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 Meandmylefthand (talk | contribs) at 15:52, 17 May 2009 (→Reports). 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.


    Scuro reported by Literaturegeek (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]
    • Their first revert was to revert all of my edits which were additions using secondary sourced peer reviewed citations and also removal of uncited data in an article which was over 100 kb in size. I did try and address this on the talk page but the problem continued of reverting.
    • Their second revert was again to revert my removal of uncited data from an article which was too big and needed shortening.
    • Their third revert was same as second revert, they reinserted uncited data.
    • Their fourth revert was again the same as the second revert, reverting my deletion of uncited data from an article which was above 100 kb in size.
    • Their fifth revert was same, reverting of uncited data that I removed to shorten the article. This particular edit I did compromise with an editor on the talk page who felt it was of value and moved it to the adult ADHD article.

    It should be noted that this editor has been disrupting talk pages and editing and has been for years, they never contribute any citations for their forum like debates on the talk page and seem to be playing a game of wearing people down on talk pages. They churn out 100 kb worth of endless debates and drama on talk pages without using citations for their position. Seems wikipedia is a debating club for them.Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: contiguous edits count as 1, so 3 & 4 are one revert William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok but they still have broken the 3 revert rule as the count stands at 4? I was going to say but got edit conflict,,,, Essentially if you check their contribs they live on talk pages, filling them up without anything constructive ever being produced other than engaging hours upon hours of constructive editors time engaging them in debates, accusations, drama making the article talk pages like a forum. They have been asked to contribute constructively by simply providing citations by multiple editors but they refuse and then accuse editors of ownership and file requests for comments etc when editors refuse to edit the page according to their POV. All that is asked is that they provide citations as their POV cannot warrent changes to an article without reliable sources. I think that they are doing this on purpose. Anyway maybe too off topic but that is the crux of it.

    Thank you for your reply and looking into this matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherry Blossom OK reported by Rjanag (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [7]


    • 1st revert: [8]
    • 2nd revert: [9]
    • 3rd revert: [10]
    • 4th revert: [11]
    • 5th revert: [12]
    • 6th revert: [13]
    • 7th revert (after report filed): [14]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [15]

    User is repeatedly reverting a recent change, claiming that it is against consensus, but three editors (myself, Mtd2006, and Baeksu) have supported the change at the talk page, and another user (Tnaniua) has also reverted Cherry Blossom asking him not to do this. Cherry Blossom claims that the recent edits are "not reverts" (see the 6th summary) because he's not exactly "undoing"—but the only real difference is that he's added a section header where there wasn't one...other than that, it's the same content, and clearly a revert. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear edit-warring. Looking at talk page, user seems to think they "own" the article, and there is a clear consensus for change. 24h. yandman 07:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Kelley (Kentucky politician)

    Unregistered IP (67.63.91.121) keeps editing and vandalizing the Larry Kelley (Kentucky politician) and Steve Beshear articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerKnew (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:97.106.45.44 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: Blocked 1 week for vandalism and edit-warring)


    • Previous version reverted to: [16]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]

    You are still obsessed with me I see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.45.44 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoff B (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP started vandalizing my talk page after I warned him for making a personal attack on someone else. Blocked a week. J.delanoygabsadds 19:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.63.91.121 reported by TylerKnew (Result: 31h)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    <New at Wikipedia, hope I'm doing this correctly, TylerKnew (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)>[reply]

    Kupredu reported by Biophys (Result: Both warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [22]



    This user is a regular. He is possibly a sock of banned Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), as I reported here and here, but he creates enormous disruption right now.Biophys (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale. Users warned by another admin already. Nja247 13:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP User had been warned multiple times: User_talk:75.62.115.141. El Greco(talk) 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    24h for both parties William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rapture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit-war. SkyWriter (talk · contribs). User skywriter has reverted sourced material from the introduction of the Rapture page six times, without discussing edits in talk page. replacing with un-sourced biased text. I have reverted the intro a couple times and so have other users. Will an admin please do something about this user?

    1. here1[1]
    2. here2[2]
    3. here3[3]
    4. here4[4]
    5. here5[5]
    6. here6[6]
    A couple of points: 1) some of us are discussing this on the talk page and this gentleman isn't participating.[28] (his one comment was at the top of the page where I had trouble finding it even after looking several times) 2) I'm not trying to remove any information, but in fact have been encouraging this well sourced material to be included in the article in the Dispensationalism section.[29] 3) The version of the lede he is trying to create contradicts both the second half of the lede, as well as the body of the article, and a couple of other articles. 4) I've actually included all of his material in the article itself,[30] and removed the duplicate.[31] 5) Some of these edits, then, aren't reverts, but moving. Please take a peek at the discussion on the bottom of the talk page in question. Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh -- also take a look at my attempt to discuss this with him on his talk page [32] (which he blanked when he made this notice)[33]. Thanks again, and apologies for you folks getting harrassed like this.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to reinforce one point: I've been cheering his content. I want it to be in the article because it is well researched and well sourced. It just needs to be in a spot where it doesn't contradict two thirds of the rest of the article. Again, apologies for the noise on your page. You have real edit wars to deal with, and not something where the guy being reported is encouraging the very content he's accused of not wanting. ;-)SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has now been brought to the NPOV Noticeboard, since the article has now been changed back to a form that violates NPOV standards.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.108.250.158 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 1 week)

    Hungarian discrimination against Roma people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.108.250.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 23:23, 14 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Other examples */")
    2. 23:40, 14 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289985989 by Cst17 (talk)")
    3. 23:44, 14 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289988591 by Alansohn (talk)")
    4. 00:42, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "Sources included this time. READ CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU CENSOR!")
    5. 01:26, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "-")
    6. 02:52, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "ACCURATE SOURCES CITED; NO BIAS PRESENT")
    • Diff of warning: here

    User edit warring over inclusion of content that violates WP:NPOV.

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: resolved. Another user reported the IP at WP:AIV, result was a 1 week block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Xanadu1122 reported by Firestorm (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [34]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

    This user has inserted a commercial link into the article 5 times in the last 24 hours, which are his only edits to Wikipedia. I believe that the link violates WP:ELNO criteria 1, 4 and 5. I reverted and issued a level 1 warning, and the user reverted to put the link back in. Another user removed the link, but issued no warning. User continued to revert for a third time, which I reverted and issued a level 2 warning and a 3rr notice. The user just reinserted the link, but I'm at 3RR so i'm not going to do any more. User has made zero attempts to discuss inclusion of his link, and has ignored warnings on his user talk page. Firestorm Talk 07:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Student of philosophy reported by Guettarda (Result: 24h)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [40] (most recent); [41] (earlier warning for the IP)

    Student of philosophy edits from a variety of IPs, including 194.124.140.39. S/he has also violated the 3RR just 3 days ago; claimed to be unaware that it didn't have to be the same edit, so no report was made.[42]

    24h for the anon. Nothing obvious tying the anon to SoP, so left SoP alone. Is it supposed to be obvious? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh all right [43]. Come on, don't make me think William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    InaMaka reported by TharsHammar (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    There is a consensus reached on the talk page for inclusion of this material. InaMaka is not respecting that consens and continues a slow-rolling edit war. This is not a simple 3 reverts within 1 day, but an ongoing edit-warring against multiple users. Please see the talk page of the article for evidence of consensus. Particularly, here. These are by no means all of InaMaka's reverts of this material, and he has said on a user's talk page [51] " If Hilton's nasty, fascist, hate-filled comments are re-inserted in the various articles then I will remove them as violations of BLP." Many users are frustrated by InaMaka's lack of accepting consensus.

    TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you sure you wish to defend the edits using name-calling in them as valid in a BLP? Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This report is hilarious. This is a report on 3RR. Please notice that all of my edits that TharsHammer refers to were made over a two week period. Not one of the edits he/she refers to happened in a 24 hour period. As a matter of fact most of them are days and sometimes weeks apart. There is NO violation of 3RR here. Clearly TharsHammar is determined to place the negative, contemptuous comments of Hilton in the Prejean article and I believe that the repetition of Hilton's remarks to be a violation of BLP. He is attempting to use 3RR as a weapon to settle a legitimate discussion about a violation of BLP. He/she does not agree with my position and he/she is attempting to have me blocked for removing clear and definite violations of BLP. Removals that are spread out over a two week period, I might add.--InaMaka (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    InaMaka has contacted me about this. There has been a discussion at BLPN [52] which has become dormant although I think there are serious problems with the article (at least in some of its recent incarnations). Any action on this needs to be considered in the light of the BLP issues and so far as I can see if any action is taken, there is no reason to block InaMaka. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on WP:BLP guidelines, I would consider InaMaka's edits to be correct. The article is in piss-poor shape right now though, and unfortunately, thanks to rampant recentism it'll be a while before the article looks better. I wouldn't take action here. (though in the interests of transparency, Inamaka notified me of this) Wizardman 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very Strongly Oppose. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

    This strategic posturing is a SLAPP suit-style abuse of process.

    The "multiple users" TharsHammar refers to are marching in lockstep on the article editing and discussion. TharsHammar and Exploding Boy are just two of them.

    When I tried to question things, before I realized that the "multiple users" were completely uninterested in consensus-building, I found that they just rebut what you write.

    Before you realize it, you're in a debate with the "multiple users" -- who simply prove they can make an argument, no matter how unpersuasive.[53] They line right up to oppose you.[54]

    It is not operating in good faith to consider what an editor -- from 'the other side' -- writes, as simply something to rebut. There's no consensus-building in this environment.

    Personally, I'm surprised InaMaka has spent so much time trying to debate them. Search the talk page for "InaMaka" and you'll find the posts of InaMaka's that Exploding Boy has not deleted.

    The "multiple users" either don't know, or find it convenient to not recognize, that Wikipedia is not a democracy.

    Judging by TharsHammar's continual bad faith[55], I'm guessing that s/he probably filed this to get the same anticipated chilling effect that the "multiple users" obtained -- by squelching another editor that does not share the POV of the "multiple users."[56]

    TharsHammar seems to be the biggest edit warrior of the "multiple users."

    I can find at least as many reverts of TharsHammar's, including duplicitous citing of consensus [57], and gaming.

    1. 15:50, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288689450 by Alan Canon (talk) read her quote, notice the plural photoS")
    2. 01:30, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288783781 by InaMaka (talk) POV reverts of consensus")
    3. 18:15, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289512566 by The lorax (talk) we cannot rely on TMZ for allegations that scandelous")
    4. 02:40, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Miss USA 2009 controversy */ dumb bitch per talk")
    5. 19:25, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289727801 by Tstrobaugh (talk) see talk, no consensus yet for this, please discuss")
    6. 02:20, 14 May 2009 (edit summary: "-gay per talk")
    7. 14:46, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "undid most of POV warriors edits")
    Note that TharsHammar is namecalling in the last edit summary.

    Moreover, simply counting TharsHammar's reverts ignores the impact of the "multiple users."

    What has been happening on the Carrie Prejean, so-called 'encyclopedia' article is just part of the gay/liberal firestorm -- that ensued after Carrie Prejean was asked her opinion on the legalization of same-sex marriage, on TV, and answered honestly and straightforwardly.

    The hounds of hell were unleashed on Carrie Prejean. Even one of the gay-activist, Miss California USA co-directors stated, "many people felt she was vilified and targeted. I don’t think she deserves that."

    Miss Prejean is of marginal notability -- and the "multiple users" have given undue weight to this event, and flaunted our neutral point of view policy.

    Most of the content on the Carrie Prejean biography is devoted to this issue and the resulting fallout, and most of it is negative -- despite the existence of a content fork for the event.

    "Multiple users" are trying to vilify Miss Prejean on her Wikipedia biography article, by copying comments quoted by newspapers -- that slag Miss Prejean -- into the Carrie Prejean bio.

    The "multiple users" repeatedly insist on violating Wikipedia standards of what is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.

    "Multiple users" act like they're on a mission to use Wikipedia to destroy the reputation of any that oppose same-sex marriage, for political reasons.

    InaMaka has defended the wiki like a man in a hurricane. For this InaMaka deserves praise, not blocking or "reminders". -- Rico 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    I find this post incredibly inappropriate. Why has it not been placed in sequence as is common practice, and why do you ignore the comments I made below specifically arguing against blocking InaMaka despite his inappropriate behaviour? Why are you accusing me of deleting multiple posts by InaMaka, of tag-teaming, and of failing to engage in discussion, when I personally devoted an entire section of one talk page to responding to your concerns? Why do you appear unable or unwilling to assume good faith? Most of it is railing against the liberal/gay agenda/conspiracy theories; what does it contribute to this discussion? Finally, why have you not yet altered your signature to confirm with WP:SIG by providing a link to your talk page, user page, or contribs page as requested at least 3 times? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose. I completely agree with Rico's post on this. He's nailed it perfectly once again. TharsHammar and Exploding Boy (among others) have been distruptive, rude, incivil and POV pushing to no end. Both are not interested in a NPOV article, but are interested in pushing a political liberal agenda that has no business here. EB has gone as far as to canvas on the homosexual wiki project talk page to find support from users who share his views. I find this incredibly inappropriate behavior. EB has also given me an empty threat on my talk page as a hint to stay clear of the Carrie Prejean article. Thars is no different, and he tried to get me blocked (claiming vandalism!) over a photograph (on the female breasts) that was on my talk page so I'm not surprised to see him here trying to get InaMaka blocked. I, like Rico, realized that these two users are not interested in consensus-building, they are not interested in respecting BLP policy, they are not interested in NPOV or WP:Undue weight issues. They appear to be interested only in portraying Miss Prejean in the most negative manner possible. InaMaka, like Rico said above, deserves to be praised for doing the correct thing on wiki and not blocked. Both Thars and EB are the ones who should be blocked or given strict warnings. CADEN is cool 17:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    InaMaka appears to be campaigning at present, by leaving messages on talk pages of users who might support him both on the articles in question and here. I don't think this is appropriate.
    In regards to this report, InaMaka did engage in unacceptable behaviour, which included repeated threats to engage in edit warring on articles related to Carrie Prejean. His article edits and reverts; general refusal to discuss on talk pages; accusations against other editors; incivil edit summaries as well as his comments to and general misbehaviour on my talk page around May 1-7 were extremely problematic. Since May 7, however, he seems to have toned this down considerably and has engaged in at least some talk page discussion. This is definitely positive.
    On the other hand, some of his edits still appear problematic. In particular, he seems to be going against current consensus regarding inclusion of statements by Perez Hilton relating to Carrie Prejean. InaMaka apparently wishes to protect Prejean's reputation, and he goes about this by removing specific comments made about her and reports about things she has done. It should be noted that InaMaka has been blocked twice previously for edit warring.
    Taking into consideration the recent improvements in his behaviour, I don't think InaMaka should be blocked at this stage. Instead, I think he needs to be reminded to participate in talk page discussions and follow consensus; be civil, including in edit summaries; and improve article content rather than reverting what he doesn't personally like. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a couple of messages on InaMaka's talk page about working within the talk page discussion/consensus process and being civil in both edit summaries and discussions. After that initial burst, InaMaka backed away from the article for a bit, and has been for the most part calmer since their return. (Also note that InaMaka was not the only one who was incivil (whether toward other editors or toward the Living Persons being discussed) in those earlier exchanges.)
    In InaMaka's defense, their initial complaint was feeling it was inappropriate to repeat Hilton's particular use of an offensive word even once on the page. While the majority disagreed with InaMaka's position, there was at least a sizable minority who supported it. However, during InaMaka's break, another user, without prior duscussion, made it so the word appears _five_ times, by (within the references section) directly quoting sections including it from articles used as references for the controversy. InaMaka's comment on the talk page in response to this AN/EW posting (erroneously called a "3RR" in TharsHammar's notification to InaMaka, though it clearly doesn't fall under WP:3RR) indicated a (grudging) willingness to leave the word in there once in the main body text (as seems to be the consensus) but clear disagreement with it now being used repeatedly; as such, I see TharsHammar's reverting those removals, and especially reporting this here as an edit war, as way over the top. John Darrow (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not one of the edits he/she refers to happened in a 24 hour period is quite funny, but still no vio William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael H 34 reported by Slp1 (Result: 72h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [58]

    Text involves "Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop an extreme and unjustified animosity toward a parent which is promulgated or supported by the other parent"

    • Diff of 3RR warning: not warned this time; but aware of 3RR as has previously been warned here and here and blocked 24 hours for editwarring on this same article.[64]

    --Slp1 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning. This is aggravating. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bored. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fanoftheworld reported by Alexrexpvt (Result: 1RR sanction)


    • Previous version reverted to: [65]



    Blocked twice in the last month for edit warring on this page already, the first time for 24 hours, the second, for 72. Alexrexpvt (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Contiguous edits count as one, so technically no vio. But I'm bored with him edit warring, so B and F are on 1RR sanction William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sapots reported by Drmies (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [72]


    Drmies (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    68.148.149.184 reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: link


    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    IP editor continues reinserting an irrelevant RfC from Scientists to the Film's MoS talk page, after having being chastized for violating the MoS on articles, then trying to change the MoS to suit his preferences and having it reverted. Four different editors have removed the tags and explained, repeatedly, it is irrelevant, but he instead is demanding all other editors be warned for vandalism for removing the pointless RfC. Related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Warning Called For Collectonian. Same IP also edit warred on Watchmen (film) for which he was also warned[77] and seemingly lead to his deciding to be disruptive at the MoS because his inappropriate changes were not allowed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon IP 84.148.xx.xx reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Semi)

    Anzac Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.148.60.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.108.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.51.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.79.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.101.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.53.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 14:51, 7 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: What comes first, comes first: ANZAC Day is a National public holliday -- no what")
    2. 01:31, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a National Public Holiday in the first place Undid revision 288563590 by AussieLegend (talk)")
    3. 04:21, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA; Whats your problem: It's both, firstmore it's a Holiday, then rest. Undid revision 290220630 by AussieLegend (talk)")
    4. 04:30, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: It IS a National Holiday, believe the Pages, Undid revision 290237297 by Bidgee (talk)")
    5. 05:24, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: You gotto learn, and you will. Undid revision 290238989 by Bidgee (talk)")
    6. 05:40, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a National Public Holiday in Australie and New Zeeland. Undid revision 290245835 by Bidgee (talk)")
    7. 06:09, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: Public Holidays on Australia.gov. You may want to read this page -- you may ignore it as well. But this is Wikipedia, that goes for official sources. ANZAC Day is Australials most important day.")
    8. 07:39, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a day of rememberence, so what? For modern Australia and Aussies, it's a Pupblic Holiday in order to remember ANZAC Day.")
    9. 08:29, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: But where is your contribution to discussion? I had a look at the talk page, there was no contribution from you. So, please. Read a History Book about ANZAC.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    This is clearly from one editor who is deliberately disrupting and adding errors into the article even when told to take it to the talk page. Bidgee (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Semiprotected two weeks by Cirt. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    68.148.149.184 reported by Girolamo Savonarola (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [78]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [86]
    • This editor has reverted four separate editors on this action, in order to open up an improper and irrelevant RfC in the face of unanimous opposition to his proposal, which also contravenes general MOS guidelines as well as the specific ones mentioned here. At this point, his actions have been a failure to see the point, acknowledge consensus, or assume good faith opposition on the part of the other editors. This has already drawn out far too long, and this editor has, within a limited time, already drawn considerable criticism for his edits on other pages, including the Watchmen page. I think that the IP's edits on this page (as well as the others, including an active ANI) should adequately speak for themselves, and I encourage their reference. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Legitedits reported by Perlonkid (talk) (Result: )

    Invaders Must Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Legitedits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 18:05, 7 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 18:55, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 12:59, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 22:49, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    5. 22:35, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    6. 09:09, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    7. 14:03, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    8. 16:33, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    9. 13:22, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "")


    • Have warned the editor several times on User Discussion page, however all have been deleted by the editor.
    • Editor continually reverts reviews to remove any negative ones and to include reviews from non-professional sources. Ignores any attempts to enter discussions. Reviews chosen contradict the rest of the article. Perlonkid (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (a) You've marked your reverts as reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you want WP:AIV (b) I see no signs of your attempting to resolve this on talk in the past 2 months William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are many comments in the Invaders Must Die talk page from several other editors regarding the continued vandalism of the reviews. I have reported this to the WP:AIV page and they rejected my request and recommended I lodge a request in this page. To be honest I am a new editor and am totally disillusioned with this process. The other user is blatantly trying to bias the reveiws and there seems to be no way within the wikipedia process to stop them. I have attemped to engage the other editor in discussions on several occcasions but the other Legitedits has failed to respond on eithter the history tab of the page in question, or the users own comment page (they react by deleting my comments/warnings) As a result the album page is biased as it gives an unfair representative of the critical response of the album. Perlonkid (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gryffinclaw reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    episodes
    characters
    Pitch Pure
    Nanami Kamimura user talk

    Gryffinclaw modified 3 different Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch articles to use a fan-preferred spelling of a characters name, going against Wikipedia's naming guidelines and WP:MOS-AM. These were reverted and it was explained to him by User:Nanami Kamimura in the edit summary, then a longer note was left on his talk page.[87] He initially ignored her notes, and began reverting them, engaging in an edit war spread across three related articles. Nanami approached myself and User:KrebMarkt on our talk pages for assistance, as we are both heavily active in the Anime/manga project. I tried explaining to Gryffinclaw why his edits were rejected.[88] He responded on Nanami's talk page,[89] but at this point she did not wish to deal with him anymore and removed the note, requesting he talk with me instead.[90] He began edit warring on her talk page, continually replacing his message despite her request that he not contact her anymore (4 more reverts total). He eventually also began leaving messages on my talk page, first claiming that because he is certified in CIW Web Page Design, his edits are justified[91] (yes, I also went ???), then claimed that he was a teacher and protecting the children from being "hurt" by incorrect names[92]. He then began blanking his talk page any time a warning was left for him. He clearly knows he is edit warring. Even while I was preparing this report, he went back and reverted all of the articles yet again showing he has no intention of stopping. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand. You've clearly stated in your edit summaries that you are reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you want WP:AIV, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He is edit warring. I began reverting him as vandalism as such, and introducing deliberate factual errors as he is now clearly aware he is acting inappropriately. Edit warring is generally to complex for AIV, however. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be closed with a block as a conventional 3RR, on List of Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch characters. It's not vandalism, though. Disagreeing about names is not 'introducing deliberate factual errors.' Gryffinclaw has been editing since July 2008 and should be aware of our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes sorry I was being a bit POINTy. 24h. I suppose I'd get into trouble if I "solved" the problem by just deleting the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghettoblaster reported by Scientus (Result: talk)


    • Previous version reverted to: [93]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [97]

    notice all reverts are minor edits, as are 99% of Ghettoblaster's edits. Scientus (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No technical vio, and you haven't even bothered to try to discuss this on the talk page. Also you can't spell your own name :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    89.173.1.149 reported by Hobartimus (Result: Semi)



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [103]

    It's sneaky vandalism essentially due to the "riot was organized and later abused by Hungarian authorities" part. I would add that Hungarian authorities or indeed authorities of any country are rarely in the business of organizing riots. Of course it's not a clear cut case, like inserting curse words. The IP is on a dynamic range. Hobartimus (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - 3RR violation plus non-neutral presentation of events, without sources. Blocking the IP is not likely to be effective. Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tennis expert reported by Mendaliv (Result: )

    • Diffs of edit warring warnings: 1, 2

    Note the problem here is not an explicit 3RR violation, but a pretty clear edit warring issue. I apologize if this report is premature; I was advised that an ANEW report may be a proper solution per User talk:TravisTX#Why?.

    • On about 9 May, I ran through the above categories and removed what I viewed as redundant sockpuppet tags (tagging an IP for the sockmaster and every confirmed sockpuppet of that sockmaster)
    • On about 11 May, Tennis expert reverted this, stating there was no policy supporting my format, and that his format had consensus (never adequately established; see this thread and specifically this response)
    • On about 16 May, I reverted Tennis expert's reverts, having obtained a pretty clear OK from PeterSymonds, an SPI clerk, that Tennis expert's format was clearly wrong
    • About 12 hours later on 17 May, Tennis expert reverted me again, stating there was no consensus to change formats
    • Two hours later, TravisTX began to revert Tennis expert per the general lack of support for TE's format at WT:SPI, but stopped when Tennis expert demanded he do so
    • Tennis expert quickly reverted all those pages which TravisTX had reverted, stating that discussion was ongoing

    Now, I make no case for my edits versus Tennis expert's here. The problem however is that, where my re-revert had some fair appearances of being supported by the SPI community (and TravisTX's even more so), Tennis expert's reverts have in every single case been unilateral, with at-best spurious claims of consensus for his format. TravisTX had gotten involved in this case for a different problem with Tennis expert's use of {{IPsock}} (see this ANI discussion). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rjanag reported by Meandmylefthand (Result:)


    • Previous version reverted to: [104]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [118]

    This user is extremely dominating this article. You will see that almost all reverts made in the past 3 months are just him. I can't even be bothered to list them all here, there are just too many reverts by this user. This is just an example of the countless reverts this user has made in the past. He has violated the 3RR numerous times now and is reverting any valid, sourced information on grounds of "consensus" (which is basically just him and a few socks). Discussion with this user is impssible as he immediately accuses anyone reverting his vandalism on grounds of this 3RR (which he himself has violated numerous times), and of groundless sockpuppetry. Any valid edit is immediately reverted by this user and new users (like me) found it very difficult to make any further contributions to this article due to this overdominance. Meandmylefthand (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rapture&oldid=289988804
    2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rapture&oldid=289988589
    3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rapture&oldid=289959649
    4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rapture&oldid=289674743
    5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rapture&oldid=289530507
    6. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rapture&oldid=289450407
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=290527519"