverts. Yes, you are wrong. The ] image he adds to the Afghanistan history template has absolutely no connection or relation with the history of Afghanistan. He is insisting that it stays even after I explained that it is in Pakistan and the person who built that fort (]) was born in India and he did not rule over any place in Afghanistan but India. I added the ] image to the template, which goes well with the history of Afghanistan, but he keeps removing it. Akbar Khan89 lacks knowledge about the history of 1500s Afghanistan, he is making up nonsense reasons to make this image stay but more importantly it looks like he doesn't care about 3RR rule.] (]) 09:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} Clear edit-warring, plus evidence of similar behaviour previously on this article and others. Editor has been edit-warring against multiple editors and appears to justify this with summaries like "let's discuss this - after I've reverted to my preferred version". ] ] 09:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) ==

Revision as of 06:35, 20 August 2011

Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 535: attempt to get length of local 'arg' (a number value).

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:LittleJerry reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 72 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned numerous times on talk; blocked for edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is not a 3RR report, but an edit warring report. LittleJerry has been disrupting a number of "conservatism" articles. He has been warned several times, editors have made repeated attempts to discuss issues with him, but he continues to be disruptive. He was recently blocked for edit warring at Sean Hannity.

In the particular instance he is removing links from the preiminent Conservatism template and was reverted by two different editors. I asked him to discuss these changes, so what does he do? He opens a discussion at 12:08, reverts at 12:09, and then canvasses a sympathetic editor at 12:16 (times PDT). – Lionel 01:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So why doesn't the reporter, contribute to the discussion. Rather than report edit warring and give he blocked so he can simply revert back without responding on the talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Clearly edit warring again on the template. He has declined to cease the activity. Kuru (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:27.32.147.4 reported by User:Berean Hunter (Result: 24h)

Warning left before the user's last revert which they ignored

attempt to discuss on my talk page which I've moved to the article talk page.

Comments:
This is a longstanding issue which is in the archives of the talk page as well as on the talk page itself. People want to reason without reliable sources that what was reported in sources could not have taken place.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:Dinkytown (Result: no violation)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been warned here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Arzel had been edit warring on the same section in violation of the 3RR rule with at least two other users. The content was sourced by several citations, but he reverted the entire section. His statement of his "first edit" was a deletion of a previous editor's established work. After warning that he was in violation of the 3RR rule and was edit warring, he left this message on my talk page here claiming that he was not in violation, and that I should "Learn how to count." Dinkytown talk 06:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only does DT not know how to count, he did not notify me of this submission. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I also started the discussion after my second revert. The first edit was after an editor split up a long standing section into subsections. After this I noticed that the section I removed didn't fit, and I gave a perfectly rational reason for removal. I then reverted it twice after both returns did not address the fundamental issue. Regardless, it is clearly not a 3RR violation and DT submitted this after already knowing I didn't violate 3RR. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No violation I don't see the fourth revert needed to claim a 3RR violation. Kuru (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Unnithan1956 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rdnd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Unnithan1956 - see comments below

Comments:
The cited content which has been removed has been discussed at great length over a period of several weeks on the article talk page. There are numerous threads, there were reports at ANI etc. This particular person appears to have a problem with NPOV, which is not uncommon on article about the castes of India. Starting yet another article talk page discussion seems to be somewhat pointless after the many recent ones. It is effectively an SPA as their edits relate only to articles about the Nair community and have generally been unconstructive. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 24 hours. Editor did not break 3RR, but he is edit warring over the same material for two or more weeks. One of the books cited in the Nair article is by the scholar S. N. Sadasivan, about whom Unnithan1956 makes this comment on his own talk page:
The cock and bull stories of Sadasivan would have found a naive publisher in Delhi. But contains only a clever mixture of false statements and secret wishes.. It does not qualigy to be a book. Please remove all refereneces to this book.
Our article on Sadasivan describes him as 'an Indian author and theorist of public administration', who at one time was a professor in New Delhi at the Indian Institute of Public Administration. In the above diffs Unnithan1956 is shown to be removing reference to Sadasivan's works, including one called 'The social history of India.' Unnithan1956 has never posted at Talk:Nair to give his rationale for removing the Sadasivan references. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dragonbooster4 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 72 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Hyderabad, India#Destructive edits by User:Dragonbooster4.

Comments:
Yes, I know that the warning is in a weird place (a third editor's talk page), but similar things have been said in other places as well; plus, since the user was previously blocked for violation 3RR on a different article, they are well aware of the rule. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Clear reverts at 13:48, 11:37 on the 18th and 14:13 on the 17th. The edit at 15:00 on the 17th is a revert as well (same as the one he performed at 19:32 on the 16th). Warnings are to make sure a new editor is aware of the rather obscure rule; this editor clearly is. Kuru (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Should my FUTON bias Talk page post be deleted?

