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 03:03, 24 January 2012 view sourceBobrayner (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,710 edits →User:71.174.135.204 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: ): update← Previous edit Revision as of 03:12, 24 January 2012 view source Wifione (talk | contribs)16,760 edits →User:Keysanger reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: ): War of the Pacific; no vioNext edit →
Line 524: Line 524:
:{{AN3|d}} — If you don't know whether it's a violation, we're not in a position to check that for you. Protection might be considered. It is probably not worth it to protect such a fast-moving article. Some restraint from both parties would be appreciated. ] (]) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC) :{{AN3|d}} — If you don't know whether it's a violation, we're not in a position to check that for you. Protection might be considered. It is probably not worth it to protect such a fast-moving article. Some restraint from both parties would be appreciated. ] (]) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|War of the Pacific}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|War of the Pacific}} <br />
Line 547: Line 547:


<u>Comments:</u> Keysanger's behavior and his usage of the warning boxes has received negative comments from a series of editors over the past few months. These include (who stated his opposition to the boxes), and (Who wrote: "Are you trying to build consensus - or make a point about how terrible the article is?" in reference to Keysanger's actions). Keysanger recently mass-bombarded the talk page with a series of "issues", , which is an attempt from his part in justifying the boxes (a matter which falls under ]). This behavior of his was also reprimanded by Alex Harvey, the mediator at the time, because listing so many "issues" at the same time prevents a good discussion/resolution of each topic. Based on the evidence, I believe this user has for long used disruptive tactics to abuse the system and bully other users to follow his POV. I hope whoever decides this case finds an appropiate solution to the problem (which, as you can notice goes beyond the 3RR).--] | ] 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC) <br /> <u>Comments:</u> Keysanger's behavior and his usage of the warning boxes has received negative comments from a series of editors over the past few months. These include (who stated his opposition to the boxes), and (Who wrote: "Are you trying to build consensus - or make a point about how terrible the article is?" in reference to Keysanger's actions). Keysanger recently mass-bombarded the talk page with a series of "issues", , which is an attempt from his part in justifying the boxes (a matter which falls under ]). This behavior of his was also reprimanded by Alex Harvey, the mediator at the time, because listing so many "issues" at the same time prevents a good discussion/resolution of each topic. Based on the evidence, I believe this user has for long used disruptive tactics to abuse the system and bully other users to follow his POV. I hope whoever decides this case finds an appropiate solution to the problem (which, as you can notice goes beyond the 3RR).--] | ] 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC) <br />
*{{AN3|no}}. Marshal, Apart from the fact that 3RR has not technically occurred yet (come back in case there's a fourth revert within 24 hours), I find that the editor's opening up of multiple sections on the talk page is an attempt to discuss than edit war. Plus, I'm sorry but if you're going to address his reversions as ''childish'', there might be an increase of animosity from the other side too. Also try not to remove tags questioning neutrality till the tagging editor has been requested to list out the points with respect to neutrality that he/she feels is not being represented appropriately. I suspect that consensus is being seen as a majority view on the talk page. While a majority view ''may'' represent a sizable perspective, it need not necessarily represent ]. So perhaps allowing the neutrality tag till those new sections on the talk page are dealt with is the correct way to go than removing the neutrality tag mentioning that you have majority. I hope this doesn't sound bad on you as that's not the intention here. ] ] 03:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> <!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


Revision as of 03:12, 24 January 2012

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

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
    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

    User:Greggy123 reported by User:WilliamJE

    Page: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Editor did similar reverts two days ago, with possible sockpuppetry involved.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    User:Jakew reported by User:Gsonnenf (Result: Stale)

    Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jakew


    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Circumcision&diff=472058353&oldid=471985473


    All reverts are deletion.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jakew&diff=472232430&oldid=472227159

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=472268096&oldid=472260304
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=472230589&oldid=472226607

    Comments: I was recently referred to this article during a discussion and noticed it was a bit heavy on pro-circumcision points. I added a few sources to provide more complete data and was met with a brick wall of revisions and an enormous amount of wiki lawyering that didn't apply to the situation. I tried discussing this with him and working with another editor to make sure the info got added in a way that made everyone happy, but alas it was reverted again. He also other uses content, specifically in the last link.

    I checked the discussion board and it appears that at least 3 other users have had the same thing happen to them in the past several days and there are month of edit warring posts where he and another editor declares themselves the winner and revert. Looking at the 3RR archive, jakew has a history of edit warring then reporting people for fighting his revisions. It appears that there are 2 or 3 people, including him that are really trying to dominate the article to there own POV through false pretense of fake WP violations.

    This is my first 3RR report so please excuse any mistakes.

    Gsonnenf (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

    This isn't a 3RR violation. The first revert is dated 2012-01-19 13:34:02, while the 4th is dated 2012-01-20 15:50:45. Jakew (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

    " 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."Gsonnenf (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

          • I came here after a philosophy discussion I was having turned to circumcision. I found the article omitted quite a bit, so I attempted to fix this. My being here has nothing to do with the Reddit group. Though, if a group on Reddit decides the article is terribly bias and wishes to fix it, they are certainly welcome to add there voice and have it given equal weight to other editors even the zealous ones. As for my IP, I identified on the talk page that it was me. I stopped reverting after my third to be compliant with the rules. The 4th was not a revert, I removed the part that was criticized in the reversion comments but apparently he had more criticism for the content after that. Gsonnenf (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
            • It was a partial revert, of this edit by Jayjg. His edit summary read: '"evidence strongly suggests"? That's a Misplaced Pages editor's conclusion. Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Also, these are WP:PRIMARY sources, which should be avoided. See also WP:MEDRS and article talk page'. Your claim that you addressed his criticisms is incorrect, as your revert restored the primary source citations. Jakew (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
              • I removed the part that "stated evidence strongly suggests" in hopes this would satisfy the editor. Though this is a report about your 3RR violation. If you feel I have violated 3RR please file a report and continue your comments there. I'm sure you are familiar with the process.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

    Stale — Both parties are urged to use the talk page to get consensus. The article has needed full protection many times in the past, and protection will be used again if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Tarc reported by User:WR Reader (Result: No violation)

    Page: Misplaced Pages Review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: Tarc has been blocked for edit-warring in the past and so should know better, but as the examples show, in addition to edit warring, he is also using incivil edit summaries and attacking those who disagree with him on the article's talk page. He is also edit warring on the talk page: .

    • Comment Most of these reverts appear to be maintenance reverts type to prevent incorrect facts to be inserted. The 4th revert seems to be outside 24 hours, even with the 24 block BLACKOUT we just experienced.--JOJ 20:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • - Yes, these edits are over multiple days. I also note that Tarc was totally correct, the[REDACTED] review is not inactive at all. http://ilovewikipedia.com - Youreallycan 20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      The site you referenced, http://ilovewikipedia.com/ is not the official Misplaced Pages Review site linked to in the article since at least July 1, 2008 and up to January 20, 2012 at 16:55, when it was changed to IP address http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/, apparently a new creation at http://184.172.174.94, some commercial site selling "custom sofas and upholstered furniture." Anyone in the world could create such a new site and post a mirror of Misplaced Pages Review archives, perhaps even with a new post or two, and claim it is the "real site" for some defunct web operation. I have changed the infobox back to the website of long standing. It is not a reliable source to counterbalance the fact that the domain registration for WR was allowed to lapse. One hopes that someone, in the future, will be able to contact the individual (allegedly "Selina") who previously registered the domain name and put it back on the internet. The assertions that WR is alive and well are comical, like a Monty Python skit asserting that the parrot is just resting, not dead at all. Where is any reliable secondary source verifying that "http://ilovewikipedia.com" = "wikipediareview.com?" Also an IP site 184.172.174.94 has claimed to be the "real Misplaced Pages Review." Claims by such upstart websites or assertions by folks on Facebook do not satisfy verifiability. They do not even come close. A statement, referenced to the actual www.wikipediareview.com, that says "NOTICE: This domain name expired on 01/16/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion" is reliably sourced and NPOV. Edison (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I see no breach of WP:3RR - three edits in the period 17th-18th January, then a fourth (which was self-reverted) more than 24 hours later. And, at any rate, the user hasn't edited the article in question for almost 24 hours, so what pressing need is there for administrator intervention in the first place? SuperMarioMan 21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • "WR Reader", an obviously not-new user editor despite the limited # of edits on this particular account, also failed to note that I reverted myself at the end anyways. And as noted, #4 was 2 days later anyways. This is quite a vexatious filing by any standard; doubly so when paired with the frivolous one against Bali Ultimate below. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No violation Nothing to see here, folks. Courcelles 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The slow speed edit war denying that the Misplaced Pages Review domain name has expired should cease, and future reverts should lead to blocks. Reliable secondary sources are needed to establish that any new website someone might establish is the "real" Misplaced Pages Review, since there appear to be at least two claimants so far.(Meanwhile, someone should check on "Selina," the domain registrant of Misplaced Pages Review, and remind her to renew the registration, or to give the password, email, etc to some replacement registrant. But please stop the pretending. The website's history is very complex, if website http://encyc.org/Wikipedia_Review is to be believed, with the ownership and website changing several times from establishment 5 Nov 2005, to the New site 16 Feb 2006, with a competing site established 9 Feb 2009. It is plausible that some new website might emerge for WR, but the self-serving assertions of any new website are not the reliable secondary source needed to establish that it has re-emerged phoenix-like from the ashes of it domain expiration (current sale price of a 1 year registration : under $5 (US)). Edison (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe WR has hired Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf as their new spokesman? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It's the same WR, I can still log in and everything. Having a new URL doesn't change anything, Edison, and your argument is really, really weak. I don't even know why you are arguing this, it's rather self-evident. The WR domain name expired and, while they are recovering it, they are hosting the site at a separate URL. Sites change their URLs all the time. Silverseren 18:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll go along (WP:IAR) with the Misplaced Pages editors who say they are also Misplaced Pages Review editors and that there is continuity in the website (aside from the changed internet address). The article could accurately say WR is now doing business at a new website, though it would be helpful to mention what happened, since anyone doing a Google search is still directed to the old wikipediareview.com site, currently without DNS registration and finds a dead end there. Edison (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

    http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36357 – Selina and the domain name are back. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Bali ultimate reported by User:WR Reader (Result: No violation)

    Page: Misplaced Pages Review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: Bali ultimate has been blocked for edit-warring in the past and so should know better, but as the first diff shows ("couldn't help myself"), he is adding the template that is currently under a deletion discussion for disruptive joke purposes only. He has a long history of going after the Article Rescue Squadron and its members (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden#Outside_view_by_Bali_ultimate for one of many examples.

    • - The first alleged revert is actually an addition. diff - That edit was the first addition of the template and Bali has three rescue template additions after that - I note the reverting has also stopped. Youreallycan 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    If "WR Reader" isn't a sock then I'm Peggy Flemming. Nice trip down memory lane with that year old RFC on Warden, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    Yes - User:Jack_Merridew was involved in that discussion . I would just block him as a disruptive sockpuppet and be done with it - account has only edited on four separate days since its creation six months ago - first edit today was these two 3rr reports - why should we have suffer this disruptive trolling all the time. Youreallycan 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    I would be very surprised if it was Jack. User:A Nobody or User:Benjiboi are far more likely. The recently active accounts to look at including this on are User:JoolsRun and User:CallawayRox. It could be some false flag troll by some other banned user. But i say leave 'em be. All great grist for the mill.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    Oh yeah, there's something very henky about User:Northamerica1000. That one feels particularly like User:A Nobody.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    I highly doubt that Northamerica1000 is A_Nobody. When I first saw Northamerica, I thought it was A Nobody also (who I am completely familiar with), and I compared their editing pattern. There's almost nothing similar between the two with editing sytle, editing tendersies (he would never nominate the rescue template for discussion in TFD and ignore most of it as an recent example) and even time zones, with the exception of the abuse of the rescue template and the inclusionism. I think Northamerica1000 is another banned user, but that discussion about sockpuppets belong in AN/I or SPI not here. Secret 06:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    No violation – Bali's first addition of the rescue template was not a revert, as someone has pointed out. Since the AfD has closed with keep, the dispute is now over. It has occurred to some people that the submitter of this complaint, User:WR Reader, might be a sock. Deliberately pointy and unhelpful comments might be evidence for that. It is hard to consider this AfD comment by WR Reader to be good faith participation. Socks should not be filing 3RR reports. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Bouron and User:Tirgil34 reported by User:Bouron (Result: Stale)

    Page: Scythian languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bouron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tirgil34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: diff

    User Bouron
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    User Tirgil34
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Bouron#Scythian_Language

    Comments:
    This is my first edit war report. Before this edit war all my opponents tried to solve conflicts on the talk page. So I didn't expect my opponent would revert me 3rd time. I had no hope that I can have constructive dialogue with User:Tirgil34 when I decided to report the edit war. What about reverts by me. I totally agree that 3rd revert from me violated rules of Misplaced Pages. But now I know that multiple reverting make nothing useful. I also promise not to participate in edit wars again. Please take into account the fact that I reverted to consensus version and my suggestions to discuss the changes on discussion page.--Bouron (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:66.239.61.196 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 month)

    Page: Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 66.239.61.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 17:01, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "removed emotional and biased POV text")
    2. 19:34, 21 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472290495 by Mann jess (talk) removing POV to restore neutrality of article.")
    3. 23:24, 21 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472481101 by Mann jess (talk) yes, stop edit warring. do not reverse the changes or you will be blocked.")

    Diff of warning:

    Comments: No violation of 3rr. Ip has removed sourced content from the article now 3 times. I've directed him to WP:EW and WP:BRD, and invited him to an active discussion taking place on the talk page, but he's refused (even after warning), relying instead on edit warring. It appears to be a static ip, as behavior is identical spanning back to first edit in July 2009. He's received ample warnings on every article he's frequented. I usually restrain myself to 1rr, and I'm at 3 now, so I won't be reverting again. However, I believe he will continue to edit war to remove the sources on this and other articles unless he's blocked to prevent disruption. Thanks.

    —  — Jess· Δ♥ 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

    Blocked — One month for long-term edit warring and POV-pushing. For this editor, MSNBC is a socialist channel. He has never left a comment on a talk page or given any hint that he is listening to others' opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Twobells reported by User:Rjensen (Result: Declined for now)

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    Comments:
    Twobells proposed to delete the article British Raj because he disliked its contents. That proposal was speedily rejected by a consensus of editors. see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/British Raj. Twobells now has deleted a third of the article to accomplish the goal that was rejected by consensus. Rjensen (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    1st blanking by Twobells = ;
    Rjensen's revert =
    2nd blanking by Twobells =
    Rjensen's 2nd revert =
    3rd blanking by Twobells = he blanked about half the article. (and contrary to his edit summary, the blanked material covered the British Raj) Rjensen (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    I don't know what to make of this, I have the article on my watchlist and have made some minor edits over the past couple of years, though more to the talk page than to the article itself (I'll consider myself WP:INVOLVED for this one), but Twobells seems to be talking in the abstract about POV etc and wanting to get the article deleted and blanks it but doesn't provide any details other than the abstract statements of too much Indian Independence movement info or POV etc. I've asked him to explain what he wants to remove and why and gain consensus (on the talk page) before any further removal. —SpacemanSpiff 13:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    Note - Twobells' last revert was at 11:50 on 22 January. Why not wait and see if he edits again before deciding on a sanction. At first sight, this *does* appear to be POV-warring by Twobells. He has already made three large reverts on 22 January, and a fourth revert would break 3RR. He has also made a pointy AfD nomination for the article that was closed as a Speedy Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Charlie150408 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 h.)

    Page: Albury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Charlie150408 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 01:12, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Updated images") first addition of the photograph
    2. 01:35, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472535214 by Jim1138 (talk)")
    3. 12:16, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472590321 by Bleakcomb (talk) change image back to updated imagine, old image was pre 'the gardens' (before 2007)")
    4. 12:25, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472600137 by Bidgee (talk) HATERS GONNA HATE X0X0")
    5. 12:34, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* City and suburbs */ added updated image, since y'all have such a problem with it x0") re-added the same photo but different section, however it is still seen as edit warring since they are adding the same content to the article
    6. 12:45, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472601944 by Bidgee (talk) HOW IS THAT VANDALISM? LOLOLOL, PATHETIC, HAVE ME BLOCKED, ILL JUST MAKE A NEW USERNAME X0X0X0X0X0X0X")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments:
    User refuses to use the talk page and has also threatened to sock if blocked. Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC) —Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Youreallycan reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: No violation)

    Page: Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 12:33, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "rem attack site")
    2. 19:48, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "add comment")
    3. 19:58, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "remove chat thread from attack site - no benefit at all to the article - BLP")
    4. 20:02, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines - states, External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. -")
    • Diff of warning: here

    These edits involve repeated removal of content from the posts of other editors -- something that is becoming a habit with this editor. Note that WP:TPO indicates an editor should "normally stop if others object". Even if this user thinks he is interpreting policy correctly, it doesn't justify edit-warring beyond 3RR.

    —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    This is clearly an attack site against a living person and is not a not reliable source that is of no benefit to the article. That link is to a chat thread or a list of "letters" from the public with personal attacks from all and sundry. Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines - states, External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. - Its been replaced twice now by Heironymous_Rowe , his only two edits today are to replace this attack link. The exact same edit pattern he repeated on the 14 Jan in this thread. I will leave it there and look for some discussion and consensus to remove Youreallycan 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    Again, the alleged merits of the reverts don't justify edit-warring, particularly when WP:TPO advises caution and stopping when others object. By the way, it's hard to see a category in WP:TPO that would cover (and thus justify) this removal. But again that's a separate issue; the issue here is obvious edit-warring, carried on beyond a 3RR warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    Its an attack site - its being kept out of the article for BLP reasons and it has no place on the talkpage either, especially a letters to the editors chat thread. Youreallycan 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    In the case at hand, WP:BLP absolutely and clearly applies, as the OP has been told by others in the ppast. "Objecting" to mandatory removal of BLP violating content does not estop the removal of such content. The frothy mixture being purveyed by some does not belong on any BLP or on any article talk page subject to WP:BLP, and the use of the frothy mixture repeatedly is even less welcome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    Whether it's a BLP violation is a matter of consensus, and if others revert the removal it's a pretty obvious sign that there is no consensus that it's a BLP violation. WP:3RR itself counsels against relying on a "BLP" exemption in view of such considerations ("What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption"). User:Youreallycan fancies himself specially authorized to make BLP judgments all on his own, but in fact this is a matter of judgment and consensus formation among interested editors. In this context edit-warring is, shall we say, unwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    If it's a BLP matter, then the material should stay out, and those wishing to include it can go to BLP/N, no? Franamax (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    @Nomoskedasticity - Not really -If a user in good faith considers a link a violation of BLP he is in his rights to remove it - experienced users , like yourself, rather than warring the external back in, should take that good faith removal on board and not replace it and move to discussion. Youreallycan 21:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No violation Enforcing BLP is exempted from 3-rr. And I'd also encourage all editors wishing to restore the link to stop reverting and start a BLPN thread. Salvio 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    I've removed the link in question, acting in an administrative capacity. Further discussion should occur at a noticeboard. Franamax (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Penyulap reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Stale)

    Page: Stop Online Piracy Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Penyulap (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:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: I tried to warn the editor that his conduct was problematic, but he rebuffed me, apparently believing that as a "regular", he is exempt (). He finally came to the article Talk page to contribute to the discussion (but only sometime after the warning), but I confess that many of his comments are hard to follow (at least for me).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    Please note that the 6th revert is not indicative of a constructive editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


    User:Soapfan2013 and User:Musicfreak7676 reported by User:George Ho (Result: Stale)

    Page: Maxie Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Soapfan2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Musicfreak7676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    There are disputes between File:KS Maxie.png and File:KirstenStormsMaxieJones2011.jpg. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

    I wish to apologize for such edits. I was simply trying to prove a point that other user simply wasn't accepting. Was not my intention to break the editing rule. MusicFreak7676 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    I also hope such is not used against me, as I have continually been active helping soap pages and keeping things as verifiable as possible and to be blocked over such thing compared to other editors, I feel, would be wrong. MusicFreak7676 22:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    Well, let's leave this issue to administrators. Some user removed the merger proposal tag, and I did not notice. If it weren't for removal, the 3RR could have been prevented. --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    I did not remove the merger marker. I don't remove such things until they are settled upon. I do not wish to be blocked, as I feel it would be unwarranted, in my honest opinion. I've been a good contributor, I feel. And I feel the other user involved was doing this to simply be right in their situation when they were wrong. Especially after you, yourself George, put the image back. It should be them who is blocked. I also don't intend on continuing, as I uploaded an all-new image in the replacement that confirms it is Ms. Storms as Maxie! MusicFreak7676 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    I did revert the image only because I prefer promos to screenshots, not because of an appearance. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    And I only reverted because their argument was completely false and could not be proven true. It was them who did it over an appearance, claiming A) It wasn't Storms and B) She had never had longer hair on the series, which she had. MusicFreak7676 23:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    I understand. It was not my intention to violate. MusicFreak7676 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:ChessPlayerLev and User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result:Page protected 3 days)

    Page: Paul Morphy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ChessPlayerLev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    For Ihardlythinkso:

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

    ChessPlayerLev's reverts are immediately after each of Ihardlythinkso's:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert (after warning):


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for ChessPlayerLev; Ihardlythinkso knows very well what 3RR is.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None except in edit summaries (a big no-no)

    Comments:
    A prime candidate for WP:LAME.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

    Here's essentially what I wrote to Jasper on my talk page; "In all honesty, I wasn't aware that I was edit warring. I thought I was just preserving important information on a page from someone who kept reverting it. (I thought reverting was the culprit here, not editing) I'm a new member and didn't understand that distinction. Also, I hadn't read your warning before I made my last edit. That being said, I accept responsibility, and thank you for the heads up. I will certainly know better next time." ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    You & I have had previous interaction; it wasn't pleasant. Be advised: I don't feel "lucky", I don't shudder at your Admin status, and IMO and in my experience you've been abusive in various ways with your Admin status in the past. Have a nice day. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    You probably should feel lucky - I personally would have blocked both of you, seeing as you're edit-warring on multiple articles. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be "shuddering" at admins ... but Elen certainly took WP:AGF to the limit, and your snotty reply above pretty much seals where your attitude lies. Sure glad that one of the twp people involved in the edit war is polite, and believes in the collegial nature of this project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    I am not edit warring on mutiple articles. (I *was* edit warring on one article.) I did not say you suggested I should shudder at Admin power, I was simply telling Elen I didn't shudder at hers. I do not have an "attitude" regarding anything outside of Elen here, and on that topic, you lack history to really understand that it might be justified. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. The "lucky" comment seems to have pulled in your involvement. For what end? Do you feel better now?
    It's a slam to accuse that I do not somehow understand "the collegial nature of Misplaced Pages". The new user you hold in such high regard on that point, seems to lack a fundamental understanding of concept of consensus-building. And "politeness" cannot cure that. Please teach him and get off my case. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    The new user has already accused an established editor of "blatant dishonesty" twice. Is this your idea of "politeness and collegiality"? You should do some research before making comments. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks to the admins for the page protection. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve this (admittedly, very minor!) issue. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

    Secondary edit war

    These two users are also engaged in an edit war on Efim Geller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(but neither has violated 3RR there; still consider this when taking action on the main edit war):

    • Initial edit:
    • 1st reverts by both sides:
    • 2nd reverts by both sides:

    Consider this in addition.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

    While I mentioned this to you on my Talk Page, I feel the need to correct an inaccuracy. Both myself and Ihardlythinkso have (rather quickly) come to an understanding on that particular issue, and are thus not presently "engaged in an edit war". ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    This was just additional info for the reviewing admins' purposes. You probably don't need to worry about it.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Astrotube reported by User:Jasper420 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: List of punk rock bands, 0–K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Astrotube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

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


    Comments:

    User:Astrotube has continuously and erroneously removed 311 from List of punk rock bands, 0–K despite persistent reverts of his vandalism by myself. The list has been long standing in its current state, with non-relevant bands removed long ago. He claims them to be a non punk rock band, with only the claim that he is "a long time fan(20 years) to back himself up, despite sources saying that they are a ska-punk band, among other genres, which he also claims is erroneous. I will revert his vandalism a final time and leave a warning/notification of this complaint shortly.Jasper420 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Penyulap (Result: Declined)

    Page: Stop Online Piracy Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    This is a tough one, cause the page moves so very fast, and I'm not sure what to pop in here. Honestly I have no idea if this is warring or not, so I just thought, it never hurts to ask.


    Removing "The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a rights advocacy non-profit group, confirmed the protests were the biggest in Internet history, with over 115 thousand sites altering their webpages."

    Removing "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns that proxy servers and websites hosting user-generated content, such as Etsy, Flickr and Vimeo, could be targeted under the bill"


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Oh you know I hadn't done that at all. I thought it impolite to threaten a newbie, so I went with bite, and let the whole matter slide and slide, hoping he'd explain on the talkpage, where I asked him about it all, asking him about it. Anyhow he just went right ahead and did it again next day. here but then when Xenophrenic comes up a discussion with an editor I really can't work with (Had conflict at ANI with summerPhd), and she comes to my talkpage, here you can see he has an intricate knowledge of the policy, I mean real good. And I had looked at his userpage, and OMG it totally talks all about 3RR like he is so knowledgeable about it. Anyhow, I guess I should have warned him that there was 3RR to worry about.

    Anyhow just thought I'd ask as I'm curious about this, after I got a notification on my tp saying that some query here had become stale. (sorry about that, I didn't know about this page, if I had I would have come and had a chat!!) I didn't even know there was a help page for this kind of thing. Penyulap talk 17:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Is this a duplicate of the report just 4 entries before this one, at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Penyulap_reported_by_User:Bbb23_.28Result:_Stale.29? The above diffs, covering a time frame far greater than 24 hours, do not show a violation of 3RR -- but they definitely support your assertion that "the page moves so very fast". One of the busiest pages on Misplaced Pages these past few days, by some statistics. The consensus discussion you have since opened on the talk page is an excellent start, and I've already commented there. I am not familiar with the issue surrounding the other links you've provided from that other editor (User:SummerPhD), his "intricate knowledge of policy" and your ANI stuff, etc. -- I don't think I should be commenting on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I got a genuine laugh out of that Xenophrenic, I think you're all right. It's not about you, it's about the other Xenophrenic, I was "asking him about it". :) Anyhow I don't actually want to see you punished, I'm just after opinions and a description from other editors as to what you're up to, that sort of thing. Slow reverts or something, I don't know what it's called. Anyhow that other Xenophrenic and his "intricate knowledge of policy" would he on his userpage, not yours of course. Penyulap talk 22:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Now you've lost me, and I genuinely don't know what you are on about. If you have posted on this noticeboard, I believe most Admins would take that to mean you are seeking administrative action of some sort -- not just opinions and discussion. Thanks, though, for the "you're all right" and the "I don't actually want to see you punished" comments.  :-) Right back at ya; which is why I went to your talk page instead of here. I'll resume our discussions there. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    Declined — If you don't know whether it's a violation, we're not in a position to check that for you. Protection might be considered. It is probably not worth it to protect such a fast-moving article. Some restraint from both parties would be appreciated. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:Keysanger reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: No violation)

    Page: War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Keysanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , and he has been warned before in another article (which may be beside the point, but it shows that the user knows what he is doing and purposely tries to game the system).

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: Keysanger's behavior and his usage of the warning boxes has received negative comments from a series of editors over the past few months. These include User:Donald RichardSands (who stated his opposition to the boxes), and User:Alex Harvey (Who wrote: "Are you trying to build consensus - or make a point about how terrible the article is?" in reference to Keysanger's actions). Keysanger recently mass-bombarded the talk page with a series of "issues", , which is an attempt from his part in justifying the boxes (a matter which falls under WP:GAMING). This behavior of his was also reprimanded by Alex Harvey, the mediator at the time, because listing so many "issues" at the same time prevents a good discussion/resolution of each topic. Based on the evidence, I believe this user has for long used disruptive tactics to abuse the system and bully other users to follow his POV. I hope whoever decides this case finds an appropiate solution to the problem (which, as you can notice goes beyond the 3RR).--MarshalN20 | 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

    • No violation. Marshal, Apart from the fact that 3RR has not technically occurred yet (come back in case there's a fourth revert within 24 hours), I find that the editor's opening up of multiple sections on the talk page is an attempt to discuss than edit war. Plus, I'm sorry but if you're going to address his reversions as childish, there might be an increase of animosity from the other side too. Also try not to remove tags questioning neutrality till the tagging editor has been requested to list out the points with respect to neutrality that he/she feels is not being represented appropriately. I suspect that consensus is being seen as a majority view on the talk page. While a majority view may represent a sizable perspective, it need not necessarily represent consensus. So perhaps allowing the neutrality tag till those new sections on the talk page are dealt with is the correct way to go than removing the neutrality tag mentioning that you have majority. I hope this doesn't sound bad on you as that's not the intention here. Wifione 03:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

    User:71.174.135.204 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: )

    Page: Gold standard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.174.135.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    71.174.135.204 currently on 6th revert in 4 hours.

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy talkpage archives, alas

    Comments:
    71.184.188.254 (talk · contribs) was a long-term edit warrior on Gold standard. Recently got a 1 month block. 71.174.135.204 appeared shortly afterwards to continue the same mission. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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