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 Jk54 (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 11 October 2009. 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


    User:204.62.193.184 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 1 week)

    Page: Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 204.62.193.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Taivo's version in this diff is accepted text

    • 1st revert: [1], reverted back by Alanraywiki here
    • 2nd revert: [2], reverted back by Bkonrad here
    • 3rd revert: [3], reverted back by Storm Rider here

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A general warning was issued here, a formal warning here.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here is the last comment. The issue was actually discussed several months ago and resolved by consensus among the active editors (which includes both LDS members and non-members) in favor of "sacred text".

    Comments:

    This is a single-purpose account set up to dispute content in LDS topics as shown in his/her contributions. IMHO, it should be permanently blocked. (Taivo (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    This IP has now become User:204:62:193:69. Compare this diff with those above and you will see the same pattern of vandalism. Look at his/her user log and you will see that the only 2009 edits (so far) are anti-LDS edits. (Taivo (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    And again here. (How many of these do I need to post before this IP [range] is permanently blocked?) (Taivo (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Thanks. I should have thought of semi-protection before. Duh. (Taivo (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    User:Sturunner reported by User:Unbiasedpov (Result: 24h to both)

    Page: Godhra Train Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Sturunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) abusing and bullying other users.


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Godhra_Train_Attack

    Comments


    You of all people ought to be talking, "Unbiasedpov". You are the one who came out of nowhere and started moving pages without any discussion at all. The link you gave to your "discussion" (now at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Godhra_train_burning&action=history) shows no evidence that you tried to engage anyone. And all the history is there. I made very sure that I cleaned up the mess you made correctly. J.delanoygabsadds 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Article is redlinked because «04:56, 7 October 2009 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) deleted "Godhra Train Attack" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial maintenance. (TW))» — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Made "REDIRECT Godhra train burning" at the other (deleted) page titles, Godhra train attack / Godhra train incident / Godhra train massacre (with and without capitalizations), so the surviving article can be found. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Imalbornoz reported by User:RedCoat10 (Result: stale)

    Page: Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Imalbornoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • 1st revert: [4]
    • 2nd revert: [5]
    • 3rd revert: [6]
    • 4th revert: [7]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Gibraltar#Detail_of_Capture

    Comments:
    The user insists on reverting to a version for which there is currently no consensus. Has previously been warned for edit-warring. Needs to cool down. RedCoat10 • talk 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale at this point. I'll keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NE2 reported by User:TimberWolf Railz (Result: Protected)

    Page: Template:Infobox SG rail museum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [9]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:

    Also alongside the above are mirror reverts falling under the same timeframe at: Monticello Railway Museum, Indiana Transportation Museum, Infobox rail museum, Illinois Railway Museum.

    From what looks to be tendentious editing, User:NE2 appears to insist on reverting to a version that general consensus has not agreed upon. He has gone through five different pages performing a series of excessive reverts and removal of referenced information to meet an unverified point-of-view, all of which were appropriately rolled back as unconstructive by User:Wuhwuzdat and per extensive discussion at WP:CNB; though the user has continued to revert through multiple occasions within a period of 24 hours, avoiding discussion and consensus building, thus violating WP:3RR policies on each page. –TimberWolf Railz (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As an update to this report, User:NE2 has continued to perform numerous tendentious reverts throughout the aforementioned pages without seeking dispute resolution and/or mediation after being requested to do so via other editors. Extensive discussion and general consensus was already reached at WP:CNB prior to these edits. The editor has also admitted on my talk page that anyone else's revisions will be reverted as vandalism. Further warnings regarding WP:3RR have been given here: [16] [17]
    An administrative sanction and/or insight into this editing war is much welcomed. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going to comment here, except to say that it would be appreciated if someone uninvolved would read the discussion on the content noticeboard carefully. I will not reply anymore here, so don't reply to this and except a response. --NE2 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Powergate92 (Result: 24 h)

    Page: Kamen Rider Double (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Ryulong knows about WP:3RR as he was blocked for violating WP:3RR on July 30, 2009.

    Comments:
    In March 2009 there was a discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu where it was agreed that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK. On October 4, 2009 User:Ryulong (the only user in that discussion who thinks number of episodes should not be in infoboxes) removed the number of episodes in the infobox in the Kamen Rider Double article, so I reverted has edit per the discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu and he was edit warring over it until today (see the revision history of Kamen Rider Double for that edit war, diff 1 and diff 2 are from within the last 24 hours). After that he added a message to the article saying "This number does not need to be updated on a weekly basis. Only update monthly" but it was also agreed at the WikiProject Tokusatsu discussion that the numbers can be update weekly, so I reverted his edit per the WikiProject Tokusatsu discussion and then he started edit warring over that (see diff 3 and diff 4). Powergate92Talk 02:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is currently an ongoing discussion about the content in question which can be found at WT:TOKU#Infobox numbers. In the process of this two-sided edit war, Powergate92 got Black Kite to revert me for him. And the four reverts he has picked out are to different content. The first two reverts are undoing his preferred content for the article. The last two reverts are a hidden tag I added after I reverted myself and added back the content Powergate92 prefers, but he disagrees with the tag. Powergate92 does not edit the article regularly and has only shoehorned himself in for reasons I don't understand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on my talk page "I did not ask Black Kite to revert your edit, I asked Black Kite "What do you think about this?"" and "I was asking other user what they think about this, if you look, you will see that the users I asked (User:Ckatz and User:Black Kite) are users I disagreed with within the last month." Powergate92Talk 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, there was only an agreement that the number could be there. There was no agreement on how often it should be updated. Right now there is a discussion to clarify what should and should not be on the articles, for which I am waiting more input from the editing community. Also, there have been no edits (contentious or not) to the article in the past hour and a half. A block at this point would be punitive and unhelpful to anyone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the March discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu, User:Bignole said "if a group of editors wish to update a number every week, and the community (in this case the Tokusatsu community) does not have a problem with it, then that's the way it should be." I said "I agree with Bignole." and User:Mythdon said "What I want to have done in this situation is fully my opinion. If you don't want to update weekly, then simply don't do it. Me and Powergate92 want to update weekly. Fair enough?." That sounds like a agreement to me. Powergate92Talk 05:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the last time I was blocked for 3RR it happened several hours after the edit war had ceased and Powergate92 decided to report me for it, regardless. The old discussion can be seen here. This is the second time that Powergate92 has reported me to this board simply because an edit war had occured and he feels someone needs to be blocked for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can really say about this that hasn't already been said is that Powergate92 is a rather contentious editor who has made virtually no content contributions to pages under WP:TOKU; nearly all of his work in this project consists of picking fights with Ryulong over formatting issues and performing mass date delinking, which IIRC is forbidden by a couple of ArbCom cases. jgpTC 03:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely uninvolved editor checking in. I read the discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu carefully and did not see a consensus, nor even a formal call for consensus, rather there were three editors carrying on a discussion, two disagreed with each other, one offered a neutral position while another editor (now banned) chimed in. Extrapolating a consensus here is wishful thinking. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    As I said on my talk page "On September 3, 2009 I added some info to the "International broadcasts" section in the Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight article,[18] on October 5, 2009 I added some references to the "Production" section in the Power Rangers: RPM article.[19] Also I edit other articles you know as I been editing the Stargate Universe‎ article and I made the article Spliced (TV series)." Also on October 3, 2009 I made a minor edit to the plot of the Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight episodes "Kamen Rider Wrath" in the List of Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight episodes article.[20] And I made the article List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes[21] Powergate92Talk 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would to note that the March WikiProject Tokusatsu discussion was started as a discussion at WikiProject Television. Powergate92Talk 05:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no consensus determined anywhere. The WPTV discussion says, again, that the community who edits the particular pages should decide what happens. That has yet to occur.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To the reviewing admin, it has now been approximately six hours since any reverts have been made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And now fifteen hours after I made that last statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 24h. The merits of the contested material, and who if anybody has consensus on his side, are irrelevant under WP:EW. The report is not stale, and the block not punitive, because the article remains in the version preferred by Ryulong and he has neither reverted himself nor promised to stop reverting, and has indeed made an additional revert of another editor ([22]). The block is therefore required to prevent continued edit warring.  Sandstein  11:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Onefinalstep reported by User:BobMifune (Result: Warned)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

    Comments:

    User:Onefinalstep is repeatedly blanking the "Controversies and Criticism" section of the article, a section which is being debated and discussed on the article Talk page. In the last 48 hours, a spate of new and long-dormant editors (including Onefinalstep) have arrived at the Levin article and engaged in everything from blanking to outright vandalism, due to the article subject (a radio host) directing his listeners to deface the page here. It's not unreasonable to suggest that Onefinalstep's blanking is an offshoot of this campaign. --BobMifune (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Yep; the discussion is still ongoing and he removed the content whilst the discussion was ongoing, first without explaination. Clearly violated the 3RR rule; suggest a temporary block until a concensus regarding the section can be reached. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Could this contretemps be construed more as a content dispute that needs to be resolved on the article talk page? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Apparently not. He's blanked it again. Action requested, please. --BobMifune (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins have gotten involved. As a result, the section has been moved to the Talk section for further discussion. Therefore Onefinalstep has essentially been proven correct. This matter should be closed with no action taken against Onefinalstep. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See here and here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He was not correct in breaking 3RR over a content dispute, sorry. His interpretation of BLP is roughly summed up as "no criticism ever". Shall we allow him to edit war over every article using this interpretation? I think it's shameful he hasn't been blocked over a 5RR. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. However, given the circumstances, I highly doubt Onefinalstep will be acting in that fashion again. I think he learned his lesson. The purpose of a block is to teach him a lesson and to stop the repeat reverts. That purpose has already been achieved, and Onefinalstep has been working again with the community. Had the block come sooner, I would have had no problem with it. But as time has passed, it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended. So, like I said, I agree with you, but time has moved on and a block at this time is not appropriate, at least in my opinion, for what that's worth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to reluctantly agree. While the lack of prompt response to this complaint is unfortunate, it's a long time since the offense, and he's stopped, so there's no real point in blocking him now. A discouraging official word would be nice and would drive the point home in case he hasn't gotten it, however. Gamaliel (talk)
    Cool. I've been friendly to him. Perhaps you ought to leave such a message for him--I'm not an official!!  ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry ... I didn't get notice of this until just now. I would like to say that I think I was proven correct in my actions because the article in question is a BLP and the deletions I made were of controversial material. I simply want to have the material discussed on the talk page before it goes up. This is in line with the BLP guidelines. Both Gamaliel and BobMifune are also guilty of reverting my edits in unison more than three times. So if I am blocked I at least ask that they be blocked also so that cooler heads may take this issue up on the Mark Levin discussion page. ThanksOnefinalstep (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also I would like to add that I am not a "dormant" editor or editing because of some call to arms by Mark Levin. Removing the section is not vandalism it is in line with WP guidelines. The discussion page has come to an agreement to discuss the material before it is added to the BLP which, I believe, is the proper "conservative" stance.Onefinalstep (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just proven exactly why you should be blocked. You've fragrantly broken the 3RR and when you go unpunished, show up here to proclaim in triumph that this administrative oversight proves you are right, then compound that obnoxious behavior by making a blatantly false accusation against me. Either immediately retract your statement that I broke the 3RR or prove it by providing links. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Onefinalstep, I've been supporting you here, but I have to say I'm disappointed with your comment. And Gamaliel is in no way, shape, or form acting like that other editor. Did you even read what has been said about you here? Why you would come in here and say those things about Gamaliel after he said what he said is beyond me. I'll make the assumption that you are just having a very bad day. May I suggest that you politely apologize to Gamaliel and retract your statement about his behaviour. Everyone will then forget this and move on. Cool? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I said was that he and bob were reverting my edits as well. "Say those things?" Didn't he say the exact same things about me? I don't mind that he said them but why are you guys upset that I also said them. It's not as if I am calling him names.Onefinalstep (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You also said "more than three times", which would make it a violation of the 3RR policy, a policy I take very seriously, but you evidently do not. You made a false accusation against me and again I demand you retract it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - Warned. A number of admins have been watching the article and adding their advice on the Talk page. User:Manning Bartlett has put semiprotection on the article. The submitter of this 3RR complaint, BobMifune, is concerned about the repeated removal of a Criticism section by Onefinalstep. If he continues to do that from this point on, a block may be issued. Meanwhile it appears that there are enough regular editors working on the article to make it likely that a balanced version of the article that is fully in accordance with WP:BLP will emerge. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doncram and User:Polaron reported by User:Elkman (Result: )

    Page: San Ignacio, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Users being reported: Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There has been a long running edit war between Polaron and Doncram on geography articles and historic places. Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been attempting to mediate this dispute, but Polaron and Doncram are still at it. These two have been steadily reverting each other's edits and working up to 3RR on individual articles, but they've gone over three reverts in this series of diffs:

    Polaron edit 17:16, 5 October 2009
    Doncram revert 1 22:29, 6 October 2009
    Polaron revert 1
    Doncram revert 2
    Polaron revert 2, plus another edit thereafter
    Doncram revert 3
    Polaron revert 3
    Doncram revert 4
    Polaron revert 4
    Doncram revert 5
    Polaron revert 5 20:49, 7 October 2009

    Other articles where they've only gone up to 3RR include: San Miguel Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 10-07-09

    Polaron add
    Doncram revert 1
    Polaron revert 1
    Doncram revert 2
    Polaron revert 2
    Doncram revert 3
    Polaron revert 3

    Virginia City Historic District (Virginia City, Nevada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 10-07-09

    Polaron edit
    Doncram revert 1
    Polaron revert 1
    Doncram revert 2
    Polaron revert 2

    Chiricahua National Monument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 10-07-09

    Polaron edit
    Doncram revert 1
    Polaron revert 1
    Doncram revert 2
    Polaron revert 2
    Doncram revert 3
    Polaron revert 3

    Silver City, Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 10-07-09

    Polaron edit
    Doncram revert 1
    Polaron revert 1
    Doncram revert 2
    Polaron revert 2
    Doncram revert 3
    Polaron revert 3

    Historic Village of the Narragansetts in Charlestown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 10-07-09

    Polaron edit
    Doncram revert 1
    Polaron revert 1
    Doncram revert 2
    Polaron revert 2
    Doncram revert 3
    Polaron revert 3

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I haven't specifically warned Polaron and Doncram of their behavior, but they've been warned by others. [30] is Acroterion's latest warning to Polaron, while I believe Acroterion's correspondence to Doncram has been at User talk:Acroterion.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] is the current version of User talk:Acroterion. User talk:Acroterion#Mediation contains a long, drawn-out description of this. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Winter Island Historic District and Archeological District -- raises a general procedural question is also an example of the argument.

    Comments:

    I am not involved with any of the revert cycles. I have been involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, where it's obvious that I'm frustrated with the edit wars and with the project in general. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I've tried working with both parties here, but it's clear that they intend to use the letter of 3RR to further their conflict. My efforts have yielded occasional fruit, but it has reached the point that their behavior must be modified by a more formal and enforced process. As part of my mediation I stated that I wouldn't use blocks myself to enforce good behavior, but it is clear that behavior modification must be backed up by sanctions. Both editors' positions are so entrenched that, while they've occasionally reached an accommodation on a single issue, the truce has been swiftly broken by one party or another. Both editors make valuable contributions, but must understand that their actions have poisoned the air around the NRHP wikiproject. I'd suggest they be formally restricted to 1RR (I'd informally asked them to abide by 1RR, but that's been cast aside), enforced by blocks of appropriate duration. An entire ban on splits and merges by the two editors, and submission to binding mediation might be indicated. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (ec) Acroterion seemingly would prefer for the conflict to disappear by my allowing the unsourced assertions and the combative redirects to stand, thus handing the field to Polaron and allowing him to keep extending the battleground. The battleground is every article he touches, where he has shown by past behavior that he will edit war to protect his personal knowledge-based judgements. It's also more complicated as there are other editors involved. I object somewhat to Acroterion's implication that the conflict is among two equal editors.
    Before ec, what I wrote was: What this relates to is a broad campaign by Polaron to redirect and merge town/village articles with NRHP-listed historic districts. In hundreds of cases, Polaron has unilaterally implemented redirects replacing existing articles, or create new redirects, and in some cases edit the merger target articles, all without providing sources upfront and without complying with Wikipedia style and content guidelines. Polaron also makes related edits in articles making unsourced assertions. In general he has either been unable or unwilling to provide wp:RS reliable sources supporting his assertions. He has shown extraordinary stubbornness to defend redirects and unsourced assertions by edit warring to restore them, supported only by edit summaries in which he asserts that what he wrote is true. In many cases however his personal knowledge has proven wrong and/or his judgment that a merger is appropriate has been found to be inappropriate. About a hundred redirects that he set up have been deleted in 7 batches at wp:RFD.
    While I cannot delete the redirects that Polaron creates, I can delete the unsourced assertions and have been doing some of that; these cases are in that category. In one of these instances, the San Ygnacio one, Polaron has eventually provided a reference in an edit summary but not composed a reference in the article. In two recent cases he has eventually coughed up relevant sources that other editors then put into proper references in the articles.
    A mediation process in which Acroterion was invited by Polaron and myself to be the mediator has plugged along slowly in dealing with several hundred cases in CT, VT, and RI. The bulk of the dispute may be seen at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and Talk pages and articles linked from there. At Talk:Poquetanuck is an extended discussion which was perhaps close to reaching some grandiose compromise between Polaron and myself, but which may not have met with agreement of Orlady, another determined participant. There was a ceasefire some time ago which Polaron has been enforcing a "status quo". However, the ceasefire and general process has seemingly failed in recent days, with expansion by Polaron to perhaps a hundred more cases nationwide and no action by Acroterion to actually curtail expansion of the conflict. Polaron has not stated this, but I suspect he is irked by the lack of progress in hundreds of disputed merger/splits, and has chosen now to escalate the problem.
    About the 5RR count, I was unaware of being over 3RR in the San Ygnacio article. This shows a lack of skill on my part in edit warring. In previous active reverting back and forth with Polaron, he has been one ahead of me in the reversion process because he had been the one reopening a dormant problem case. He is meticulous in his counting and is absolutely reliable in practice in going up to 3RR. After i had opened a wp:3RR report about two months ago, Polaron advised me of his familiarity with the 3RR processes and that no action would be taken given that 4RR was not reached and that reporting was initiated by an involved party, which turned out to be exactly correct.
    In my view, what's needed here is for Acroterion to step up and handle a process of reviewing the hundreds of disputed mergers and redirects, or for other WikiProject NRHP administrators to step up to that. A number of NRHP members have expressed embarrassment or similar emotions about the conflict, but there is no effective process to address the rising number of disputed cases. Unfortunately Acroterion has seemed to regard the problem as being the dispute itself, not the substance of the dispute. doncram (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "The battleground is every article he touches" indicates that Doncram has been following Polaron around and reverting his edits. It's also unfair to ask other WP:NRHP administrators and editors to get involved in the dispute. The project doesn't have many administrators, and those who are administrators have their own opinions about the dispute. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so it's now my problem that you're edit-warring? No. You may not edit-war. Period. You have ignored polite requests to restrict yourselves to 1RR. Your dispute doesn't give you license to behave as you have, and I've explained to you that my time is limited, and if you want me to judge "hundreds" of merge-split issues, I expect your behavior to be exemplary. I'm not going to read a wall of text for each one, followed by rebuttals and arguments of bad faith by various parties.
    I was out of town all last week, and my time this week is restricted. I am a volunteer. You seem to believe that any criticism of your behavior is an endorsement of you opponent's, which is emphatically not the case. You must realize that the issue to be addressed here at AN3 is your behavior, not the editing dispute. The article issues may continue to be resolved as my time and that of others permits. The disruptive behavior must stop before any substantive work may proceed. Acroterion (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Responding to Elkman: No, the battleground was defined by Polaron's practices following his creation of several hundred redirects of CT NRHP articles in July 2008 more than a year ago. I eventually bumped into his edit warring on those when i had occasional cause to create NRHP stub articles (usually to support NRHP disambiguation). Others including Nyttend and Swampyank had also experienced Polaron's combative editing to defend his redirects. I became concerned that this was a minefield for potential NRHP editors who would not be able to deal effectively with an adamant edit warrior. I began addressing the problem a couple months ago, mostly organizing discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT. Following advice at previous 3RR report, i opened an RFC which was on that Talk page. At some point later Polaron and I discussed possible mediators whose judgments we would intend to accept, including two who had indeed expressed opinions already. Acroterion was one of those and he accepted the invitation to serve in that role. I note he was recently away from wikipedia for a while and has communicated he has little time to spend on this.
    Responding to Acroterion: No i endure and accept plenty of criticism. I appreciate that you and me and everyone else involved are volunteers. If you focus on just the articles where there is reverting back and forth, though, you are condoning Polaron's creation of new redirects and expansion of his watchlist, where his past behavior shows he is committed to defending his personal knowledge-based opinions. What do you say, if not here then in some other Talk page, about the disruptive behavior of extension of the conflict by Polaron to articles nation-wide. There needs to be some limit on extension of the problem, and some progress in addressing the contested cases. Actually i think most old and new cases could be dealt with rapidly by deleting redirects (requires an admin) and supporting removal of unsourced assertions, in all cases where no reliable source describing relationship between HD and place is provided (which is almost all cases). Almost all of these are premature mergers, when obtaining the stupid NRHP document, which only I have done for any of these cases (except for one or two cases where Orlady found one online), would provide clear information. doncram (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Elkman that the edit warring between Doncram and Polaron has spiraled out of control. Acroterion made a noble effort to mediate, and has made some progress, but the continuation of senseless reverts indicates that additional action is needed.
    This warring has hurt Wikipedia in many ways. One is the time absorbed by the fundamentally pointless activity of seemingly endless discussions of topics about which nobody actually has any information (see Talk:Poquetanuck, for just one example). Another is the demotivating effect on the NRHP Wikiproject, which is already noted here. There also is damage to articles. Much of the warring has been repetitive merging and splitting of articles, which often damages the articles because bits and pieces have gotten lost in the process. I can also point to numerous cases that I consider to be disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, including (but not limited to) the insertion of nonencyclopedic speculative statements (such as saying that a particular building may or may not be in a particular historic district) into article space.
    It's no secret that Doncram and I have had issues for a long time. My perception has been that he was convinced that I was out to get him, so he started following me around and doing things that could be predicted to provoke a reaction. I've tended to be sympathetic to Polaron in this, partly because there were some instances where I agreed with him, but also because I perceive that Doncram let up on his harassment of me and started following Polaron around instead. At this time, however, I judge that both parties are fully engaged in warring. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't condone the edit warring. But nowhere has anyone provided an real alternative between the edit warring or letting Polaron spew his messiness wherever he wants. Doncram has repeatedly and in many forums asked for help with the fundamental problem of Polarons unsourced. personal knowledge based redirects. All anyone ever does is say "stop fighting". It's impossible to deal with every one individually. What IS the venue? I'll take it there and ask for help, if Doncram has damaged his credibility. Is the only answer anyone is espousing to let Polaron have his way? Asking Doncram to stop reverting Polaron is in effect allowing Polaron's disputed edits to stay everywhere he feels like putting them. Lvklock (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Lvklock for commenting. Following is my reply to Orlady that i put in without seeing your comment.
    Response to Orlady: That's funny, I am pretty sure it has been you following me around. Having Orlady involved and somewhat taking Polaron's side has always complicated matters. I believe it has emboldened Polaron in making unsourced statements in articles, in edit warring to destroy articles actually under merger proposal at the very moment, and to expand the contested area. I think Orlady once or twice somewhat mildly condemned the edit warring by Polaron. She has raked me for every possible fault in something i wrote (like my writing a true, non-speculative, statement that a building might or might not be in a given historic district, a statement that I would never object to having corrected or moved to a Talk page, but is not harmful and is not wp:POINTY) but effectively condoned statements added by Polaron which might or might not be true at all, and which almost always are unsourced, and which Polaron will edit war incessantly to restore. In some cases Polaron may indeed have a source, but he is not able or willing to share it, and I cannot tell the difference between those and other cases where his judgment turns out to be wrong. I have perceived Orlady's efforts to round up sources that actually bore on the question to be generally helpful in spirit, although usually not adequate to answer the relevant questions. Questions which would be answered easily by the NRHP document that no one but me has been willing to obtain by request to the National Register. (It then turns out that sometimes Polaron's guesses on whether a merger is appropriate are sometimes on target and sometimes not.) Polaron has been exploiting the fact that redirects are easy to set up but hard to remove, and that he can easily set up a lot of them and edit war to protect them, without providing any mainspace statements and sources supporting their implicit assertions that the redirect topics are significantly related to the target articles. I would have hoped that Orlady, general a stickler for sourcing, would have facilitated removal of redirects and other elements of the unsupported mergers being set up and enforced by Polaron, which are effectively unsourced assertions. Also, Orlady's concern that true statements describing the situation but exposing lack of certain knowledge (like that a historic district includes part or all of a given hamlet or vice versa) cannot be allowed in mainspace, has effectively blocked using such statements as compromises until definitive sources can be found.
    The long discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck was not about that one article; it was about what to do about merger proposals where information was lacking and no one was willing to get the NRHP document that would be definitive (which applies to almost all of the contested cases). An agreement between Polaron and me was actually reached on that one article, as a sort of test solution, and then Orlady promptly claimed not to understand the agreement and repeatedly edited contrary to it. This seemed to derail an approach to resolving the hundreds of CT cases, because if Orlady couldn't accept it and abide by it then there would be little prospect that it could be applied elsewhere.
    About being fully engaged in edit warring, that is Polaron, whose practice has been to set up unsupported redirects and watchlist them and all related articles, like laying a minefield, and edit war when anyone else blunders in. The commitment by Polaron to edit warring is on, full-time, on all of these, you just don't observe it. What you do observe is where I have occasionally been setting off some of those mines by removing unsourced statements. Also, previous flareups happened when I occasionally created stub articles in replacement of redirects. You do not observe me adding unsourced statements to articles and battling to protect them. doncram (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left notes for Orlady and Acroterion trying to get some ideas for how to close this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people think the participants might agree to a deal. This is now being explored at Acroterion's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - On hold. Need to sort this out. If no agreement can be found at User talk:Acroterion, the case should be reopened and handled like a regular edit warring case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I made a few suggestions for how the underlying dispute might be solved. Discussion happened at Acroterion's talk page. Doncram did not like the proposed deal, and Polaron did not respond. Further suggestions are welcome, especially from members of the NRHP WikiProject. The project could deal with the underlying issue if they would use an RfC-like process to create guidelines for treatment of historic districts. I am not inclined to close this case myself. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I sympathize with your frustration, EdJohnston, but I hope that something can be done to get past the current impasse. Things have calmed down, and we can hope that they have improved permanently, but I don't truly believe that the matter has been resolved.
    A capsule restatement of Doncram's objection to the proposed resolution is that his ego has been bruised and he believes he should not be subject to restrictions because he is totally blameless in this dispute and editing restrictions would damage his aspirations to becoming an administrator. Meanwhile, he seems to be avoiding content areas related to the dispute, but is instead contributing inconsequential stubs like this one -- whose quality is not of the caliber expected from a contributor with his experience and capabilities. In effect, he is abiding by the proposed resolution by staying away from the topic, but because he does not acknowledge any blame in the edit warring and clearly doesn't have his heart in work that he is doing instead, I think it likely that he is itching to get back into the area of the dispute after the dust settles here.
    Meanwhile, although Polaron did respond to the proposed resolution, he also appears to be trying to abide by it. In so doing, however, he seems to be continuing to seek historic district names that possibly could be redirected to existing articles, but he is asking others to intervene instead of creating the redirects himself. Also, a few of his recent edits, such as this series, have been fix-ups of earlier work by Doncram.
    I agree that this situation will not be resolved until the underlying issues on historic districts are resolved. I had hoped that uninvolved NRHP Wikiproject members could mediate this, since Wikiproject members are most likely to understand the issues, but I'm not sure that there are any WP members who are both uninvolved and willing/qualified to mediate. Notwithstanding that view, I don't think that resolution of the underlying is ever going to occur within the NRHP Wikiproject, however. First off, Polaron not "officially" a member of that Wikiproject. More significantly, I believe that the underlying problem is a difference of opinion/perspective between (1) some (many?) of the Wikiproject members and (2) other Wikipedians who contribute articles about U.S. places and historical topics, but aren't particularly interested in the NRHP per se as a topic. I don't think that a permanent resolution this underlying conflict can be reached within the Wikiproject, due to many participants' views that appear to hold that (1) the NRHP listing is the primary source of notability for an area that is designated as an historic district, (2) in some cases, the "standards" (my term, intended to avoid using terms like "guideline" and "policy" that have specific defined meanings) of the Wikiproject supersede Wikipedia-wide "standards", and (3) articles about NRHP-listed properties are diminished by inclusion of information that is not directly related to the NRHP listing or the physical attributes of the listed properties. (Note: I predict that Doncram, Lvklock, and perhaps others will dispute my last statement, which is admittedly an oversimplification that likely does not precisely reflect anyone's opinions.) --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston's proposal concerning the edit-warring parties is in line with those proposed and enforced in similar situations. It was my intention to await resolution of the edit-warring issue before working with the historic district issue. This may not be possible. Polaron's suggestions at Talk:Poquetanuck represent the best existing material for future action. Since no editors appear to wish to compile a list of articles for examination or arbitration, and nobody has come up with a better methodology, an RfC may be the best opportunity to develop a codified policy, using those suggestions as a starting point, and drawing the issue away from the NRHP project, which clearly can't solve the problem on its own. That would also (I hope) draw the issue away from personalities and personal feelings. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vintagekits reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: 1 week block)

    Page: Audley Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] and [38]

    Comments:

    Dispute over adding excessive nicknames to the infobox. User Vintagekits has again reverted as discussion was ongoing on the BLP noticeboard.Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is considered vandalism to removed sourced material from a reliable source without concensus. Therefore reverting this vandalism does not fall under 3RR. Finally it was you that removed the sourced information without concensus.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, its not within 24 hours and this editor "bullied" other editors to revert the article to "his position".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This accusation of bullying is uncivil and uncalled for. Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "uncivil and uncalled" - maybe, but not incorrect.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gamer112 reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Cataphract (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Gamer112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Reason: Disruptive editing, while unwilling to engage in any discussion

    Two weeks ago, Gamer112 reverted one of my actions (1st revert) and justified his 2nd revert later by requesting prior discussion ("please refrain from removing large chunks of material without prior discussion"). Fine, I did exactly that by giving my reasons on talk page, but since then Gamer112 has refused to engage in any discussion and simply continues to revert my edits without forwarding any reasons at all:

    Notably, his pattern of contributions shows him to visiti Wikipedia mainly to undo my edits. I notified him of being in danger of an edit war ([43]), but he did not react. Since no-one else takes an interest in the dispute, and since Gamer112 steadfastly declines to talk to me and explain his rationale, I don't know what to do anymore. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've requested comment by Gamer112. Currently, I am inclined to warn both editors that they will be blocked if they continue the slow-motion edit warring. The last revert was 2 days ago, so no immediate block is required.  Sandstein  11:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations on blowing such a trivial issue right out of proportion. To be blunt & efficient; my main gripe with the state of the article (Cataphract) as it is now and Gun Powder Ma's contributions is simply put, his holier-than-thou attitude and complete disregard for the hard work and months of contribution I have made to greatly improve this burgeoning article. Without so much as a peep on the discussion page or even brief blurb about his changes in an edit summary he significantly alters half the article, with an overall poorly referenced, poorly worded and slightly-POV pushing edit:[44]

    Fair enough, I assumed good faith and left a friendly invitation to work this issue out through open dialogue on his talk page: [45] He took offence to my reverts (and I use "offence" in the strongest sense possible, as it seems the mere thought of someone reverting his changes seems like a literal slap in the face to him), although I would like to point out, without any prior discussion, any elaboration or significant attempt to try and have full partisan support of other editors on this article such as myself, his contributions were wholly uncourteous and completely disrupted the flow and overall quality of this article. I reverted them a mere three times prior to contacting him directly and instructing him to discuss the issue there within the edit summary.

    I fail to see the serious breach in Wikipedia guidelines I have allegedly committed. All three reverts were on completely separate days and Gun Powder Ma, whom the burden of proof falls upon here, as he edited the article not I, made no attempt to try and reason the issue out with me, instead just kept on reverting my reverts. Why exactly am I responsible for his lack of communication?

    He seems to be under the impression that only HE is allowed to edit and revert articles without prior discussion or notification while other users have to abide by his "unwritten rule" mentality. I really do not see the big issue here. As it stands now, the article includes both of our shared contributions in a relatively ad-hoc manner, but nevetheless readable and conforming to encyclopaedic conventions. I propose it be left this way and both of us barred from editing it until we manage to reach some mutual compromise.

    Gun Powder Ma's explanation as to why certain parts of my material are not deemed "fit" to be included within this article basically amounts to a juvenile "because I said so" reasoning with little rational basis behind it:[46] Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I spare myself replying to your rant and expect you at the talk page for providing a rationale to your edits. You should be aware that the only reason why we both are not blocked is because I refrained from another revert even though you confined yourself for two weeks to stubborn reverting without commenting on it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Donhend reported by User:Andrewponsford (Result: Protected)


    Previous version reverted to: [47]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

    Comments:

    I am trying to highlight that there are a number of verifiable errors on ESPNsoccernet with this one author and readers should be aware. Donhend wants to hide this and will not engage in a conversation of any kind to find a resolution. Andrewponsford (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)andrewponsford[reply]

    • Result - Protected one week, since the edit war has continued. Neither party to this complaint seems to have figured out yet how to make neutral contributions that are backed by reliable sources. Please use the talk page to try to persuade other contributors to support your changes to the article. You need to do more than add your personal opinions to the article. What you add should be based on publications that have written articles about this website. Comments by individuals that are made in this website's own forum are not usable per WP:FORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.80.162.186 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 3 days)

    Page: Law and Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 89.80.162.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [54]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]


    User:66.99.50.71 and User:76.16.133.201 reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: Protected)

    Page: Mishawaka, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 66.99.50.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 76.16.133.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [64]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page.

    Comments:User is changing IP addresses to avoid violating 3RR. See edit-warring on October 2. Report was filed, but no action taken by admins.

    Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Protected three days. I note that the IPs are participating on Talk, and I see no evidence that any party is waiting for consensus before reverting. WP:Dispute resolution gives advice on what to do when parties disagree. After protection expires, continued reverts by anyone (who can't demonstrate Talk page consensus for their edits) may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiLubber reported by User:SuperHamster (Result: No vio)

    Page: Super_Mario_Bros._(film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: WikiLubber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [70]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WikiLubber added a message regarding the matter after this report was filed on the talk page of the IP whose edits were being reverted. (no diff provided, as new page was created when message was added)

    Page: Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Previous version reverted to: [81]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here and on Peparazzi's user talk page.

    Page: Supermarket Sweep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    See the article's history

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

    Page: List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    See the article's history

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

    Comments:
    WikiLubber has been in numerous edit wars, and has broke the 3RR rule numerous times. The user has also been warned numerous times for taking part in edit wars and breaking the 3RR. The user keeps removing the warnings from their talk page, which confirms they read the rule and understand, and has stated in their edit summary that they "have been in edit wars before", yet continues to edit war. If anything, I believe a block should have been implemented a long time ago.

    ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation. No violation of 3RR at all, and I don't think that removing unsourced information and nonsense from articles, over a long period of time, is in any way disruptive. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am intrigued to know why the reporter does. Black Kite 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3RR was violated, for example in the edits of Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. Just pulling a few differences, 345 and 6. Continuously reverting the same edit over and over again without getting a result doesn't constitute as constructive, does it? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GVU reported by User:Abecedare (Result: 24hrs)

    Page: 2009 Nobel Peace Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: GVU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    1. 12:05, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 12:08, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Norway is not international reaction because it is an award awarded by Norwegian politicians, hence, the opinion of the opposition in Norway is an internal matter")
    3. 13:10, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 13:26, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "this is sourced below and needs to be mentioned in the lead")
    5. 13:53, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    6. 14:25, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "pathetic")

    —Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102] and [103]

    Also see discussion at : User Talk page and article talk page. User is also edit-warring, and has broken 3RR at Barack Obama over the same issue of trying to label the award as "controversial".

    1. 12:03, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
    2. 13:58, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
    3. 14:16, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
    4. 14:24, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
    5. 14:33, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "NPOV - the section on the Peace Prize is not neutral because it only contains praise and does not mention the widespread and well sourced criticism")
    6. 14:54, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")

    Note that both articles are on article probation, but I am not taking this to AE since it is a straightforward case of edit-warring and user has no prior history on Obama related articles. Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    Comment: User refuses to grasp policies such as WP:RS and WP:BLP. Contentious use of templates here, here, and here. DKqwerty (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.144.70.15 reported by Verbal (Result: 1 week)

    English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.144.70.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 11:54, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 12:59, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 13:15, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 318862221 by Verbal (talk) No need for this "right" wing tag, they don't care about small gov")
    4. 14:03, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 318867168 by Verbal (talk) Pointless tag, see discussion")
    5. 15:16, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 318876693 by Snowded (talk) It's a pointless tag, it's a pointless tag...")


    Continued and continuing removal of "far right" against talk page consensus and reliable sources, and other policies. Some diffs are made up of several edits. —Verbal chat 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PRODUCER reported by User:Aradic-es (Result: )

    Notification Page: Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: PRODUCER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Couple blind reverts:



    Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, you BOTH reverted like five times. --King Öomie 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    his history of reverts blind reverts: Page: Slobodan Praljak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    [107][108][109][110] -pay attention to category and external links removal.

    Summa summarum:he deletes what he dislikes, does not care if he commits some collateral damage.He is an SPA edit warrior.Añtó| Àntó (talk)

    I don't see any 'blind' reverts, actually. --King Öomie 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Chris Benoit (Result: Already protected)

    It appears that there an edit war by people attempting to violate WP:Undue, and WP:Verifiability. These edits have included making the absurd claim that the information placed is unsourced, unverified, and or speculative despite the use of legitimate sources, and citing to legal findings of fact. It seems the underlying basis behind removing the information, or using weasel words in violation of WP:Avoid weasel words while also making speculation as to what occurred. According to at least one poster rationalization, the possibility that Benoit did not murder his family is .000000001 and despite government findings and media reports, he is not a murderer. It appears edits like these have been occurring for several months. Talk page use has done nothing but make the users more hostile and irrational, including them using a crystal ball argument despite the obvious verifiability of the facts and disinterested third parties stepping in to give their opinion contrary to what they are attempting to do. It seems like it is time for administrators to step in. Principle users involved include user:GaryColemanFan, and user:Gavyn Sykes. Any aid in bringing this edit war to a close will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. CraigMonroe (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CraigMonroe reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Already protected)

    Page: Chris Benoit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: CraigMonroe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [111]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chris Benoit#Murderer

    Comments:


    I love your trickery. You get reported, so you report me. One problem, unlike you, I did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours as required by the rule. In fact, a poster even pointed this out in the history for the Chris Benoit article. Admins, please take notice of this. I am trying to make this place better, and posters like GaryColeman seem intent on trying to change history. I keep asking for evidence that Benoit didn't do it so I can at least understand the dissaproval of the edit but instead get the response that the murder is unverified despite the facts, news reports, legal findings, etc. In fact, the majority of logic agaisnt me seems to be "I don't care what the papers say, I know better." Without question, such edits are clearly questionable. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your reverts were:
    18:27, 8 October 2009
    11:32, 9 October 2009
    15:55, 9 October 2009
    17:40, 9 October 2009
    Clearly, this was all within a 24 hour period. The article history shows that I did not, in fact, violate 3RR. Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you posted my violation here prior to the fourth edit which was not a reversion so the argument about it being a "warning" is asinine. Second, where did I revert for the fourth time within 24 hours, unlike you? Come on, I am still waiting for you to explain your logic. Saying the investigation MAY be wrong is not a valid reason. What can we do to compromise and make the article better? I have repeatedly asked you to explain your reasons but the best you have stated is that a coroner's inquest is only an opinion. I guess if a person stretches logical reality it may be. Then again, if that is true, so is a court's decision, admissions of guilt, video of a crime, etc. Looking away from this, what can be done to compromise? (Which, by the way, my fourth edit was an attempt at and was not a reversion). Admins, do you see what I am dealing with now? CraigMonroe (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, he edited his post substantially. Note the absurdity of his claims: <url>http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=318925251&oldid=318924621</url> —Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deaththrow reported by User:Hammertime2005 (Result: Already blocked)

    Page: Joseph Jett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Deaththrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [117]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Jett

    Comments:


    Hammertime2005 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hammertime2005 reported by User:Deaththrow (Result: Submitter blocked)

    Page: Joseph Jett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Hammertime2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318924774]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]

    Comments:

    Deaththrow (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't looked through all of the dispute, but notice that the article history shows you, Deathrow, repeatedly calling Hammertime2005 a "NAZI". I would strongly recommend choosing a different way to voice your displeasure. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Welshsocialist reported by User: Riversider2008 (Result: No vio)


    Previous version reverted to: [123]


    Diff of edit warring [127]

    Diff of edit warring [128]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

    Diff of multiple attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

    Comments: I've posted multiple citations showing that Labour is described by many authoritative published sources as neoliberal on the talk page, and in the article. I've added more citations as the edit war has continued, including one quoting a senior Labour Party figure Lord Mandelson "We are all Thatcherites now". Despite the overwhelming weight of this published material, WelshSocialist persists in POV reverts, without attempting to engage in discussion on the talk page, or to produce published material to back his position. It seems likely that Welshsocialist is a member of the Labour Party, and as such has a conflict of interests in editing that page, and also finds it difficult to understand rules on NPOV and Verifiability in relation to a subject close to his heart. Even he however has admitted "New Labour is seen by some of being neo-liberal" (sic), yet persists in removing this description from the infobox.

    This is the first time I've had to report someone for edit warring, in my whole previous experience of editorial disputes it has been possible to find a resolution through talk page discussions, and I feel sorry that I have been left no alternative but to do this.
    Riversider (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - No violation. There must be four reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. You do seem to be making a significant change in the article by making the Labor Party 'neoliberal', and I don't yet see anyone on the Talk page who supports your view. You are expected to abide by the consensus, whatever it turns out to be. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I need some help here. I was reporting Welshsocialist for edit warring, not for a violation of WP:3RR a narrow technical definition which there was never any question of him violating. I feel I have done everything right, finding plenty of authoritative published sources that establish that there is a sizeable body of opinion which describes Labour as 'Neo-Liberal' in it's ideology. Welshsocialist reverts this, without explanation, and without seeking consensus by using the talk page (if this is not edit-warring, what is?). How can we find a consensus if he does not use the talk page? I would appreciate it if people who understand rules on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COI were to come to the talk page and to advise all of us there, perhaps this will help prevent the edit warring there getting worse. Riversider (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the two of you are the only participants on the 'neo-liberal' issue, ask for a WP:Third opinion. Otherwise a WP:Request for comment is logical. Keep in mind that the 'neo-liberal' issue has been discussed many times in the past, and consensus has so far not supported putting that label in the infobox. Past discussions have occurred at:
    1. Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 1#The Labour Party is neoliberal
    2. Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 2#Centre-right?
    3. Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive_2#Membership 'base' of Labour
    4. Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)#Vandalism_2
    5. Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Factions needed & Neo-liberal vandalism
    6. Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Ideology...again
    EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that guidance Ed - I've seen the past discussions, and the one common factor is that nobody bothered to do the spadework of finding the citations from authoritative sources. Instead people tended to base their arguments on personal opinion, rather than citing published material. Now that I've done some of this spadework (and it was surprisingly easy to find many many citations), the weight of the sources should persuade anyone who is not a Labour apparatchik of the need to include the neoliberal label. Your guidance is very helpful, and I think the request for comment route sounds eminently reasonable. Thanks! Riversider (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Born2cycle and User:Pmanderson reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: stale)

    Page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

    Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is complicated. I'll include diffs that I think are reverts or claimed to be reverts, and let the closing Admin decide to lock the page. Again.

    Consider the changes only to the Consistent clause only, please. There may be incidental changes to other sections.


    I also have 2 reverts in the past 24 hours, User:Kotniski may have 2, and User:Philip Baird Shearer may have 1.

    I'm sure all of the editors in question have been warned for 3RR a number of times.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It won't help. B2C will not accept anything which has Consistent as an unadorned principle, and Kotniski, Pmanderson, and I will not accept it other than as an unadorned prinicple, (myself unless all the principles are given similar "except when other principles conflict" or "except as established by other Wikipedia guidelines"; I can't speak for Pmanderson or Kotniski).

    B2C has been arguing for a particular interpretation of this policy and related guidelines for over 4 years, sometimes reaching a limited consensus for part of his point of view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crackenstein reported by User:Loonymonkey (Result: protected)

    Page: Michele Bachmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Crackenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140]

    Comments:
    Take a look at the edit history of this page. There are many more reverts than this (most without explanation). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected three days. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HalfShadow reported by User:Malleus Fatuorum (Result: Stale)

    Page: User talk:Ottava Rima (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    [145]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    Comments:

    Considering what I was reverting, I feel comfortable in my actions. HalfShadow (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit more skeptical unfortunately. WP:RPA suggests that derogatory comments directed at a specific user may be removed if deemed necessary. In this case, I see no such personal attacks. Malleus' remark was not necessary, but it wasn't so severe as to justify edit warring over its removal on Ottava's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In any event, this is Stale now. I'll keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • So Malleus falsifies a 3RR report and you're okay with this? Despite your stating that four edits aren't strictly necessary, I only made three edits, which he knows isn't enough to make an official 3RR report, so he basically 'makes up' a fourth edit. Oh yeah, and he's a liar,too; I didn't edit the page in question after recieving his charming little warning. HalfShadow (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I neither endorsed his request nor took action against any of the involved parties. However, this is the edit warring noticeboard, so all reports of potentially disruptive edit warring are acceptable, regardless of whether or not the user in question breached the arbitrary 3RR. That said, there's noting that can really be done at this point, other than remind editors to remain civil and cooperative. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Afaprof01 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24h)

    Page: Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Afaprof01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [146]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [152]

    Comments:
    Editor changing consensus on the lede in controversial article Marriage, was warned about 3RR and asked to take it to the talk page to discuss. He made one comment on the talk page, then reverted again with a different edit summary [153] for his fourth reversion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Just logged on, can't believe this one is still here eighteen hours later. For the attending admin, Afaprof01 is now also at a contentious 3RR on Christianity. Dayewalker (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - 24 hours for edit warring. Editor seems to be POV-pushing on the lead of Marriage to ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman. This appears to go against a previous consensus on the Talk page. In the last two days he has done many reverts at other articles such as Christian. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:65.32.195.203 reported by User:Law Lord (Result: No action)

    Page: Pat Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 65.32.195.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Pat Robertson page history

    Comments:
    Introduced personal opinion after reverts.

    This looks a bit more like silly vandalism and the ip is gone now, he only has three edits in total, perhaps keep your eye on him and if he comes back and continues with the actions then report him again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If this IP comes back one more time to add nonsense, a block seems appropriate. He has not edited in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jacurek reported by User:M.K (Result: 1RR agreed)

    Page: Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Jacurek was multiply times blocked for the 3RR, edit warring vio [155], and was warned for the specific case too [156]. IP (78.34.218.97) actions should be investigated alongside. M.K. (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The 4 reverts must be about the same thing in this case they are NOT and is not even on the same day but if I indeed broke the rules please apply necessary blocks. I also would like to point out that it is quite possible that I'm being set up. Right after this report a new account has been created by somebody who deleted this complaint.[[157]] This is really strange because I'm constantly being accused of using socks[[158]] or I'm being provoked by strange new accounts[[159]] into the edit wars. Could somebody examine this please? Please note that user MK was not editing Roman Polanski article [[160]]but was monitoring my edits to file this complaint. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see very unfortunate, that you instead from distancing yourself from edit wars (this time for real) you continue old claims, that "reverts must be about the same thing" (like you did here [161]), while definition of reverts is clear -reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. And it is plain silly to engage in edit warring on high traffic article, like MR. Polanski's one, which is watch listed by dozens of editors.M.K. (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you did not make any contributions to the Polanski article, but you were "just watching it" and "just" noticed that I was so terribly edit warring there, that you had no choice and you had to report it :) o.k.... Why did not you report an anon IP[[162]][[163]][[164]] who I was "edit warring" with? Any comments on that? After all your only concern is "the good" for Wikipedia and not to get a specific editor, right? Any comments on the mysterious account which immediately deleted your complaint[[[[165]]]] to make look, like I was using a sock? I'm sure this is just a "coincidence", right?--Jacurek (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment
    See at first I thought that 3rr had to be on the same day, but they totally don't, just in the same 24hr period. Also, what you are reverting doesn't matter, because as long as an editor "makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period". It appears the the user has some fixation of soviet whitewashing where poland is concerned. WookMuff (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your block log is quite impressive. Your last block ended just two days ago. Thanks for commenting.--Jacurek (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So my knowledge of 3rr is strong. I don't think casting aspersions on my record makes me less able to see you are biased. WookMuff (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your agenda here? Could you please take your comments to your or my talk page if you want to discuss me being "biased" etc.? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no agenda here. I made a comment, to which you responded with a snarky passive aggressive comment about my block list. WookMuff (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's continue on each other talk pages if you want, o.k.? This is not a place for this "constructive" conversation. THE END--Jacurek (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacurek, please take my advise and try to adhere to 1rr on this article (and it is a good policy in general). Yes, 3rr applies to a 24h period and does not have to be the same content (although I don't know if the edit 4 reported above is a revert). You may want to take a day or two break from that article and edit other things. Take a cup of WP:TEA and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can do that no problem, note that 3rd was not even a revert and 4th was next day completely unrelated but I can do voluntary 1RR of course. What I worry about is that in my opinion I'm being followed around by somebody or group of people who are trying to set me up, see my comment above.--Jacurek (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Briefly investigating your contributions, it is evident that revert wars of your is a problem, and actually you cant keep your word of 1RR as we see, some background: promise to stop edit warring on the Edit warring noticeboard,notification of editing restrictions, inducing note on reverts, another complain of your reverts, another friendly warning on revert wars, your promise to fallow 1RR rule (which it seems was broken as well [166]), and now we have revert war on Mr.Polanski's article , even after the another warring to stop was issued. Of course London Victory Parade of 1946 was your recent place of edit war as well ([167]). M.K. (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No M.K. on Victory Parade I have chosen to back off[[168]] and I stopped editing the article because in my opinion I was being provoked by yet another mysterious new account[[169]] which was created with the purpose to get me into the arguments. Somebody is trying to frame me and set me up and I hate to say that but I think that you are taking a part in it.--Jacurek (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    MK could you explain why you are following me around? Also I see you have a lot of fun here[[170]] what made you so happy, the fact that you didi something good for the project or the fact that you "got somebody" you were after? --Jacurek (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment
    I would just like to point out that someone, using an ip address rather than a username, left a vulgar piece of hatespeech on the complainant's talk page after this complaint was made, under the heading "regarding 3RR". Also, according to Jacurek's talk page, he already agreed to limit himself to 1RR about two weeks ago. WookMuff (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise you WookMuff to rather watch your own behavior and be civil yourself[[171]], maybe then your lectures will be taken seriously.--Jacurek (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have invited Jacurek to agree that he will follow a personal 1RR from now on, which can be enforced by admins if he deviates from it. (That's one revert per article per day). The period would be 3 months. If he does so, I suggest this case could be closed with no block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I agree.--Jacurek (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - Jacurek has agreed to accept a 1RR restriction for six months. It expires at 17:36 UTC on 11 April 2010. If he exceeds one revert per 24 hours on any article, it can be reported for action here at this noticeboard or to any administrator. I updated the period to 6 months based on Jacurek's agreement to the new duration. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.142.8.221 reported by User:Cenarium (Result: 31h)

    Page: Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 99.142.8.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:99.142.8.221 (see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#99.144.255.247 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wilhelm_meis_reported_by_User:_99.142.15.209_.28Result:_No_vio.29)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories, consensus is against the inclusion of the category, reverted by multiple editors, including previously uninvolved editors Cenarium (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    NOTE: A complaint regarding 3RR Gaming and willfull ignoring of Talk Page Discussion has been opened at AN/I. It may be found here:[176]

    Editors are simply Gaming the system by reverting without discussion an edit which has been subject to lengthy and serious discussion. Essentially my edits have reverted a form of Vandalism in which people have stripped out content without even attempting to overturn consensus or engaging in Talk in any form.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Supplementary data

    Adding of category (without consensus) since the unlocking of Roman Polanski (Most recent first)

    NOTE: (dynamic ip?) All adds by same ip user (lower pair of numbers shift - user gave notice of shifting ip - took a few edits to complete)

    NOTE ALSO: 99.142.1.147 User_talk:99.142.1.147 48 hour block 17:42, 4 October 2009

    COMMENTS: (I have observed)

    • 99.142.x.x participates on talk page, but argumentatively asserts sufficient consensus to add category, but does not have consensus.
    • 99.142.x.x's assertions are often misleading/misdirecting etc.
    • Disclosure I have been in contention with 99.142.x.x over the past few days (most lengthily and absurdly over talk page management, to wit: whether a topic can be removed or collapsed on the talk page). I have directly asserted that some of 99.142.x.x's messages are Misleading bs (and have, for the first time on Wikipedia, I think, used the whole word "bullshit") It is not my habit to do so, but such is the nature of the communication patterns described. Other contentions around undoing of a few things I've reverted (with full edit summaries and talk page discussion.) BOTTOM LINE: Lots of BS. Lots of wasted time. 3RR fully broken and crushed. etc etc.

    -- (data & comments) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No one denies the subject wasn't contentious and difficult - there actually may have been dozens or more reverts on the subject of tag by a number of editors. But many ignore the fact that the subject was discussed intelligently, at length and with reason - and that consensus was reached and described without objection as "Second look or not, we do have ample precedent and community consensus for the use of the cat here - as admittedly disagreeable as it may be to some - our intellectual honesty can no longer deny its current applicability." There was no voice in opposition to the declaration of consensus on the Talk page then - or now. _ 99.142.8.221 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP editor is only adding a category which fulfills WP:COMMON in every sense. Polanski molested and raped a child and was convicted of it, so the category is hardly a matter of honest dispute. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Urban XII reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: Self-revert)

    Page: Herta_Müller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Urban XII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183] User has a few warning on his talkpage recently.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Herta_Müller

    Comments:

    Here is what he thought of his last warning . Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bad faith report by a user who is wiki-stalking me and who has been involved in unrelated disputes with me. The material that was removed at Herta Müller was clearly soapboxing, inappropriate, unsourced (there was a source but it did not support the claim) and unencyclopedic, as explained to the user who added it at the talk page (actually, adding that a Nobel Prize winning author whose works have been translated to over 20 languages is a "little known writer" immedeately after the Nobel information amounts to simple vandalism and can be reverted as such). The alleged "warnings" were posted by a user who is solely engaged in disruptive edit-warring/POV pushing, which is evident when you look at this Special:Contributions/Feketekave. Urban XII (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made this report in good faith and I feel it is beneficial to the wikipedia, the diffs are reverts, as in..removal of other editors good faith additions. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. The diffs are removal of obvious disruptive edits to an article that is featured at the main page at the moment. Urban XII (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that the claim of 6 reverts is false. There were not actually 6 plain reverts. Urban XII (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Urban, a revert is any removal of another editors good faith addition. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. Not all the edits you cite were complete removals. Editing a page 6 times, in order to uphold encyclopedic standards, is no crime. Also, removal of unsourced material from the biography of a living person is a BLP issue, hence, 3RR does technically not apply. Urban XII (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There were other edits, I was very careful only to bring the reverts. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not all reverts. Urban XII (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were refering to WP:GRAPEVINE which states "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material", nothing you removed was contentious at all, it was just that you disagreed with it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was contentious. Urban XII (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look in any way contentious, you do realise that it is not a daily revert total, it is any 24hour period. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That claim that she "was little-known outside Germany" was contentious and unsupported by the source that was cited. It was of course also unencyclopedic, soapboxing and undue to give such an unsourced and obviously incorrect claim the same weight as the Nobel award. A Nobel Prize winning author whose works prior to her Nobel Prize had been translated into more than 20 languages and who had received such awards as International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award years before is by definition not a "little-known writer." If someone had added that Barack Obama was a "little-known politician", I had also reverted it. Urban XII (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are continuing on the same path without any understanding of the complaint here, perhaps you have a point for removal, but there was nothing that desperately required removal and the place to go was the talkpage to ask the other editors what they thought. You know all this though. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Per request, I have already undone my last edit to the article[184]. I hope someone else will remove the soapboxing material, especially because this article is featured at the main page at the moment. Urban XII (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Captain Occam reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: )

    Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


    1. 21:42, 10 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319115151 by Muntuwandi (talk)")
    2. 22:05, 10 October 2009 (edit summary: "Please discuss this on the talk page before continuing to change it. I'm trying to discuss it there; you're reverting without discussion.")
    3. 13:13, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ As I said on the talk page, if we're going to mention that this was done by a blogger, we need to say what the analysis involved. If you disagree, please discuss it there.")
    4. 14:29, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319231653 by Ramdrake (talk) This doesn't accurately describe the Behavioral and Brain Functions study.")
    5. 15:00, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This is being discussed at length on the talk page. You can express your opinion there if you think this is mis-cited, but just sticking on a tag with no further comment isn't helpful.")
    6. 15:19, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ Synthesis problem fixed; tag removed.")
    7. 15:38, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This edit is an obvious NPOV violation.")
    8. 15:50, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This issue was brought up and resolved on the RS noticeboard. If you wish to dispute its conclusions, you need to bring this up there.")
    9. 17:32, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Following suggestions from RS noticeboard.")
    10. 19:00, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ Trying to be NPOV about this.")


    —Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has already warned others that he will engage in a revert war diff Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Comment The user's belligerent attitude is clear, but it's not clear to me that this is a 3RR violation. The sequence of the above edits by Captain Occam and edits by others seems to have improved the text over time. Another administrator might see things differently that I do. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'd go forum-shopping with this, but if this isn't a clear case of 3RR, isn't it at least a rather clear case of edit-warring? Wouldn't it at least be worthy of a warning from a thirdt party (as I doubt Capt. Occam will heed a warning from someone involved in the situation - already tried on the talk page).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the subject of forum-shopping, I noted that the matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Race Intelligence, NYT and bloggers. I'm leaving this open, but I think it likely that resolution of this issue will occur in the WP:RS discussion. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Thanks!!--Ramdrake (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not resolved, I have added more diffs. I believe we have at least two 3RR violations. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How can there be a one-sided edit war? Fixentries (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message for User:Captain Occam, pointing him to this 3RR case and asking him to explain the ten edits within 24 hours. I hope that he will respond in time for the closing admin to take this into account. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Still don't see how there can be a on-sided edit war. One-sided 3RR violation might make sense, but edit warring takes more than one person. Ramdrake makes the following reversions within a 24 hour period on the article:

    1. [185] 20:36, 11 October 2009 (apparently this is counted against 3RR too)
    2. [186] 17:34, 11 October 2009
    3. [187] 15:46, 11 October 2009
    4. [188] 14:22, 11 October 2009
    5. [189] 21:45, 10 October 2009

    It's a waste of my time to have to dig through that. I would rather be editing neglected and "less important" articles some of which are badly in need of it. I wish the litigiousness (wikilawyering?) and careless/POV edits would stop and people would just try to work together. I'm about to remove this article from my watch list because the nonsense is distracting me from more useful things. Fixentries (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page: Arab people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: reversions of different edits, each explained below

    • 1st revert: [190] reverting wording "While some writers believe that Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs but Egyptian Christians are not, others state that neither Muslim nor Christians in Egypt are Arabs and that neither of them consider themselves Arabs." seen in this edit, rv of this edit
    • 2nd revert: [191] rv of this edit
    • 3rd revert: [192] removal of sources that says "Ninety percent of the population are Eastern Hamitic Arabs" saying in its place that "No statistics are available", source added in this edit
    • 4th revert: [193] same as above


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Arab_people#World_Factbook_on_Ethnicities

    Comments:

    nableezy - 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of these were changes made to the article and explained on the talk page, not reverts. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Each revert is listed with the edit that it reverted from or to. nableezy - 20:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What you call "revert 1" is clearly different from this version [195]. What you call "revert 3" makes absolutely no sense. How can I revert something at 15:41 if you wrote it at 16:27??? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, I put it in the wrong order. I fixed the order. Rv 4 (now listed as 3) was the revert of my edit, and rv 3 (now listed as 4) was the revert of my revert reinserting the material. There should not be any confusion now. nableezy - 20:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Trust me, even after the changes you made, what you call now "revert 1" and "revert 3" make no sense as reverts. They were insertions and rearrangements. Check again. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • rv 1 reverts the wording Generally-speaking, Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs, while most Copts do not consider themselves Arab. added in this edit and restores While some writers believe that Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs but Egyptian Christians are not, others state that neither Muslim nor Christians in Egypt are Arabs and that neither of them consider themselves Arabs. that you first put in this edit. You reverted to the exact same phrasing as before. It is a straight revert of this edit.
    • rv 3 is pretty simple, you completely removed a source and what it supported (90% of Egyptians are Eastern Hamitic Arabs) that was added in this edit. nableezy - 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page protected I almost blocked both of you for this nonsense, but I instead protected the page for 24 hours. There are hundreds of articles that manage to use multiple sources for multiple views without edit warring. Work it out but don't return to this back-and-forth reverting behavior. It leads nowhere. - KrakatoaKatie 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avaya1 reported by jk54 (Result: )

    Page: Quilliam Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=315576799

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=315576799

    Comments:


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=319325493"