Dear Administrator,

I don't yet wish to make a formal complaint, but several users have been deleting my contribution to the Talk:FUTON_bias page, as you can see via the edit history. They are not willing to discuss the substance of my post but attack it as a 'rant' which it cannot possibly be, in my opinion. I have been doing research on reliable-source support for my unpopular (on that page!) point of view, but I am not ready to edit the FUTON bias article page just yet. In the mean time, why shouldn't other prospective editors see what I have to say thus far? I don't believe the deleters are justified in their deletions under WP:TALK, but I will allow this to happen if a neutral observer with no emotional investment in the issue and experience in what may and may not be erased from Talk pages, so advises.

I have never contacted an Administrator before so I don't know if I am approaching this correctly. I assume I just return to this Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring page for your response but if not please leave a message on User_talk:Blanchette.

Thanks for your help. —Blanchette (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, to be clear, I'm not an administrator - but I'm sure that one would say much the same thing as me. Article talk pages are there to discuss improvements to article content, not as a general forum for debate about the subject of the article. Your comments about 'reality bias' were thus off-topic (and incidentally insulting to Misplaced Pages contributors). Personally, I would have collapsed the section, or archived it, rather than deleting it, but per WP:TPO 'Refactoring for relevance' this is acceptable. If you wish to address biases in Misplaced Pages (of which I'm sure there are quite a few), this isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you misunderstood the purpose of my contribution, AndyTheGrump. This may be my fault, but perhaps someone who understands what I was driving at (to call for inclusion of reliable sources that disagree with the assumptions of the article) will defend not the content of my comment, which you also criticize (as "insulting" — I disagree) but its relevance and right to be heard. As I see it WP:TPO supports me. Of course I don't wish to be the judge of my own case. —Blanchette (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blanchette, you first added your comment about 'reality bias' to Talk:FUTON bias here, last May. Since then you've been warring off and on to keep that comment on the page. The other editors on the talk page feel that your post is off topic and unhelpful and they've been removing it. (Part of it looks like a rant against Misplaced Pages). The simplest way to end this dispute is for you to stop restoring the material. You were at 3RR the last time you tried to do this, and I urge you to go no farther. (You restored it last about one hour ago). If you feel that your paragraph has permanent value why not put it on your user page. If you restore this material again you will most likely be blocked. The edit warring *policy* applies to all pages including talk pages and restoring your own comment is not exempt under WP:3RR. WP:TPO is a guideline, not a policy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston, for answering the question I came here voluntarily to ask. I have not, of course, been "warring" -- I merely honestly believed my post belonged under the rules of WP:TPO. Since you disagree of course, I will delete the post. Please know that I value Misplaced Pages, I do not "rant" by any definition I know of, and please remember, assume good faith. WP:AGF —Blanchette (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm a neutral non-administrator. I've never heard of FUTON bias before and still don't know what it is because I didn't even look at the article. I've never heard of you before, and I didn't check to see which editors removed your comment because it does not matter anyway. The only thing I read was your post, and indeed, it is clearly an off topic rant and has no place on the article talk page per WP:TALK. I would have deleted it, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. —Blanchette (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:207.210.33.3 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by another user, and by myself

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ip user is changing article content and sourcing it to a personal website, while simultaneously removing reliably sourced information with reliable references. They have yet to use an edit summary, the article talk or answer messages at their talk. They were warned by an admin (link provided above) and have since went well beyond 3RR. He iro 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY 23:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Hoodoo22 reported by Fleet Command (talk) (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Hoodoo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

23:30, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444169580 by FleetCommand (talk)")
19:33, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444443896 by FleetCommand (talk)")
17:06, 15 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444525157 by FleetCommand (talk)")
17:20, 17 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 445225651 by FleetCommand (talk)")

Diff of warning: here

Comments:
This user constantly adds linkspam/advert to the article, violating WP:NOTADVERT. Refuses to communicate back (in case I am wrong) and has an interest in conflict. Has received enough warning. Fleet Command (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of indefinite -FASTILY 23:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RonaldMerchant reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: blocked 31 hours)

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

Time reported: 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

11:43, 18 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
23:53, 18 August 2011 (edit summary: "restore alternate spelling with source")
23:54, 18 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */ restore sourced material in history and precursors")
01:04, 19 August 2011 (edit summary: "it's also sometimes considered more correct, as it is spelled this way in French")
01:08, 19 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 445593577 by Yworo (talk) i already explained it in the note; stop edit warring")

Diff of warning: here

Note: Edit 1 restores material added by this editor on Aug 15 so is a revert; edits 2 and 3 are a partial revert; edit 4 is a revert, edit 5 is a revert.

