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 Rothbardanswer (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 5 January 2013 (→User:Rothbardanswer reported by User:Finx (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    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:Thargor Orlando reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: )

    Page: Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thargor Orlando (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: link link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

    Comments:
    This is an issue that was solved by me and user Scjessey in October but recently Thargor Orlando has begun edit warring against that consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty hard to say something is resolved when numerous attempts to discuss were outright ignored, but such is the way of these things. There's no issue here if CartoonDiablo actually decides to engage on the talk page or discussions, which he has chosen not to do for nearly two months. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the only editor engaged precisely because you're the only one that finds fault with it. The issue isn't a dispute, it's you editing warring against the consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And that consensus is where? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the discussion for single-payer between me, you and Scjessey. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What consensus is that? Do I get to include North8000 in my camp? Does the inaccurate viewpoint of one of the polls being a "push poll" assist either side in our viewpoints? Why didn't you bother making this argument at any point in time between the NPOV noticeboard and the talk pages in the last two months? Who's doing the "edit warring" without discussion, exactly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000 was not in the single-payer discussion and virtually no one participated in the NPOV noticeboard because it seemed self-evident the only person that had a problem with it was you. The point is, this board is about user behavior not content disputes (of which we went through ad nausem). You've had your say and now we're discussing your edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this discussion is across multiple articles, I'd argue he is. That you chose - willingly - not to involve yourself in the discussions should tell us something. Do we want to talk about conduct? How about your blanket reverts without discussion? The entire issue is the content dispute that you refuse to resolve, so... Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that I was (marginally) involved and about as involved as everyone else? Are we then to assume everyone was in a conspiracy to "willingly" sabotage the discussion? --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops my bad I meant AN3 which is the discussion here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thargor and CartoonDiablo have also appeared on opposite sides of discussions at DRN and NPOVN recently:
    Perhaps CartoonDiablo can explain his comment above: "solved by me and user Scjessey in October but recently Thargor Orlando has begun edit warring.." The most obvious interpretation is that both the DRN and the NPOVN were inconclusive. The second discussion certainly indicates that consensus was not reached in the first one. Where is the venue where consensus with Scjessey was said to have been reached? Is it too much to expect an actual WP:Request for comment on the article talk page? -EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an issue with typical dispute resolution processes w/CD because he seems to fundamentally misunderstand how they work. There was a separate dispute with him (also still unresolved, but I had to detach for a time and I haven't had an opportunity to revisit with this new, more important issue) where he assumed that a DRN suggestion was binding.[1] Disputes for CD appear to be a means to an end - a war of attrition rushed to dispute resolution in an attempt to get sanctions on those who disagree with him, making consensus building incredibly difficult. This should have been resolved six months ago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute was over whether the polls are measuring for single-payer. Me and Scjessey came to the consensus that it did and Thargor tried to take it to NPOV noticeboard where almost no one participated because it was obvious he was the only person that had a problem with it. Earlier in the discussion he accused me of "willingly" not participating which I suppose applies to everyone else as well (except for Thargor)?
    At this point we have:
    Both in the page discussion and the NPOV dispute Scjessey said that the polls were measuring single-payer, that was the consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And both myself, North8000, and now two people here say there clearly is not. Does this mean you'll cease trying to force your edits? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, North was not in the single-payer discussion he was in the failed NPOV discussion and the two people here are talking about whether or not the consensus exists, not the content of what it's about.
    The fact of the matter is Thargor's explicit reason for reverting it was no one responded and no one responded because the consensus for it was solved. We've gone through this before and if nothing is done Thargor will keep reverting it and we will keep coming back to this noticeboard over and over again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you can continue/finish the discussion at the talk page as opposed to explicitly avoiding it. Since there's no consensus, maybe that's your best move. Otherwise, the assumption will be that there are no further protests to changing it back. As the NPOV discussion was about these articles, North is absolutely "part" of any discussion about consensus, which at least four people now note doesn't exist as opposed to your novel claim that it does. So I suggest coming back to the talk page and supporting your claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I chose to withdraw from activity on articles frequented by Thargor because of the editor's behavior. Several attempts at dispute resolution have been made (it was my attempt to mediate one of these that drew me into editing at the article in question), but Thargor has ignored them, waited for interest to wane and then returned to revert any edits that were made under whatever consensus had been reached. CartoonDiablo should be commended for "defending Wikipedia's honor in the face of ideological editing" or something, but I'm afraid I can no longer work with Thargor constructively. A block for 3RR will serve no useful purpose because Thargor is used to waiting patiently. Only a topic ban will work. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't ignored them at all. In fact, I seem to be the only person interested in fixing the problems in this case. We've reached no consensus - this is why we have this problem. Meanwhile, since your contributions have been to malign good sources[2] and engage in unfounded attacks[3], maybe it should be up to others to decide who the problem players are here, hm? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look I can bring up diffs and Scjessey can affirmatively answer it here but we did reach a consensus, and that was the polls measured single-payer (and this is with Scjessey acting as a mediator). So unless edit waring against consensus isn't a problem I don't see why we shouldn't have a 3RR (not even considering the other suggestion for a topic ban). CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd love to see the diffs that show an actual consensus. No one else but you seems to be seeing it. I see you ignoring discussion and avoiding questions plenty, but no consensus. And seeing as I didn't revert anywhere more than twice, it just goes to show you don't understand how this works, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Right here:

    • "The polls in that link all talk about full health coverage paid for by the government in one form or another. That is single-payer." - diff of Scjessey.
    • "This POV pushing must stop. Thargor is trying to create a false equivalence by suggesting that one poll (conducted by the right-leaning Rasmussen pollster with dubious wording) somehow balances the fistful of polls indicating that Americans overwhelmingly support the adoption of some form of single-payer system" - diff of Scjessey

    As you can see, me and Scjessey established a consensus that these are single-payer polls and Thargor is reverting against it. Whether or not it's 3RR it's still edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Neither of these actually demonstrate consensus, simply the opinions of one editor. Two people cannot say "we have consensus" against two other editors, sorry - especially when we're talking about factually inaccurate descriptions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Thargor is now inserting content dispute tags even though there is no content dispute but a dispute about edit-warring and consensus diff, diff.

    A few thoughts:

    • At the NPOV noticeboard input was received from two uninvolved folks. Two uninvolved folks (Blueboar and myself) said that the use of polls was problematic. I had some more detailed comments on that as well as the wp:or added via table headings etc.. Looks like none of the opinions/advice was used/heeded.
    • IMO the reason you didn't get more participation is because that it's a large complex issue (a lot of problematic stuff bundled into the vague question of table vs. text. You might try that distillation to get a few more eyes on the article.
    • The argument above seems to be that there are just 3 heavily involved people and the two that want it one way are saying that the one person not doing what the two people want is editing against a "consensus" determined by two people. This is not right on several levels. Not only is this not a "consensus", but 2 folks can't just say that because there are two of them that can override policy in the problematic areas noted. At first glance, the biggest one is that they way it is now it is contruction-by-editors from primary sources, including drawing conclusions from primary sources which is certainly a policy issue.

    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked at the list....there's not even any 3RR there. At each article the addition of a tag was listed as being a "revert"North8000 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's slo-mo edit warring to further an ideological point of view, at the very least. When someone uses edit warring as a tactic in a content dispute, it demonstrates a need for some sort of topic ban. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except I'm not pushing to further an ideological point of view, but a factual one. If I wanted an ideological point of view, I'd push to remove any instance of single payer whatsoever. That wouldn't be appropriate. Meanwhile, you think using MMfA in articles is okay, but the Heritage Foundation is not - who's approaching this ideologically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    False equivalence. Media Matters for America reports on what right-wing media is saying, whereas Heritage just makes shit up to support their ideological point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You've kind of made my point here. Meanwhile, a discussion is ongoing at the single payer article if you'd like to join us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, when Thargor does it is slow motion edit warring and when Scjessey & CartoonDiablo do it it is righteous persistence. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes. We all know you are part of the same ideological group as Thargor and incapable of offering impartial advice on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pot calling the kettle black. Well, not quite the same, because the Kettle (North) is not an advocate of using hyper-partisan sources like MMfA Arzel (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You see that's your problem right there. All MMfA does is report on the ridiculous crap on right-wing media. It does almost nothing else but function as a watchdog. On the rare occasions that their straight reporting is "colored" with commentary, those sources are not used. In contrast, the Heritage Foundation exists solely to push a conservative point of view. It even has its own action group for that purpose. There's simply no way you could compare the two. If you get all your news from the right-wing media echo chamber, however, you wouldn't know this. Open your eyes, Arzel. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I recommend this be marked as stale and consigned to the 3RR dustbin. The matter is now being discussed at DRN and ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur, with the added note that the actual violation below was ignored and has been taken as an endorsement of the actions taken. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no doubt you have been edit warring, Thargor. My previous comment is simply noting that any action based on this report would be unnecessary, and perhaps even harm attempts at resolution of the content dispute from which your actions arose. The problem is not that you edit warred, but rather why you edit warred. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "At best, it was equally distributed." I'd challenge that different edits after trying to get people to discuss on the talk page isn't edit warring, but YMMV. The problem player hasn't been me in any regard, so it's a rather moot point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Armbrust reported by User:Spc_21 (Result: )

    Page: Template:World Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Breaking the 3RR. User has reverted the page in question seven times in less than 24 hours. User seems to make reverts to ensure they have the last edits on articles.

    User:158.39.0.122 reported by User:CeeGee (Result: Semi)

    Page: Göktürk-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 158.39.0.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [08:43, January 2, 2013‎] [08:45, January 2, 2013‎] [08:47, January 2, 2013‎]
    • 2nd revert: [11:51, January 2, 2013‎]
    • 3rd revert: [16:00, January 2, 2013‎]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User is anon.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Explained on the article's talk page not to remove sourced text and refs and not to add unsourced text.

    Comments:

    User:Rothbardanswer reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 31h)

    Page: World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rothbardanswer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [4]

    • 1st revert: [5] (in response to an earlier adding a see also to an article on these books being reverted, he or she re-added them as an external link in this edit, effectively making it a reversion)
    • 2nd revert: [6]
    • 3rd revert: [7] (note rude edit summary)
    • 4th revert: [8]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9] - note that Rothbardanswer had earlier been warned for spamming similar links [10]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion at Talk:World War II#Addition of new external links - Rothbardanswer has been edit warring during this discussion, despite no-one supporting his or her position. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    Ok, I don't know if you're interpreting my edits as malicious? It was just an error of where to put the external links. I wasn't actually under the impression you were trying to censor or that we were even arguing! :) Also you didn't warn me, you just accused me of edit warring! haha. When you said that I had already started a talk section :) I hope whoever reviews this just looks at the talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would just like to point out the user is scrubbing his/her talk page of prior warning and objections for edit warring, vandalism and inserting unsupported claims. I don't know if this is consistent with wikipedia policy, but you can see the edits in the the talk page history, and here was the page before the deletions. Finx (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    pls take the time to read over WP:REMOVED and WP:OWNTALK.Moxy (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spshu reported by User:N-HH (Result: Warned)

    Page: Duchy of Cornwall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [11]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

    Comments:

    This page and dispute was the subject of a 3RR report here by the user now being reported, who had filed over my repeated removal of an inappropriate infobox that they added first on 26 December and then repeatedly re-added. As a result, although 3RR had not been breached, the page was protected (in a version without their addition) as both they and I were edit-warring. The user in question has now proceeded to reinsert their additions. Obviously in this cycle, we are only at 1RR, but surely a user can't come back in and start edit-warring again like this? N-HH talk/edits 21:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, he claim that adding additional material must be justified. An infobox does add any addition information, just is a summary tool. Even so I place before him a number of source which he dismissed as he didn't like them. He sat there like he was the judge of the matter claim some sort of expertise. He ignored basic definitions.Spshu (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "And no, consensus does not mean that I have to convince you or that your additions get to stay until anyone does." Well, so the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is patently false, as you state you did not attempt to resolve the dispute, have you, N-HH? Spshu (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm hopeful that this can still be resolved amicably on the article talk page, and have commented there.  —SMALLJIM  23:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On the talk page, there seem to be three editors (N-HH, Ghmyrtle and Smalljim) opposing the infobox and only one in favor (Spshu). Even if the discussion isn't over, this is clearly not a consensus *in favor* of the infobox. The last protecting admin said "Please do not perform further reverts until the discussion comes to a consensus." In spite of this, Spshu went ahead and restored his infobox on 3 January. I suggest that Spshu explain why he should not be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As you've seen on the talk page, I've given Spshu the opportunity to self-revert which I think would show sufficient goodwill to avoid a block.  —SMALLJIM  23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr swordfish reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Protected)

    Page: List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mr swordfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

    Comments:

    This user is repeatedly reverting material that uses direct quotes for highly reputable sources. The sole discussion he is prepared to enage in is that he believes they are unreliable, without producing any evidence to that effect. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the main disagreement is that the edits are mis-characterizing the material in the cited sources. I am not the only editor who has reverted these mis-characterized edits. I do welcome a third opinion in this dispute and look forward to a resolution. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sides in this edit war seem to be hung on the fact that the list keeps getting left in the wrong version. siafu (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected – Two days. Please use this time to find consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:46.195.55.193 reported by User:Saddhiyama (Result:Blocked for 24 hours.)

    Page: Flashback Media Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 46.195.55.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    • 1st revert: [23]
    • 2nd revert: [24]
    • 3rd revert: [25]
    • 4th revert: [26]
    • 5th revert: [27]
    • 6th revert: [28] (reverting Cluebot, which reverted the above)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

    Comments:
    SPA with a political agenda, adding what constitutes WP:OR to the article. The additions were removed because of violation of WP:OR and this fact was put to this user on their talk page several times, but they have only responded once, and that was only to make spurious comments about the political agenda of another editor, and since then they have solely relied on edit warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I will also try to explain more clearly to the user what the problems are. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spacevezon reported by User:79.141.167.15 (Result: Semi-protected one week)

    Page: Robert Agostinelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Spacevezon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [31]

    Page protected. Before seeing this report, I did some major copy editing to the article, as well as removing some significant copyright violations. The IP editing in the article appears to be very suspicious. The article has been semi-protected before by me recently. Spacevezon was never notified of this discussion by the IP. I will let them know I've closed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danrolo reported by User:RJFF (Result: )

    Pages: Saenuri Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Democratic Party of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Saenuri Party

    Previous version reverted to: [36]

    Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)

    Previous version reverted to: [41]

    Democratic Party of Japan

    Previous version reverted to: [45]


    Danrolo has not breached the 3RR in 24 hours, but engages in long-term edit wars over several articles, sometimes without logging in. He has constantly shown disruptive editing since at least November 2011, namely inserting unsourced information, refusal to back it up with references and edit warring. He has also inserted factual errors (deliberately or out of ignorance), repeatedly moved articles without consensus, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly created biographies on living persons without citing sources, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly removed PRODs from them, despite being warned against doing so. His talk page is plastered with good advice and escalating warnings against disruptive editing, unsourced content and edit warring. My repeated attempts to communicate with Danrolo have failed a long time ago. --RJFF (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Yes, I did them, and i don't want to block me, I just only wanted to edit the articles. --Danrolo 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


    User:Antidiskriminator reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: Protected 3 days)

    Page: Theodor Anton Ippen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert: [[49] 15:41, 4 January 2013‎]
    • 2nd revert: [50] 18:03, 4 January 2013‎
    • 3rd revert: [51] 18:16, 4 January 2013‎


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

    Comments:

    • Antidiskriminator started Theodor Anton Ippen and essentially he has misrepresented many sources, chosen to use cropped parts of quotes, used some verbatim, used false citation data and used full template parametres that are unnecessary. The general state of the prose was also very poor with frequent grammatical and structural mistakes (batized Jews, Theodor Anton Ippen of Theodor Anton Max Ippen , After the London treaty has been signed the ambassadors of six Great Powers decided in July 1913 to constitute a new state etc.).
    • Firstly I placed a copyvio tag, which was removed and then I tried to remove many of unused parametres (making my edits look as if they involved content removal) and correct the source issues. I've explained on the talkpage some of the more obvious[53][54] misinterpretations of the sources.
    • An obvious instance of cropping parts from quotes is the use of: the Powers signed a protocol establishing Albania as an 'autonomous, sovereign, hereditary principality' as constitute a new state, Albania, as hereditary principality )deliberately not mentioning the actual wording of the treaty). You will notice that he reverted even plain citation corrections like Ethnologia Balkanica. Prof. M. Drinov Academic Publishing House. 1998., which I corrected and used the article's title, attributed it to the author and corrected his misconception that Ethnologia Balkanica is a book (it's a journal) and finally readded it as Gruber, Siegfried (1998). "Austrian Contributions to the Ethnological Knowlegde of the Balkans Since 1850". Ethnologia Balcanica (Prof. M. Drinov Academic Publishing House) 2: 209–24.
    • I've made one revert, for which I take full responsibility, while afterwards I used only the talkpage.
    • As a background detail I should mention that Antidiskriminator for much the same reasons was topic banned under ARBMAC a couple of months ago (reported by User:Peacemaker67).
    • Recent disputes and/or edit-wars usually involve original research and source misinterpretation on Kosovo topics (also under ARBMAC) with User:bobrayner ([55][56]
    • Antidiskriminator is not a new user (both of us joined wiki around the same time and if I can stick to arguments and 1 revert, so should he) and his talkpage behavior and reverts show that he neither evaluated my arguments nor realized his very basic mistakes. In fact, he reverted before acknowledging a simple source misrepresentation and partially correct it[57] while still insisting on the talkpage that he didn't misinterpret[58] even after his edit.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first diff presented here is removal of unjustified close paraphrasing tag (which remained unexplained although I politely asked ZjarriRrethues to present proof for his claim (diff). Two other diffs are restoration of the text of the article after ZjarriRrethues two times performed major changes. My actions were based on Wikipedia:Editing policy, as I explained on the article's talkpage. I sincerely apologize if my actions are not an obvious 3RR exemptions, like I believe they were. I promise not to revert more than three times. I am glad that there is a discussion on the talkpage which started to deal with some of concerns of ZjarriRrethues.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They were edits that dealt with your partially accidental and partially deliberate misinterpretation of the sources, which you still insist not to have misinterpreted (as for copyvio among others you've used copied the phrasing "baptized Jews" from Elsie's page). As you know since you've frequently been told what reverts are in other disputes and you're already sitebanned on sr.wiki and topic banned on en.wiki, there's no "3RR exemption" in content disputes and especially ones, in which full quotes of the sources you've misinterpreted have been provided to you. You knew that your edits were disruptive as regards source use, prose, grammar and structure and still you made them, so please do not claim that you didn't know what your edits were. The essence of edit-warring isn't the 3RR limit, but the nature of the edits themselves.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert Elsie allowed all material on his website to be freely used for non-profit purposes so its not copyvio (link). Any other concerns you might have about the content should be dealt with at article's talkpage. Please AGF especially because it was me who provided full quotes for every single assertion in the article. I am glad that you started to discuss details of your concerns on the talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not without proper attribution, not to mention that as an act itself it is unencyclopedic. I've been mentioning the disruptive misinterpretation since the first edit and you still insist that you haven't misinterpreted them, not to mention the substandard prose that you have reintroduced. Admin intervention for your revert-warring and disruption is more than necessary given your WP:IDHT and disregard of sourcing policies.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You accused me for copyvio based on two words "baptized Jews" and you yourself used "Austrian scholar and diplomat" (diff) which is precisely an expression used by Elsie (link). As you can see on the article's talkpage, your position is not always grounded in arguments so it would be better to discuss before filing complaint. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Copying an easily replacable phrase and using a very common one are two different things. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected. I've fully protected the article for 3 days as both of you are edit-warring and no one else is involved. Just a couple of comments about copyright. Using a phrase like "baptized Jews" is hardly copyright infringement - it's too short. The "license" on the Robert Elsie page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for proper licensing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tellyuer1 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: )

    Page: Moshe Friedman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70][71] In addition, editor was blocked previously for edit-warring on this article.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Moshe Friedman#Dialogue on Changes

    Comments:
    Please note: editor has not broken 3RR but is engaging in a long-term pattern of edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On top of his socking this should lead to an indef. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Post to the collaboration page could be a violation of WP:CANVASS, but neither that nor socking are the issue here. I've been talking to him on his user talk, and he's indicated that he'll take a couple hours away from the computer to settle down. Hopefully things improve when he gets back; otherwise, if he were to make one more revert to a Friedman-related article, I would endorse a block for 3RR violation/disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about canvassing -- it's about his view that Wikipedia must expose the evil Moshe Friedman, and the effort to recruit "good Jews" to the cause. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Martinvl reported by User:MeasureIT (Result: )

    Page: History of the metric system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [74]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History of the metric system#The number of "modern writers" who support Naughtin's theory about Wilkins and Talk:History of the metric system#What weasel word, and why all the rest too?

    Comments:

    The period of that sequence is slightly over 24 hours, but by design I think, as this user has been reverting back to his favored version over several days, and using less than clear, perhaps deliberately misleading, edit summaries too and failing to fully and good-faithedly engage in a discussion on the talkpage. The claims are also the subject of threads on the fringe and OR noticeboards with at least one of the sources being of doubtful integrity. MeasureIT (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note too that the SPI was opened 2 days after I started questioning the accuracy of the portrayal of the role of Watkins in the history of the present day metric system - quickly supported by Martinvl whilst he was failing to engage in constructive discussion with me over these issues. MeasureIT (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I request that this be dismissed on the technicality that more than 24 hours passed.
    The originator (who is under an SPI) has been doing his best to needle me. Amongst other things, he is persisting in adding a "Weasal word" flag after the word "Many" in the following sentence:
    Many twentieth century writers regarded the French cleric Gabriel Mouton as the originator of the metric system,[4].
    It should be noted that the statement is followed by a citation, the contents of which justified that at least one writer has this opinion. It is also obvious to anybody who has read WP:WEASEL that this sentence does not in any way
    "appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis".
    I request that my last version be allowed to stand.
    Martinvl (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith and do not characterise my recent attempts (started on 30 December), across several articles, to reconcile the claimed role of Wilkins in the history of the present day metric system (a claim which, since I raised it as suspect, you seem to have been spending night and day trawling Google to support) with the reliably sourced mainstream view of his role. MeasureIT (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rothbardanswer reported by User:Finx (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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


    Comments:

    User has been site-spamming mises.org absolutely everywhere. Some examples are:

    User has been previously blocked due to edit warring on the WWII article on account of this site spam.

    While I understand this does not violate wikipedia policy, user has repeatedly scrubbed talk page of warnings and complaints. Here is an older version of the user's talk page and another older one covered in yet more warnings, complains objections.

    User is presently engaged in yet more edit wars on several articles, like:

    Capitalism (diff1, diff2, diff3), Christianity (diff1, diff2), Free Market (history)

    Finx (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't warn me about this Finx :) Anyway I don't know why you reported this as this exact issue has already been reported: here

    I think I was "edit warring" but I was unaware of policy. I was the only user using the talk page while all other reverts seem to bad faith, article ownership, political POV pushing, editorialising and vandalism. I also didn't understand the policy on edit warring because in my mind I was correcting what ended up being malicious edits. I used the talk page and no one would respond. Rothbardanswer (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=531489119"