Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.172.132.94 (talk) at 20:46, 7 January 2009 (→User:Orangemarlin reported by SmoothFlow (Result: ): pointy disruption). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

    Click here to create a new report

    Reports

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


    BalkanHistoryExpert reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]

    User has arrived here on some kind of self-professed crusade [8], expressing contempt for reliable sources [9], with legal threats for added pzazz [10]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for 4R. Didn't do anything with the legal threats William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cliché Online reported by Falcon9x5 (Result: 48h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [11]

    (much else has changed since then, the problem is the resolution section in the infobox)

    Wording varies, but intent is the same.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]

    User has repeatedly added 1080p as the native resolution to Metal Gear Solid 4, despite comments within the article, on his talk page and on the article talk about what constitutes a verifiable source.
    Native resolution is a tricky thing to find, as it's the resolution games are rendered at by the console before being outputted to the TV. Between the render and the TV there's a process called scaling which changes the rendered resolution into something the TV can display.Current-generation games generally use 720p as their base display resolution, and this is usually assumed to be the native resolution too, unless proved otherwise. As an example, Halo 3 is rendered at 640p, but outputs in 720p, hence the article states the native resolution is 640p. For this reason, what TVs display, back of game boxes etc aren't reliable. Establishing what the native resolution is is often done by "counting pixels" (examing how many pixels make up an image displayed on a screen).
    Beyond3D forums are a decent source for this (meeting WP:V I feel), with recognition in Joystiq - it's also used as a roundabout source on GTA IV (for the PS3's native res - PC World->PS3Fanboy->Beyond3D Forum) and Ninja Gaiden II (N4G->Beyond3D Forum), the second of which User:Cliché Online himself added as the source.
    Also a ridiculous number of personal attacks, on the article talk, his own talk and edit summaries.
    Thanks! Fin©™ 15:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond3D's used as a source in Project Gotham Racing 3 too. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    48h, due to form William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    195.210.193.193 reported by Taivo (Result: Rangeblock 1 month)

    • Previous version reverted to: [17]

    as User:195.210.193.238

    as User:195.210.193.3

    as User:195.210.193.210

    as User:195.210.193.33

    as User:195.210.193.197

    as User:195.210.193.32

    as User:195.210.193.197

    as User:195.210.193.193

    Here is the history of this page so you can see the pattern: [[29]]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

    This anonymous IP is continually stripping the Talk page. He has been warned and the page has been semi-protected several times by User:Kwamikagami. As soon as the semi-protection expires, the anonymous IP is right back to deleting information on the Talk page. (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Range block 195.210.193.0/24 for 1 month. Please notify me of any collateral damage. If this doesn't work, I recommend six months of semi-protection for the Talk page. This has gone on for too long already. (Another admin tried the same range block back in August, though for just one week). EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Melonbarmonster2 reported by Jeremy (Result: Editors warned about tags)

    Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been attempting to enforce his opinion on the article Korean cuisine over the subject of dog meat. The general consensus has agreed that the subject is pertinent, and that it should be included as such in the way it has been presented. Melonbarmonster2 has consistently deleted or tagged the section of the article with {{disputed}} and {{POV-section}} tags which have been reverted/removed by at least seven different contributors. He has refused mediation and is in violation of the WP:3R, WP:Edit warring and WP:Disruptive editing policies for which he has been warned against repeatedly on the Talk:Korean cuisine page.

    I would ask a non-involved administrator to please investigate this and make a decision over the behavior of this individual. Also, please see the previous alias of Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for other histories of this user

    --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Could you provide diff links please? — Aitias // discussion 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are least two dozen more, these are just the ones in the past week or two. Also please look at the talk page for the gist of the argument. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Although I strongly disagree with Melonbarmonster's edits on this dispute of the article, two facts should be noted here. Two other editors such as Kuebie (talk · contribs), and KoreanSentry (talk · contribs) support his edit (actually, one of them has initiated the current issue) and there were no 3RR violation. Moreover the issue is not matter of whether the dog meat section should be excluded from the article, but he and other two users claim that the section is not in a fitting categorization; Dog meat is not part of Korean common diet unlike beef, pork, chicken. I think the block request is not a good way to solve the dispute.--Caspian blue 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Tag addition is not exempt from 3RR. Editors who find themselves in Melon's position are supposed to start a wider conversation instead of reverting. If necessary they should start an article RFC. Since at least three different editors have been reverting Melon, he can't claim consensus for his view. I think he should be blocked for edit-warring. His last such block was for 4 days last August. By the principle of escalation the next block should be one week. Since I issued the block last August I hope that a different admin will take action this time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. Please not that there has already been an RfC(which I fully participated in) resulting in other editors besides myself who have expressed disagreement with Jerem43. There is no consensus for either view! That's the nature of disputes and hence the need for these tags and dispute resolution protocols. I have also participated extensively in widen the discussion, taking time off from making edits per WP:Truce, and am working on a mediation request, etc..
    • Comment - this report is not an attempt to "get back" at melonbarblaster or to resolve the dispute, it is because of his behavior in putting his position forward: His constant reinstatement of the tags is a violation of the 3R policy, his refusal to engage in mediation on technicalities, his inability to accept compromise and his refusal to consider the position of others all amounts to disruptive editing. The sum total of his behaviors is edit warring which is the problem we are dealing with. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see from the time, date of reverts reported above, this is not a 3RR violation but Jerem43 has stopped being reasonable for some time now. The reverts are spread beyond a 24 hour period. Furthermore, what Jeremy and others have been reverting is deletion of dispute tags. Jerem43 claims that in spite of multiple editors including myself disagreeing with him, that there is no "dispute". He has continuously deleted the dispute tags. Mind you that there was an RfC where the comments were split(no consensus) and there have been mediation requests and a mediation request being drawn up right now. How that doesn't constitute a "dispute" is beyond me. What good is existence of tags and RfC if editors are not going to respect RfC results??? I have asked Jerem43 to stop reverting and allow dispute resolution steps to resolve the edit disputes and leave the tags while proper protocols are taken to no avail.

    Please note that I asked for a

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Korean_cuisine&diff=260623905&oldid=259731575


    Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response - I've made very few comments in this issue as I have mainly been a passive observer in the dispute. After 1/2 dozen or so editors, myself included, had removed his tags multiple times is when I stepped in with my first major comment regarding disruptive editing. In my posting I clearly stated that I believe his behaviors constitute disruptive editing and that from hence forward I would treat him as a vandal and suggested other editors do the same. In my followup posting I stated to him that was exasperated with his failure to act in good faith and engage in a meaningful conversation with other contributors.
    Additionally, I have never stated there was not a disagreement over the issue - there are at least three other contributors that hold the same opinion as Melonbarmonster; however none of the others have resorted to pattern of behavior that he has exhibited. His participation in the RfC really did not exist as all he did was repeatedly state his position and ignore out of hand the comments and suggestions of those who did not agree with his positions. The same can be said for the mediation request, he did not agree to it because it felt that the request was improperly worded. These are not good faith behaviors, and are contrary to the spirit of WP. My problem is not with the subject of the consumption of dog meat in Korea but with Melonbarmonster's behaviors. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For sake of not continuing dispute here, please find my response here[[31]].Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't quite 3RR, but its close. Also M2 seems to be the only one pushing the tags at the moment, with spurious edit summaries. If he continues, I think he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The results of the RfC should be respected. There are a group of editors who are claiming consensus in spite of RfC and talk page discussions. They outnumber and outedit editors with differing views so have been reverting in collusion while refusing to listen to opposing views. We are currently attempting to agree upon a list of issues to be mediated. There certainly has been reverting but it's most definitely from both sides within the boundaries of the 3rr principle while dispute resolution steps have been followed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be respected, but no-one is bound by it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point but this block of editors are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who are disagreeing with them and are revert warring, and stonewalling discussion in the talk page. This is why I suggested that we try to come up with a list of issues to be mediated and move this into formal dispute resolution.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support WMC's suggestion that if he continues, I think he should be blocked. This would imply that M2 would be blocked the next time he restores the tags. His commitment to WP:Dispute resolution is very hard to discern, given that he was the only one to reject the mediation. He seems to feel that he is entitled to do infinite reverts because mixed views were expressed in the last RfC. *Active* search for dispute resolution should immunize an editor from blocks for warring, but just sitting around and repeating the old reverts is not actively seeking consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's just false. I have worked hard in trying to move the discussion toward dispute resolution protocols and have refrained from making changed to text or moving the subsection in the talk page. If you take a careful look in the talk page sections about Christ's mediation request, I explained that while I agree with mediation, I do not agree with the "issues to be mediated" listed in that particular request. I also proposed we take our eyes off the article in WP:truce and suggested that we work together on a issues to be mediated list TOGETHER and file another mediation request. That truce had worked and was in effect until Jeremy instigated this last spat of reverting. Unfortunately, the block of editors sitting on this issue are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who disagree with them(ignoring RfC results) and Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Melonbarmonster2, just promise that you would not persistently revert to include the templates from now until the dispute is settled. If the other two editors who support your view reverted to your version, you may have stood on a better positon. However, they just left their onions to the talk page. The content itself is not disputed, and you're against its "categorization". However, the templates serve for "content dispute". So please present your solution for the dispute rather than reverting at this time. Chris has tried to compromise with you as changing the header, Staple foods to Foodstuffs, but you have not shown anything to end the dispute. I think further insistence only may invite you a block.--Caspian blue 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually suggested that we create separate section for "fringe food culture" that includes dog meat along with other fringe foods to no avail. Instead of relevant responses all I've been getting is Jeremy and other revert warring and refusing to even bother consider that categorizing dog meat along with vegetables is factually inaccurate. I honestly think categorization and subsections qualify as being "content". I've been working hard to move this discussion toward a resolution and have held back making changes to the text of the article or moving the "dog meat" subsection without consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're currently shooting your feet. Drop it now.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The editor attempting to remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article, and his/her supporters, state that it's not eaten every day in Korea. Neither is sujeonggwa or many other dishes or drinks mentioned in that article, yet they are highly notable and worthy of mention. The section heading was changed from "Staple foods" to "Foodstuffs" at the urging of Melonbarmonster2, in an effort to generate consensus, but that still was not enough: s/he wishes all mention of dog meat to be removed from the article, despite the significant tonnages slaughtered and consumed per day, the thousands of restaurants, etc. We either aim to be encyclopedic or we do not. Excluding, or censoring content because it makes editors from certain ethnic or national groups feel bad about themselves due to being seen in a negative light by other cultures (ironically, this editor claims that s/he supports the legalization of dog meat consumption and sale) is not a business we are in at our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never asked for censoring or exclusion of content. But this is the strawman that this block of editors have created for themselves. Even in spite of my many explanations that this is not my position they've ignored my real position and have repeated this false mantra over and over again stonewalling any progress on this article. Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Badagnani is deliberately saying such the untruth from bad faith. It should be noted that Badagnani and Melon have made a long-term rivalry over one year which is indeed disruptive to the article. As far as I've known, Melonbarmonster never claimed to exclude the whole section, but the section should be moved to appropriate space. Unlike your false claim, Sujeonggwa is mentioned in the article (see Korean cuisine#Non-alcoholic beverages) Also your comparison is totally false. It has been sold in canned item for over 10 years, can be found anywhere in any grocery store, convenient store, or vending machine unlike dog meat. It is also irony that Badagnani was blocked for disruption at the article by Jeremy's report.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have said most of what I have wanted to say on the talk page for Korean cuisine. As stated I compromised and changed the heading for the "staple foods" to foodstuffs, which I actually agree was a good change. Melonbarmonster2's argument is that dog meat is not equal to the other animal proteins as it is not consumed as often as they are. I say, let's ask the Buddhists in the country then if they feel that any of the animal proteins should be consumed, they might argue that their version of Korean cuisine should not have any meat included in the Korean cuisine article. The issue here though is not content dispute, it is the fact that Melonbarmonster2 is not actively discussing what he/she wants done to the article, only that they feel that dog meat isn't presented properly and continues to just repeat it over and over and over again while reverting the tags a multitude of times. Maybe it wasn't in 24 hours, but as the policy states, multiple reverts outside of the 24 hour time period constitutes edit warring, which is held in the same context as the 3RR. The editor refused to take part in the mediation I proposed, stating they did not believe the issue was represented properly, although all of the other editors agreed, and then their contribution to the Rfc was pointless as well as they made a statement, but made no academically sound rebuttal. Instead he/she is just instigating edit warring, wehter intentional or not, they have been given ample room to expalin themselves and they have not. As I am involved with the content of this article, I do not feel appropriate in enforcing any Admin. responsibilities as it would be a conflict of interest.--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I specifically stated that I agreed with the mediation but not the issues listed in that particular request. I've stated this clearly from the beginning.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that this report should have been on ANI, not here. Well, Jeremy, Chirs and Badagnani reverted more than once (twice or triple) for the templates which are also edit warring.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you disagree with how the mediation request was framed. What initiative will you take to reach the next step? Believe it or not, when there are more people on the other side sometimes that indicates that *consensus* is against you. ("Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.") EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed, RfC results clearly show I'm not alone in feeling this categorization is factually inaccurate. I also proposed from the VERY BEGINNING in the first mediation request page that we should come up with a list of issues to be mediation that is acceptable by involved parties and file a new mediation request. But discussion is currently stonewalled, not by me, but the block of editors are refusing to move beyond strawman positions, claiming consensus in spite of at least 3 editors who have voiced dissent and refusing to acknowledge different views. They are not even acknowledging my good faith disagreement on the edit issue because they outnumber me and they are trying to push their POV through on technicalities. I really wish we could get beyond claiming consensus by ignoring dissenting editors so that we can move forward to dispute resolution protocols.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Melon, if you agree not to revert the article for your POV, this issue would be already ended. I think you're not currently acting wise. --Caspian blue 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am more than happy and willing to agree to stop edit warring on these tags. Specific edit issues on tags or other content should be discussed in the talk page of the article, not here in any case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to stop doing things that go against consensus, independent contributors have agreed that this is what is causing the whole issue.
    You will need to do the following:
    • Stop posting the tags;
    • Actually engage in the conversation as opposed to stating your opinions over and over;
    • Stop parsing words, in the case of the mediation request join in and put your reasons why you disagree out there. Ask that the proposal be modified to address your concerns if you feel something is missing from the request, and tell us why;
    • Please insure that your reasoning meets the standards of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:PSTS. Also, please do not engage in WP:OR.
    and finally:
    • Accept that your position may not be the winning one, and let the result stand.
    If you had done this from the first, none of this would be going on. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More claims of consensus in spite of RfC results and multiple editors expressing dissent... This is why we need mediation. Jeremy broke the WP:Truce and instigated this last spat of reverts. You need to take your own advice and stop your disruptive behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no claims. I am stating what we expect of you: good behavior and civility. What I am saying is that if things do not go your way, you will be expected to live with it. Can you do that? Can you work well with others? Can you assume good faith that what my purpose here is to help the article? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you tell people to not to "go against consensus", you are assuming consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Close? I suggest this thread be continued elsewhere, perhaps on the article Talk. In the near future, if any dispute tags are changed on the article without consensus to do so first being obtained on the Talk page, I suspect that one or more admins will take action. We won't know for sure until that happens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, the only editors who have been "changing" dispute tags have been Jeremy and his friends. Their position is that there is "no dispute" and I am not respecting consensus(ignoring dissent of multiple editors) and so the dispute tags are inappropriate. That is why they have repeatedly removed the dispute tags.
    I admit to my part in the revert war. But Jeremy and others who have left comments here have been fully engaged in revert warring. Progress to discussion has been constantly stonewalled due to Jeremy and his block of editors who are refusing acknowledge, respect the dissent of other editors and are reverting dispute tags.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We should know, Dog meat is not considered as normal Korean diets, most Koreans don't even try Dog meat. Even Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos all consumed more dog meats than Koreans but they don't included in their cuisine topic. I think we all know person who edits Korean cuisine to includes Dog meat is to make mockery on Korea. --Korsentry 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
    I am closing this report with the result, Editors warned about tags. Anyone who adds or removes tags, after first explicitly verifying that that there is a consensus on Talk:Korean cuisine in support of their changes, has nothing to worry about. Those who have not yet found a consensus but revert anyway may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Defender of comic justice reported by Geg (Result: 3h each)

    • Previous version reverted to: [32]
    • 1st revert: [33]
    • 2nd revert: [34] After this, it's noted that the subject of the edits has already been discussed in the article's discussion page before, which the user ignores.
    • 3rd revert: [35] After this, the user is warned about the 3RR.
    • 4th revert?: [36] I have to assume that this is the same user attempting to bypass the rule since this anonymous user made the same edit as Defender of comic justice and hasn't made any other edits. If it's not the same person I guess this can be ignored. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I also suspect that this account is a sock puppet of User:Dragonmaster88 due to using the same emoticons in edit summaries (such as =^-^=) and similar edits on The Spirit (film) [39] [40].

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [41]

    I understand that we're both in violation of 3RR now, but I've made several attempts to move the conflict to the discussion page and have been ignored each time. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry guv, but You're the one who was warned. Please stop changing the article and take your complaints to the discussion page as an edit comment doesn't count. The talk page shows no attempt to discuss this since december. This looks like a really silly war so you get a really silly block each, but keep it up after that and it will be longer William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kalajan reported by D.M.N. (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: Not being reverted to anything, the user is adding material in violation of WP:RECENTISM, which several users have reverted.



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [46]

    D.M.N. (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not 3RR, as you say, but disruptive. User appears to have got the message; will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.191.7.3 reported by OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions (Result: 24 hours)

    Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.191.7.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 16:50, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* Investigational medications */ updated material related to cannabinoids: deleted theoretical considerations, incorporated results of recent RCT")
    2. 17:14, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262119076 by Orangemarlin (talk) go for 3, sherriff. Git'em!")
    3. 18:21, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262131049 by Orangemarlin (talk) that's 2...")
    4. 18:34, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* Investigational medications */ More fun on the wiki-playground; only now the bully has called the monitor...")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h)

    • Previous version reverted to: 3 Jan
    1. 4 December, 22:51 ("reinstated old...")
    2. 5 December, 01:44 ("data ... reinstated...")
    3. 5 December, 14:05 ("undid...")
    4. 5 December, 21:36 ("rv...")

    Experienced user, no warning necessary.

    Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology with a nationalist agenda. Has been pushing this agenda for years. Long previous block log, please treat with utmost severity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has form; incivility. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    117.98.112.224 reported by Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: Stale)


    • Previous version reverted to: [[47]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [53]

    Old, boring question: some anonymous user keeps reverting the same page and doesn't even want to discuss this with anyone. For more informations, please see Here. (Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Stale - Lone edit from this IP is a week old. --B (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    68.197.235.233 reported by Kravteacher (Result: Page protected 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [54]



    I have tried to seek help only for it to result in the page being protected under the last version an unregistered contributor has reverted to. I only tried to add some additional informational pages in good faith and now I am being punished for following someone's suggestions? I did unknowingly break the 3RR myself, but when it was pointed out to me, I did not do any other reversions. How is this neutrality? --KravTeacher (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Another revert after being in clear violation of 3rr rule and asked to use edit summaries. [59]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both parties broke 3RR, but let's assume good faith for the moment. The page has been protected for 24hrs and all and sundry encouraged to seek consensus on talk page. A resumption of edit warring has failed to take part in talk page discussion. Euryalus (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not entirely accurate. Once both editors were apprised of the 3RR rules and asked to discuss, one editor did so. The other editor continued to revert without comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At ChildofMidnight's request, please note this was originally two reports, one by him/her and one by KravTeacher. I combined them into one as they relate to the same set of edits.[60] On the issue at hand, I have warned the IP about edit warring but not warn KravTeacher as he stopped when asked. The brief page protection will give both parties a chance to discuss this content dispute on the article talk page. If discussion fails there will always be an opportunity for further action. Euryalus (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    80.217.214.139 reported by Plrk (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [61]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]

    The user has been temporarily blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia for similar problems in the Swedish version of the same article. (The blocking admin was yours truly.) See [66]. Also, please revert the article, as I'm afraid of violating the 3RR rule myself. Plrk (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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. — Aitias // discussion 15:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsequent to the closure of this report, the IP went ahead and did a fourth revert within 24 hours. I've blocked him on that basis. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    PlainHolds reported by Warren (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [67]


    • 1st revert: [68] 09:53
    • 2nd revert: [69] 10:06
    • 3rd revert: [70] 10:15
    • 4th revert: [71] 10:38


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [72]

    New editor claims the article has no sources, but is repeatedly removing the sources which back up the statements made in the article. Warren -talk- 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User:TinseltownCNK reported by User:PatriciaMeadows (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [73]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]

    User has been invited to participate in the discussion of the Talk page, but has not done so. Also, see this revision for evidence that user represents Cinemark (use of first-person plural).

    Would like to invite WP Admins to help resolve. Patricia Meadows (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Newbie. No reverts since your warning. Will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    80.217.202.212 reported by Plrk (Result: blocked/s-protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [79]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [84]

    The user is the same person as User:80.217.214.139, and has also been editwarring on the Swedish wikipedia (where the user has been blocked) Plrk (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, s-protected. If he continues to evade the block, we can do a range block. --B (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Badagnani reported by User:Stealthound (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [85]


    • 1st revert: [86]
    • 2nd revert: [87]
    • 3rd revert: [88]
    • 4th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [89]

    the source is [90]. It uses google's cache to circumvent the blacklist filter placed by Wikipedia. It additionally fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. This source is discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#Associated_Content.2C_gettin.27_paid_to_spam. Please help. Stealthound (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I have asked Badagnani to undo his last edit, the one where he restores the Associated Content link to the article. He is only at 3RR so far. If he puts the link back again he would be at 4RR and possibly in violation of WP:SPAM as well. A block would be logical at that point. There are ways of getting a link put on the 'local whitelist' if you can show it is appropriate for a specific article. Associated Content as a whole is blacklisted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the article, that's the only source I can see that has much information on the subject. Discussing the issue on the talk page would have been a good thing, although there was some back and forth in the edit summaries. Is there a question about the accuracy of the content provided in the source? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not supposed to bypass the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist without getting approval. The page about Douglas Spotted Eagle, while informative, is hosted on a forbidden domain, associatedcontent.com, that has been used for spamming. You can request approval for individual links. See Talk:Associated Content#Spam filter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Associated Content links Fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and doesn't seem to have any sources. Additionaly, Associated Content articles;
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Would think that repeated reinsertion is disruptive per policies.--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the Linking policy on Restrictions on linking, See #2. Adding a blacklisted link without being whitelisted first, is not permitted, without exception. However, with the other prominent content issues, there is little chance it will be whitelisted.--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LuvataciousSkull reported by Spinecraft (Result: No vio)

    • Previous version reverted to: [91]

    Like most other edits that do not commend him, he has continuously removed the proposed deletion / speedy deletion tags placed upon his largely uncited, self-promotional vanity article (user LuvataciousSkull, the article's creator, is Larry West himself).

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [95]

    Civil discussion was attempted on the article's discussion page, but no expressed points, from myself and others, were properly addressed nor contested. He has thus far been the sole arbitrator in the validity and necessity of this article, as well as his mentioning in the article Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007. Spinecraft (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation User:LuvataciousSkull has reverted only three times. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. In any case, this page is not eligible for speedy deletion, since it has survived an AfD. It is worth it to try improving the article's sources. If you can't find any, ask for help on the article's Talk page. If the editor you mention resists improving the article, you can follow WP:Dispute resolution. It seems that the article has a promotional tone currently, and the editor LuvataciousSkull may be the article subject, according to the Talk page. The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard might be able to help you with that. If all your efforts fail, you could try a second AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ClaudioProductions reported by User:Aktsu (Result: 24 hours )

    Lee Hasdell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ClaudioProductions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 12:21, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 21:10, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262293280 by Aktsu (talk)")
    3. 00:24, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262382180 by Orangemike (talk)")
    4. 00:42, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262422613 by Aktsu (talk)")

    Ignoring consensus, see article talk and his talk. There is a thread about it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_ClaudioProductions_on_Lee_Hasdell_article, but no response from any admins yet. Thanks.

    —--aktsu (t / c) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    83.254.20.63 reported by Curtis Clark (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [96]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [102]

    User has edit warred on Clade as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • 24 hours - this user's IP seems to be semi-static. If he evades the block by moving on to another IP, please note that here or ping an admin so that the next IP can be blocked and the articles can be s-protected. --B (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: Article is being restore from a redirect. He's adding more of the old page as he's reverting. First attempt is here.
    User violating 3RR on Yumi Ishiyama as well. warned again here. This edit, this one and this one are the first three. At least 3 more reverts after that. prashanthns (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective reported by User:Novangelis (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [103]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [108]

    Further signs of non-collaboative behavior: profanity threatening to delete article suggests banning users he disagrees with accuses other editors of lying

    There haven't been any reverts since the warning was issued. I suggest we leave this one open for a bit and see what happens. --B (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tanninglamp reported by User:Baseball_Bugs (Result: indef)


    • Previous version reverted to: [109]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [114]

    The user has evidently been in a long-term edit war over this one item he keeps trying to insert into the article despite consensus and BLP concerns. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanninglamp has been pushing this same paragraph for nearly 2 years now: [115] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm considering upgrading it to indef. Anyone interested in opining can take a look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tanninglamp. If he were making all of these edits from a logged in account, we would have indeffed him long ago, but unless we're going to range block his IPs (don't tempt me) incentivizing him to edit from dynamic IPs is only going to make it tougher to track him. --B (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason not to indef based only on the logged in edits. User has 3 blocks after only 44 edits made with this account. Only motivation here appears to be to post negative information about Rick Reilly and Keith Olbermann. --Onorem♠Dil 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm convinced after fully reviewing everything. Indeffed. --B (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SmoothFlow reported by OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions (Result: )

    Syracuse University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SmoothFlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 22:40, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "New Subheading")
    2. 05:56, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "sorry, couldn't sleep.")
    3. 12:36, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "Subheading")
    4. 17:40, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* Research */ why does this person keep reversing my addition? That makes, like, three times in a day!")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit more information. User:SmoothFlow appears to be a single purpose account editing Syracuse University. Some of their edits, such as this one, are borderline vandalism to an article undergoing an FAC. I would suggest an extended block for more than edit-warring, but also for disruptive vandalism. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orangemarlin reported by SmoothFlow (Result: )

    Syracuse University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Like:

    One - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262404627&oldid=262400461

    Two - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262476875&oldid=262472517

    Three - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262548885&oldid=262527491

    Four - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262572860&oldid=262570551

    Five - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262572860

    Six - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262574114

    Seven - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262576756

    Everytime I try to add something, this person keeps removing it. Plus he's reporting me now, apparently. What can I do about this? SmoothFlow (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like he is reverting your edits because they are about 20% useful and 80% unhelpful. For example, "it's funny" is not a good reason to add nonsense to an article. --B (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a pointy (disruptive) nomination and should be striken. See the report immediately above! 88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=262603245"