—Yworo (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Time reported: 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

23:56, 18 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 445374912 by Yworo (talk) unreferenced, but correct; paternak, etc")
01:17, 19 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 445592860 by Yworo (talk) i win")
02:39, 19 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* Armenia */ you can verify it by using Google Scholar. 3-0.")
02:56, 19 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 445606020 by Yworo (talk) why don't you stop being lazy and use Google, instead of deleting vast swaths of useful information?")

—Yworo (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

He's playing games. He made 3 full reverts, as did I. RonaldMerchant (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin should note Yworo is now HOUNDING all my edits across Misplaced Pages, including re-inserting unsourced material, such as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scotch-Irish_American&diff=prev&oldid=445597468 (famous figures, such as Elvis, being supposedly "Scotch-Irish"). Yworo is exhibiting a BATTLEGROUND mentality and ought to be warned or sanctioned. RonaldMerchant (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yworo has been warned here. RonaldMerchant (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

RonaldMerchant is clearly trolling. Please note these edit comments, "i win", "i win again". Looks like RM has the "battleground mentality". I'm just trying to fix the intentional problems he's caused in articles, such as calling a publication group "fringe" without sources. Take a look through his article edits and you'll see that a number of them seem intended to provoke somebody. Do I hear a duck? Yworo (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Those responses are a result of you HOUNDING my edits and exhibiting a BATTLEGROUND mentality. Leave me alone. DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERSRonaldMerchant (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Minimally involved editor here, I'm inclined to agree with Yworo. Falcon8765 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ain't that a surprise. Minimally involved? Hah! RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What was that for? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted one of his edits, I guess that's what he's "Hah!"ing about. Falcon8765 02:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who shouts "DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERS" (verbatim, and his full caps) is no newcomer. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This guy is edit-warring and baiting on editors' talkpages while being reported for edit-warring on Espresso and just a few days after being blocked for edit-warring on Genocides in history. I mean what does it take? Dr.K. 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you what it takes - HIGHLY INVOLVED EDITOR - leave me alone, don't HOUND or HARASS me, and I won't respond. Every one who has been polite to me, has received polite responses. People trying to bully me because I'm new. But sorry, I'm not impressed by templates and noticeboards and such. RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't shout slogans at me. Your comments Your surrender is graciously accepted speak for themselves. Dr.K. 02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not new, as is shown by for example your use of templates. Or maybe you are new, but your fluency with templates shows that you are a fast learner and thus are no less (or more) biteable than are old lags like me. Now, where and how do you want to contribute? (Me, I've been busy with Felice Beato.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I copy and pasted the same templates Yworo posted on my talk page! Isn't that obvious? LOL! RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yworo is now edit warring here . Challenging my citation - which is easily found in Google Scholar (and JSTOR). 4 reverts in slight over 24 hours. Still, he's barking up the wrong tree. RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yworo is now writing "i suspect citation is fake" on all my edits. LOL. If this is not a BATTLEGROUND mentality, what is? RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this user turned out to be a sockpuppet of AFolkSingersBeard and was subsequently blocked indefinitely. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AFolkSingersBeard. Yworo (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job everyone. Also great admin work throughout this case. Few cases work so well here but this is a good example. Dr.K. 23:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Newzpaperman reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: warned)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Repeated removal of some well sourced arrest information, restored by several different editors. Falcon8765 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Warned The editor is now discussing their concerns with the article at WP:BLPN.Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:98.27.74.206 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: Protected)

Page: Dan Henderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.27.74.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.51.147.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:
8th revert:
(first two by 66.51.147.57, last 6 by 98.27.74.206)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: before the most recent revert (8th above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User refuses to use talk page despite me specifically asking him to do so on his user talk page (see link above).

Comments:

These 8 reverts are spread over the course of about a week, so it may not meet 3RR strictly, but this user shows absolutely no sign that they intend to let up; they characterize everyone elses edits as "vandalism" and have refused to discuss the matter on the talk page, despite being specifically invited to do so. I would have blocked him myself, but I reverted him twice during this spree, so I just need another admin to look this over. The most recently used IP has been used for over 48 hours, so I don't think it is all that dynamic; however since this user has used more than one IP address, a semiprotection AND a block may be needed, but anything to slow this guy down would be appreciated. --Jayron32 00:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Page protected -FASTILY 02:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Gise-354x reported by User:Collect (Result: One Week)

Previous version reverted to: first state of this editor's edit 22:31 18 Aug

1st revert: 22:53 19 Aug
2nd revert: 23:24 19 Aug
3rd revert: 23:50 19 Aug
4th revert: 00:18 20 Aug

Also reverting on all related articles e.g. 23:15 19 Aug

00:32 20 Aug

And so on

Note: shows him with a 1RR problem on a Climate Change article. shows that he is now well aware of what counts as a revert. shows a WQA complaint. shows how he responded to the complaint.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: with response of

Someone can't count it seems. File the report im not aware of any wrong doing, Dude

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: etc. with response of etc. shows a problem in acceptabce of WP:BLP and WP:RS

Comments:

This relatively new user seems determined to avoid collegial editing (no other editor on the talk pages has backed his insistance that he knows the Koches created the Tea Party, etc. I gave him more than ample time to self-revert, and got the unhelpful response asking me to file the report. So I am doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded All attempts at not not biting by a fair amount of editors to explain both why the edits are being reverted and why the edit warring behavior At Climatic Research Unit email controversy, an article under 1RR sanctions, the behavior was so egregious that pretty much any 20 or 30 minute chunk of editing is a 3RR violation, and there are several chunks like this in a 24 hour period. That is, violating 3RR even on a 1RR-sanctioned article, and too long to list fully. I chose not to report based on WP:BITE, but the inability of this user to accept a mistake and move on requires community action. --Cerejota (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what Cerejota is doing here, he filed a sockpuppet involving me, yesterday and overall shows only unfaithful behavior. And today he follows me it seems and comments everywhere i talk with others about wiki edits, in a none neutral way. Cerejota please discuss issues you might have with me in the respective topics, ty. Gise-354x (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I did 2 reverts after Collect removed new additions to the[REDACTED] including new content, a new section and updated, improved content. Parts of what Collect claims above are not reverts. For a better clarification i suggest you look directly at the history here, the last 4 edits are from me and Collect.

I tried to explain and was seeking consensus on the talk page here. But Collect kept on pretending that the wiki edit from me is about living people and i have unreliable sources. However the content in question from Greenpeace, was already part of the wiki before i started editing it. So im not aware of any wrong doing and understand that Collect follows an agenda to systematically prevent updates to the fossil fuel funding from Koch's. Further without prior contact with him his first comment on a wiki talk page where i asked a question , his response has been uncivil, see here.

He replied there quote: The problem is that you know 'what ain't so'. You ascribe specific ulterior motives to a person who is not the "creator" of the Tea Party, which rather means all else of your syllogism fails. Cheers. Collect

Other edits i made earlier to the wiki have been reverted mostly by the user http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bonewah, but he did not deleted my entire attributions so i did not undid his actions. Im not aware of any wrong doing and i can only count two revision reverts i made. Gise-354x (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You had been previously apprised that "revert" covers any change undoing even part of another's edits. You are at 4RR in a matter of a couple of hourrs - well beyond the 3RR in 24 hours standard, and you refused to self-revert when told of this. You were told by a number of editors about the restrictions on Climate Change articles, and appear to have greatly exceeded 3RR on articles with a 1RR limit - Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The changes i made to the other wiki content has been content which was older then 24h. Why don't you check your facts before you start your accusations and unfounded reporting. It almost feels like witch hunting here you guys clearly have an agenda as i mentioned above. Gise-354x (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Will you please agree to limit yourself to 1RR per article per day from now on? Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you before, the content you revert can be years old. The 24 hour limit is for your reverts. It is also a bright line, so even if not 3RR, you can be considered a disruptive editor anyways and blocked. Any admin who gives attention to this case, besides the well beyond proven 1RR and 3RR issues in multiple pages, please note the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues around bright-line 1RR and 3RR. Claiming not to understand multiple attempts at explanation by multiple editors, is at the very least a failure to have the comprehension skills to be a good editor. Lastly, if you feel you are being stalked or followed, rather than your misbehavior being monitored, feel free, as I have already told you, to go to WP:ANI and complain there. Poisoning the well doesn't work around here, in which the evidence speaks louder than any words, and the vidence here is damning.--Cerejota (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at his talk page. How many editors have explained this to him? Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I cant speak to any climate change articles, but he is getting somewhat combative on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family and Talk:Koch Industries. Nothing too egregious, but he could stand to tone it down a ways. Bonewah (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY 02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories: