Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) at 21:27, 30 March 2010 (→User:Undefeatedcooler reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: protected): protected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:27, 30 March 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) (→User:Undefeatedcooler reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: protected): protected)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

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:86.178.142.233 reported by User:The C of E (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

The problem with this user is that this IP seems to have a problem with a statement in the article however he has reverted 3 times and may need a warning to prevent him going over the 3RR The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Warned Please update or re-report if there is any further trouble. - Vianello (Talk) 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:
8th revert:
9th revert:
10th revert:
11th revert:
12th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: RfC at WT:ACTOR, not closed, still open.

Comments: There is a RfC open at WT:ACTOR concerning the use of color table headings, spearheaded by the editor I am reporting. He was incivil to another editor in that discussion and when she responded to it, he began going about removing the color and font coding, which has been used as a matter of practice on actor articles. The RfC has not been closed. Thge first edits he made were hidden under deceptive edit summaries of "tidy" and continues to hide his edits under deceptive summaries. When I reverted his first edits on this, he posted an ultimatum to me to answer questions on WT:ACTOR if I wanted him to stop. When he reached the 3rd revert on the Anna Kendrick, I warned him about 3RR. He did the same to Corey Haim. I noted in reverting that there was no consensus to remove the coding, which again was used as a matter of practice. He then went to WT:ACTOR to move to close the RfC and began removing this from the other articles. He didn't directly violate 3RR on the Kendrick article, but after being warned, he proceeded to remove it on other articles. I believe this violates the spirit of 3RR as he forges on to remove it. The discussion is not closed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not like I've not tried to discuss this with WHL; there's 129 kilobytes of discussion at WT:ACTOR about this, most of it not to her liking. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the RfC is still open and this removal continued even after being warned about 3RR. It isn't required that the reverts all occur on the same page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You've reverted just as much (or more) than JM has. Seems a bit odd that you're reporting him, since logically if any action were taken, it would affect you as well, or perhaps you solely...J.delanoy _adds 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A huge percentage of WHL's edits are reverts. Most of the diffs to my editing on offer above are not reverts at all; they're just edits she doesn't like. The discussion is thataway. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Jack Merridew has made snarky comments about my edits. I do vandal patrol a great deal of the time, yet he continues to speculate about the percentages regarding my edits. And for the record, I stopped after I saw the wholesale manner in which he was approaching this. I revert it twice on three articles, so no, I did not revert it as much or more than he did and I'm not sure where you're getting that "as much or more" from. And Jack, when you've reverted the same thing over and over on 7 different articles, for something that is still under discussion, it's reverts. You'll find lots of other reverts in my contributions, but you won't find pointy edits, the object of which are still under discussion, hidden under false edit summaries like "tidy". Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack shouldn't have started it to begin with. Bait, much? —Mike Allen 06:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

nb: User:Pinkadelica has joined-in. . Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly did "join in" because Heidi Montag is on my watchlist. After the deceptive "tidy ;)" edit summary, I checked your contributors to see if you did your idea of "tidying" on other articles and lo and behold! As MikeAllen has stated, you shouldn't have started this crusade to begin with. There's no consensus for theses changes that you and you alone are pushing for, and certainly not after that bait and switch joke of an RfC you began on WT:ACTOR. If you hadn't noticed, I didn't revert your other edits because it's obvious you're playing a game. I haven't earned a block yet and I'm not about to get one because you're bored and want to play games. Pinkadelica 07:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Anna Kendrick page continues to ping-pong back and forth. That RfC needs review and a close by an uninvolved admin. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Planeshift rpg reported by Tuxide (talk) (Result: Both editors blocked - Vianello (Talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

21:54, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352410003 by SpigotMap (talk) Number of quests are not a news but a fact.")
22:00, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352411772 by SpigotMap (talk) Being sorry is of no help. I understand you are a vandal of wikipedia, you will not win.")
23:13, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352421271 by SpigotMap (talk) You are not a trusted user. See your talk page. you cannot edit this page anymore.")
23:32, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352425118 by 72.40.145.111 (talk)")
23:52, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352428126 by 72.40.145.111 (talk) Stop vandalizing the page.")

Diff of warning: here

Comments:

I (uninvolved) gave him three NPA warnings . Also, after reading these comments from him I didn't think it would be constructive to bring it up on the talk page. This is clearly an "I don't like the guy" thing, not a content issue. Tuxide (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Both SpigotMap and the reported user have violated 3RR in this case (at different times). A block has been passed down for both. - Vianello (Talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mkdw reported by User:Philly jawn (Result: no action)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

02:42, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: Undid revision 352453395 by Philly jawn
03:00, 28 March 2010 RV: Please follow[REDACTED] procedures as described in the A7 as well as the process to contest maintenance tags rather than assuming bad faith and reverting these changes
03:07, 28 March 2010 restoring the maintenance tags - please don't remove them unless you can assert that the concerns have been resolved

Diff of warning: here

Comments:
Edit warring and bad faith in editing. There has been an article about Joseph Rowbottom that has existed for about nine months. Rowbottoms were spontaneous gatherings where some mayhem ensued. I added this to the article on flash mobs, User:Mkdw and I traded reversions. Mkdw just upped the ante by nominating the first article for speedy deletion. In an act of retribution, Mkdw just put a warning on my talk page ... after putting the speedy tag back on the article. Would someone please intervene? Philly jawn (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No action. The listed diffs do not exceed WP:3RR, the edit war is presumably over now that the article is at AfD and you, Philly jawn, have made roughly the same number of reverts as Mkdw, but also removed deletion tags out of process and assumed bad faith, so if I were you I would not invite admins to take a closer look at this. Sandstein 06:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mkdw was completely driving an edit war, and was being vindictive. Three isn't always the threshold, I thought about including the edits from flash mob but chose not to. You'll see that the article in question has been transformed by an enlightened editor. This kind of behavior needs to be noted, especially since the {{speedy}} was in bad faith and an editor not trying to be a bully would have found a better way. Philly jawn (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  - You instantly reported me for restoring a tag that was removed "out of process" and never made an attempt to discuss it when I posted on Talk:Flash mob#Rowbottom... Mkdw 07:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Continued Additions to 1994 by User:Barneystimpleton

User:Barneystimpleton reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: No violation)

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:

Editor was previously blocked for the same addition to the same article. ttonyb (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting because there is no ACTUAL reason why a very notable person should be removed. I checked most of the other ones. The "10 foreign articles" thing did not apply. Barneystimpleton (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A policy being broken in one place does not make it acceptable to break it (and 3RR) in others. Please see WP:ALLORNOTHING. "The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article." WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is also relevant, even if we're talking list items and not articles. - Vianello (Talk) 04:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Only three reversions made on this particular spree, eight days since the previous one, and the user has now desisted. If another administrator still feels this qualifies sufficiently as edit warring despite that, they may overturn my judgment on this if they see fit. - Vianello (Talk) 04:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:71.74.95.254 / User:Nonrevisionis reported by User:Newross (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: 14:00, 25 March 2010

23:16, 25 March 2010 (edit summary: )
19:58, 26 March 2010 (edit summary: )
15:20, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: )
22:14, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: )
01:01, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: Undid revision 352423812 by Ja 62 (talk) based on his own text (quoted), many DID/DO believe him to be communist)
12:58, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
17:16, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: Undid revision 352556521 by Newross (talk) Right, I read that he is not a Marxist - I am stating a fact due to his writings as quoted)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Repeated addition by 71.74.95.254/Nonrevisionis of a partial quote from Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals deliberately taken out-of-context to reverse its meaning and combined with the uninformed, unsubstantiated personal opinion of 71.74.95.254/Nonrevisionis. Newross (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DecZXZ reported by User:Dudesleeper (Result: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Vianello (Talk) 04:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Previous version reverted to: 21:03, 28 March 2010

19:52, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
20:27, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
20:56, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
21:04, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:24, 28 March 2010

Talk:Ewood_Park#Neutrality and points of view

Comments:
Warned by a couple of users, and has now reverted for fourth time, despite having WP:3RR brought to his attention. He doesn't seem to be checking diffs, because my last edit wasn't connected to the edit war. - Dudesleeper talk 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

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

These are not reverts in each edit new information was added to the article or some quotes trimmed. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, each time started with your reverting the edit I made and then, as I said, you added a little bit of content. That doesn't take away from the fact that it included reverts of the same content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor falling back on old issue. I have cleaned out the addition of blank parameters from the citations he has added, removed use of excessive subtitles from old newspaper articles and removed excessive quotes from cites that basically copy and paste every single bit of content from the newspaper link. He has repeatedly used undo to eliminate my clean-up and has hidden his actions beneath deceptive edit summaries that do not mention his reverts. My issue with him regards the subtitles and the source content that is already accessible through the link to the source, not the ones that have no link. He just hits "undo" makes a few small edits and hides it behind a false edit summary. His last response to me included a personal attack aimed at his perception that my ignorance astounds him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out someone's ignorance of Copyright Law and the concept Fair Use is not a personal attack, I always assume good faith. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am astounded, as I was 2 years ago when this issue was settled by Arbcom. The quote parameter is there to use in the citation template, and I am using no more text than Google is already using under fair use, and what the New York Times uses in their abstract. There are over 3M articles and somehow Wild is insisting on imposing his personal style guide on this one without citing any Misplaced Pages rule. I am going through old articles made before the NYT abstracts were available by the NYT and adding links, and the newer citation templates. Previously the NYT was hosted by ProQuest. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to re-argue removing the quote parameter from citations, lobby for a new policy guideline. Don't arbitrarily remove a few of them from a few articles on an ad hoc basis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, Richard. As I said, my issue is with your deceptive editing practices and violating 3RR while doing so. The underlying issue is with returning blank parameters, inserting needless subtitles and sticking in quotes that merely serve to parrot what is in the reference. Redundant, needless and basically beside the point of 3RR and personal attacks. And as you've been told in the past, make an effort to discover someone's gender before just assuming I'm a "he". Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For the fourth time, can you cite a written Misplaced Pages rule, instead of imposing your arbitrary personal taste in how you want Misplaced Pages to be formatted.

That isn't the issue here, Richard. Your hiding reverts behind deceptive edit summaries while you violate 3RR is the issue here. This is the second time you've implied that I was a part of an ArbCom case involving the use of the quote parameter. I was not, so do yourself a favor and supply links to such a case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said " a part of an ArbCom case involving the use of the quote parameter". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The retention of citation template parameters even when no value is given, are an affordance to future editors who may be able to provide the information but who may not know the parameter name or how they might go and look it up. This is especially true for missing information that we really would like to have, thus a missing value acts to encourage editors to contribute to the project. This is kinda core to the wiki-process; in theory, at least.
deceptive edit summaries? not that i saw. rich, coming from someone notable for their poor edit summary usage.
Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Blank template parameters for the author's name from a newspaper article where there is no author named? Baloney. That content will never miraculously appear when it isn't already there on 40 or 50 year old articles. And the use of deceptive edit summaries have been a mentioned issue with you too, Jack, on this very page. When you do one thing and call it something else, that's deceptive. And how did Jack get here or to the Albert Fish article, where he's never previously edited until tonight? From following around my edits, which others have noticed as well. Inserting one's self into another editor's issues is sort of par. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wild appears to be the common factor in the two ongoing edit controversies over arbitrary style changes on this page today. The handling of the quote function was ruled on by Arbcom about two years ago, when attempts was made to remove quotes from citations. 07:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If Wild wants to limit titles to one sentence this needs to be argued globally, and not enforced prior to a rule being set, and not enforced on an ad hoc basis. Google truncates book titles in Google Book Search so it is not unprecedented, but consensus needs to be created for the move here in Misplaced Pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If Wild wants to create a rule that any unused parameters in citation templates must be removed from all articles, I will support it. But again, we should not be removing them on an ad hoc basis from some templates in some articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again, you seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Your most recent post here, pastes the text: "you seem to be missing the point here, Richard. This is not the place or the purpose here. The point is that you willfully violated the 3RR bright line rule. And you did so by reverting first and in some cases made a few other edits and hid it under a deceptive edit summary to try and slip by the revert. That's a violation of 3RR and you were warned." into this page *5 times* How is that not trolling this discussion? Seriously, Jack Merridew 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the same response to everything he's said on this that tries to obfuscate the bottom line reason this was brought here, which was violating 3RR and trying to hide it behind deceptive edit summaries. And just because you don't like me gives you no basis for claiming trolling. The response to everything he's tried to muddy up on this board is the same: He violated 3RR after being warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Theres seems to be a lot of reverting from both parties, although one of the editors has taken care to not violate 3RR on a technicality. Since there is some effort to resolve this on the talk page, I would suggest that neither editor is censured here, and that both editors immediately desist in editing altering the disputed material and request a Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My analysis indicates that this is a 4-against-3 revert situation, with RAN having made the larger number. I've begun a discussion at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to see what RAN would accept as a method of finding consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would note that RAN has made up a list of questions, which are posed from his own POV of the issues involved here, but has failed at all times to notify me, you or respond to your questions. I will not participate in a "consensus" call formulated in this manner and based on his POV, which do not in any way address the issues I brought up about this. In that, the questions are quite genereal and are designed to bring a specific response without covering the particulars. He has yet to respond to direct questions from EdJohnston and has still reverted 4 times after being warned about 3RR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:75.253.201.112 reported by User:Kelseypedia (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

02:45, 29 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352614506 by Kelseypedia (talk) You don't own Misplaced Pages, asshole.")
04:16, 29 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352668160 by Kelseypedia (talk)")
04:42, 29 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352676355 by Rrius (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User appears to be editing from a few different IPs and seems to think inclusion of this information is bad because it's "propaganda" and "some people are only looking to confirm their beliefs" or some other reasons related to inclusion only because of bias. The material in question is two sentences. One sentence is uncited, but the other has a citation, and the user takes no issue with lack of citation for the first statement - only something with how the human mind works. Since user appears new, I tried explaining in edit reasons why the material was fine, and user's issue with its inclusion were not reasons to remove it - in the process I may have been considered edit warring, but rather than take it straight to the board here, I thought user would begin to understand why it was fine. User does not seem interested in listening, so I've stopped reverting and instead taken it here. It was not my intention to edit war. Kelseypedia (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:68.98.60.87 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: 00:35, March 29, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:28, March 29, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 04:29, March 29, 2010

Comments: This text was originally added by User:68.194.254.7, a known sockpuppet of indef blocked user User:ObserverNY. After that IP was blocked for three months following an SPI report, this user started undoing the text. I'm not really sure if it's meatpuppetry or what. — HelloAnnyong 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:bsw123 (Result: No vio, reporter warned, page protected )

Page: Anne Widdecombe
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ann_Widdecombe&oldid=352422882

5th revert: 21:30, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,482 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Bsw123; Content is synth and not in the citation, opinionated addition. (TW)) (undo)
4th revert: 21:23, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,482 bytes) (Reverted 4 edits by Bsw123; Synth uncited content. (TW)) (undo)
3rd revert: 21:16, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,482 bytes) (→Work outside Parliament: remove op ed comments) (undo)
2nd revert: 21:06, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,339 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Bsw123; It is opinionated and uncited . (TW)) (undo)
1st revert: 20:56, 29 March 2010 Off2riorob (talk | contribs) (30,339 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by 78.86.8.181; Op ed comment uncited. (TW)) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I have tried to engage with Off2riorob through: my comments directly on the user's talk page; encouraging Off2riorob to discuss this on the article's Discussion page rather than simply undo edits; and by providing detailed explanations in my edits. Off2riorob has failed to engage with any of these appeals. The user initially claimed the edits were removed because the contribution was uncited; a citation was added and the user continued to undo edits. Off2riorob claims he/she is attempting to prevent editorialising but his/her own edits appear to indicate an intention to bias the article.

Comment by uninvolved user. Complainant User:bsw123 has attempted to place unsourced and potentially defamatory material on a BLP. User:Off2riorob has correctly removed it in accordance with WP:BLP policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC).
- No violation. Absolutely. The page is protected now anyway, but Off2riorob was quite correct to remove such WP:SYNTH from a WP:BLP and I would suggest that User:Bsw123 be blocked if they attempt to re-insert it when the protection is lifted. Black Kite 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The material was sourced (Express columns webpage) and linked (to Richard Desmond), and so was fully verifiable in respect of both of the two parts of the statement (AW writes a column; in a newspaper published by a publisher of pornography). It was also factually accurate. Bsw123 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And it was synthesis. Read my comment on WP:ANI if it's not clear why this type of personal opinion isn't valid in a WP:BLP. Black Kite 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Nableezy (Result: both warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

04:28, 30 March 2010 (edit summary: "restoring deleted references and removing the one contested link") rv of this
04:33, 30 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352890597 by Nableezy (talk)") labeled as a rv
04:39, 30 March 2010 (edit summary: "restoring sources, per talk page") rv of this
06:37, 30 March 2010 (edit summary: "") rv of this
06:47, 30 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Relationship with Coptic Christians */") restores the problematic sources and continues to use the same problematic language as the first three reverts. Further explanation below

Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Al-Muizz_Lideenillah#.22conversion.22, WP:RS/N#2_sources

Comments:
Lanternix has repeatedly added information claiming that al-Muizz, the Fatimid caliph who conquered Egypt, witnessed a "miracle" that involved the moving of a mountain by a Coptic patriarch and then converted to Christianity. Lanternix was using as sources various Coptic websites and publications of the Church. I rewrote the text using thrid-party sources here. Lanternix in the #5 above restores the same problematic sources that multiple editors have objected to on the talk page. Lanternix also removed the information on the source calling this story a "legend" later propagated by Coptic writers and continues to present this story as fact. nableezy - 06:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I will leave this to the judgment of the administrators. I tried my best to discuss the issue and to come up with compromises (see my latest 2edits on that page). Many of the above claimed "reverts" are nothing more than attempts to reach common grounds and to present the story in a neutral manner. To re-insert documented references among large editing attempts of compromise cannot be considered as reverts. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ 07:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The first four reverts are straight reverts, and in the last you reinserted the problematic sources and phrasing. nableezy - 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Both warned. A look at the edit history of Al-Muizz Lideenillah shows that both editors have been edit-warring since March 25 notably over the inclusion of a section entitled "Final Days" and the category "Converts to Oriental Orthodoxy from Islam". A break in the edit-warring occurred only as a result of my blocking both of them for edit-warring in another article. This is ... discouraging. I would like to remind both editors that (a) edit-warring is prohibited, (b) this also applies if you are right and the other person is wrong, and (c) this also applies if your sources are better than the other person's sources (cases of WP:BLP excepted). Now, ordinarily I would just double the most recent blocks of both edit-warriors; however, recent events are slightly more encouraging: Nableezy was the first person to stop edit-warring and also opened a thread at WP:RSN, which is at least a hint of following WP:DR procedure. (Making a report here does not give extra credit, though: this board is not a constructive part of the dispute resolution process.) Lanternix has at least stopped the mindless reverting and proposed a new version of his text without the contested category. For these reasons, in the hope that dispute resolution will work at last, I am at this time refraining from issuing blocks. However, should any of these two editors make even one revert of the other in this article within the next week, I may consider that a continuation of the present edit war and apply blocks. Consider yourselves warned. Sandstein 20:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Undefeatedcooler reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: protected)

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 have tried working with this User, not taking a side, just trying to hear them out and stop the edit warring. Their editwarring was so bad that an Admin locked the article for a week. This was good as it allowed users to bring forth sources. We arrived at consensus, as soon as the sourced material was introduced, the user began edit warring again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that Undefeatedcooler

is a pure single-purpose account only active at Bruce Lee and directy related pages.
has been warned for calling me repeatedly a racist and has started name calling again.
although he reverts aggressively, is actually the only user on Talk:Bruce Lee who has never ever provided a single reference to support his views; his approach is unconstructive to the core. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

...he reverted four different users. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected for 2 weeks by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I would have blocked had I seen this first, so consider yourself lucky. Any attempt to resume the edit war after the protection expires will be looked upon very unfavorably. Tim Song (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Soxwon (Result:)

Previous version reverted to:

Dif of warning: Dif of trying to resolve dispute on the talkpage:

Notice the users use of "fanboys" to refer to those who have reverted him. He also proceeded to take someone's comment on the talkpage way overboard and blanked the section when he did not get his way. Soxwon (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that 4 different editors have reverted him. This isn't a simply battle of 2 people disagreeing. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Shmayo reported by User:ܥܝܪܐܩ (Result: Page protected.)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
This nationalist user is causing repeated disruption and edit-warring with everybody he encounters. . ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one that's not discussing. Please join the discussions before you revert. Shmayo (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been conducting a nationalist rampage and unilaterally reverting everything without discussion or support. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Cirt. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories: