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 Chevyoncé (talk | contribs) at 09:07, 11 August 2016 (→User:Chevyoncé reported by User:Carbrera (Result: )). 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:Hebel reported by User:XavierGreen (Result: Nominator blocked 1 week)

    Page: List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hebel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [[1]]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [[2]]
    2. [[3]]
    3. [[4]]
    4. [[5]]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[6]]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[7]]

    It would seem that's one to many by me and also by Xavier Green himself. I get the impression that Xavier is editing the article about related issues while a discussion about these related matters is going on without and before consensus or closure to the argument in progress. It seems to me he should wait for that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I haven't made any edits to change the page against consensus at all, my reverts of your edits were to restore the page to the status quo on two matters on which there was no consensus to change based on the current ongoing discussion involving those matters on the talk page. In actuality, it is you who have flaunted the dispute resolution process and have made edits contrary to the ongoing discussion on the talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I self reverted for the moment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    .XavierGreen, I wasn't talking about your revert of my edits but of your revert of Ladril's edit here. He however has since indicated that he doesn't seem to feel that's a problem. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So let's discuss this here. --Yukterez (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not here User:Yukterez but here. You are in the wrong place. This is another matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I must apologise for the unhappy intervention I made there. Which I have further explained here on the talkpage of User:XavierGreen. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Blakegripling ph reported by 81.151.100.70 (Result: Nominator blocked as a ban-evading sock )

    Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Blakegripling ph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]
    5. [12]
    6. [13]

    All within the space of ten minutes.

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

    With this edit user restored another editor's edit to a talk page:[15]

    With this edit user removed another editor's edit from a talk page:[16]. This is a prohibited operation. 81.151.100.70 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ismadeby reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Gal Gadot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ismadeby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Wikipedia prefers rectangles over squares for Infobox images. Learn to crop."
    2. 02:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
    2. 14:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */ customize"
    3. 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gal Gadot. (TW)"
    4. 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Gal Gadot. (TW)"
    5. 15:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"
    6. 15:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Editor is also editing disruptively by adding bogus warning templates at my own talk page. Diffs here [17], [18], [19]. Not only is he verbatim copying the warnings and comment additions to the warnings I have left at his talk page, one of his edit summaries at my talk page stated, "Lets see who gets blocked". This editor was formerly editing disruptively under the username Wikipedia-Translator. Pinging Template:U:NeilN who is familiar with the issues at the article regarding the infobox photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    NeilN, Winkelvi was trying to ping you:) DMacks (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    See next item for the opposite report. Even here on an admin board regarding his disruption, Ismadeby can't help but continue to be disruptive in relation to Winkelvi, [20] apparently trying to give his later report greater prominence/precedence/priority. And then [21] edit-warring to keep it there (against page instructions for ordering). DMacks (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ...twice. And deleting this preceding comment of mine (thanks for noticing, User:Laser brain!). DMacks (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And see these apparent revenge reverts. clpo13(talk) 15:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I would give Ismadeby a good long block for disruptive editing. As they commented in a discussion I started, I will not do so myself. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Winkelvi reported by User: Ismadeby (Result: Nominator blocked)

    Page: Gal Gadot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [22]
    2. [23]
    3. [24]
    4. [25]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[26]

    User using the word "bullshit" as summary for his removal of edit war warnings: [27]

    Comments:

    It seems pretty clear to me that in this particular case, WV is up against a returning troll who likes to push WV's buttons. What I don't undertand is, after 5-6 previous edit warring blocks, why the hell can't WV resist edit warring when provoked? I think an appropriate action for Ismadeby is an indef block as a troublemaking sock. I just don't know what an appropriate action for WV is: no action because he's being provoked by a sock? 1 month block for edit warring after 5 previous blocks for same? Somewhere in between? Indef block? A lifetime 0RR restriction, no matter whether it's a sock he's reverting or not? What will it take for WV to stop reverting everything all the time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting block evasion technically falls under WP:NOT3RR, but he really needs to start reporting obvious socks to WP:AIV and WP:SPI from now on. @Winkelvi:, when did you figure out that it was Wikipedia-Translator? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia-Translator/Archive which names an IP (109.66.183.56) who was active at Gal Gadot as a sock of User:Wikipedia-Translator. Nobody has done a checkuser yet to connect User:Ismadeby to the sock case, though the behavior may be evidence. Ismadeby also removed his own edit warring report from this noticeboard five times, which hardly counts as good behavior. Note that there is more information in the other complaint. Strangely, Wikipedia-Translator is only blocked for user name. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Have started an SPI since no one pinged commented here. [29]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:206.167.168.128 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Scion tC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    206.167.168.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733692394 by Sro23 (talk)did you prove it, just because you are a clique of few ignorant editors doesnt change the faact Toyota rebadged the Celica as a tC."
    2. 13:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733689328 by Stepho-wrs (talk) the proof is in my driveway. on the chassis label which states the plant of Tsutsumi which is the same plant as the Celica."
    3. 12:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733682968 by Sro23 (talk) BECAUSE IT IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE CELICA, but ignorant masses cant grasp the fact Toyota pulled a fast one on them"
    4. 12:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "ill keep changing it , because it is a CHEAPENED TOYOTA CELICA. To all the morons (Stepho especially) just because you are in love with your old Celica doesnt mean Toyota stopped making it, they just found a way to make more money of ignorant masses"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */ new section"
    2. 15:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Despite being reverted by more than one editor, 206.167.168.128 has refused to stop their disruptive edit warring to Scion tC. I believe 24.114.92.193 is the same person, so that's even more reverts. On their talk page, they blatantly disregarded my warning about edit warring and request they stop. I know there's currently a discussion on the article's talk page, but something tells me it won't lead to any progress:[30], [31]. Sro23 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And another revert. Their contributions to the talk page consist mainly of WP:OR and insults. clpo13(talk) 21:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DrFleischman reported by User:Anythingyouwant (Result: Withdrawn by reporting editor)

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


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=733558622


    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=733718838&oldid=733716031 17:36, 9 August (restored huge amount of material per edit summary)
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733584041&oldid=733581444 20:19, 8 August (removed the word “degree” per edit summary)
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733569081&oldid=733568899 18:35, 8 August (removed “of the Wharton School” per edit summary)
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733567977&oldid=733558622 18:25, 8 August (removed footnote per edit summary)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrFleischman&oldid=733725794#1RR


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733718625&oldid=733718353 (re. diff number one)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733581818&oldid=733581295 (re. diff number three)

    Comments:

    Please note that 1RR applies at this article per discretionary sanctions. According to WP:3RR, a revert is any edit or series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, and whether supported by consensus or not. That's why I and other editors have been avoiding the kind of edits like the four listed above. I don't think DrFleischman is a bad editor, but this is just a matter of fairness so everyone edits by the same rules. When the rule refers to "undoing other editors' actions," is it only referring to actions that occurred relatively recently in the edit history? If so, why doesn't the rule say that? When it refers to "in whole or in part," is it exempting good faith attempts at compromise? If not, why doesn't the rule say that? Even if the rule said that, I think this would be a 1RR violation per diffs one and three.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins, if you're confused by the complaint it's because yes, it's procedurally defective. Anythingyouwant simply took my four most recent edits to Donald Trump and called them reverts because they all deleted or modified portions of the article, i.e. "undid other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part." This is an extreme reading of the edit warring policy and against its spirit if not its letter. In the first 3 "reverts" I was simply being bold and making constructive edits to the article. Two of these edits were never disputed, and the third is being resolved through talk page discussion, which I have readily participated in. In none of these cases was I reverting back to any prior version, at least to my knowledge. The fourth "revert" was simply me implementing this talk page consensus. There has been no dispute that the edit does in fact represent the consensus.
    What makes this complaint extra-unfortunate is that Anythingyouwant only lodged it to make a point. They actually told me that they want me to be vindicated so that they can point to this discussion the next time they're accused of edit warring. Anythingyouwant's beef isn't with me, it's with the edit warring policy itself, which they believe considers any deletion or modification of any content as a "revert" (since it is a "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part"). I suggested that Anythingyouwant seek guidance at WT:EW or WP:VPP but they declined my advice and instead are trying to game the system by coming here. I suggest that this complaint should boomerang and Anythingyouwant should be admonished for disruptive editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the third revert, DrFleischman says, "and the third is being resolved through talk page discussion". In what world is that a justification for saying it wasn't a revert? That third revert was obviously the subject of controversy at the article talk page. The main reason I filed this report is because I am firmly convinced that the first and third diffs are reverts that together violate 1RR. The other two diffs (the second and fourth) are less obvious, and so I am indeed interested in what the verdict is about them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My point on the third edit was that I made a bold edit, it was reverted by another editor, and then we discussed. BRD. No reverts by me. Simple as that. You are disrupting the normal editing process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole subject of diff three is discussed at the current article talk page (not an archive) before DrFleischman made that bold edit. For example, "Unless there's something which contradicts this source, the claim that 'he graduated from Wharton' should be removed from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)" Dr. Fleischman's edit #3 (about Wharton) was very clearly a revert. I would be happy to withdraw this report if DrFleischman would please remove his most recent revert. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? So each time I make a bold edit I'm first supposed to go into the talk page archives and literally hundreds of edits deep into the article's edit history to make sure the same edit hasn't been fought over in the past? Anythingyouwant's last sentence makes it seem like maybe they just want their version of the 4th edit to be restored against consensus. This strikes me as bullying behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I now reluctantly withdraw the offer to take down this 1RR report, which I made in good faith (not to bully anyone!). Both diffs one and three are very clearly reverts. And they are both controversial at the article talk page as it stands right now (during this month of August), in case the age of the controversy makes any difference, and that controversy existed before these two respective reverts. I don't suggest that DrFleischman needs to study the talk history of this article going back forever. The easiest way to avoid problems is to not make more than one edit --- like diffs one thru four --- per day. But if he wants to run the risk of editing like diffs one thru four, by undoing the work of other editors, then why not look at the current talk page sans archives?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion I believe you're referring to appeared from both the header and the first comment to be about a different subject. Regardless, I don't think anything in our policies or guidelines requires editors to review the talk page before making bold edits. Just because I made an edit on content that happened to be discussed partway down an old talk page discussion doesn't make my edit a revert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bello5Packo reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked 24 hours )

    Page: UNESCO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bello5Packo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Please help to handle the SPA/sock user who reverts without answering in article talk page: Talk:UNESCO#Ataturk section. There is no 3RR yet, but it is looming. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bello5Packo has now breached WP:3RR despite my warning here:

    They don't appear interested in discussing the situation beyond calling Staszek Lem a vandal. clpo13(talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Both blocked)

    Page
    Newquay (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
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733738700 by Electricburst1996 (talk) unsupported by non-primary reliable sources"
    2. 20:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733736164 by Electricburst1996 (talk) again not a travel guide and no trivia"
    3. 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733735774 by Electricburst1996 (talk) not a travel guide"
    4. 19:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Surfbury"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Newquay. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "→ ‎trail, trivia: new section"
    Comments:

    Edit war started with unexplained content removal on the first edit, but escalated into a dispute over whether or not the information removed was worth keeping. Though I didn't state it in edit summaries, I felt strongly that the information on the town trail and Newquay in film should be kept. Given the other editor's lengthy, troubling block history for edit warring (six counts, to be exact), I see no reason for a temporary block at this point. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 20:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ElectricBurst went straight to AIV with NO warning (against "The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.") dispite his false claim then removed my defense there. He did not give any reason for his edits while I did. I had though I had removed the information in a previous edit thus the first edit was just "Surfbury". I started a talk page discussion while he was here reporting me. He makes his fustration know that he can get me punished at AVI then removes my response twice now [36] [37] that he has been the instigating editor as NPA when it was similar in tone to his own post. Spshu (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He has also attempt to add my starting a discussion as if he did so. Spshu (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, NeilN, an administrator, has stepped in to assist Electricburst1996 in acting like he started the discussion on the talk page when he did not. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Spshu, the diff is not to show the reporter started the discussion, it is to show discussion exists. As it happens, you started it so that's a bonus for you. --NeilN talk to me 21:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff is in my post. At the last AN3, the responding administrator stated he was not obligated into what actually happen just that I trivially legitimately reverted once some other editor over some other issue on the same article and disregarded that I was reverting the removal of what was agree upon the proper source (while using the edit summary to get the other editor to the talk page). So, I don't hold out any hope that the responding administrator would actual look at the talk page and would assume that the other editor started the talk section. Spshu (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As an outside editor, those edits were acceptable. IMDB is user-generated content, so it is an invalid source. Primary sources can be used sparingly, but secondary sources are preferred. The information removed looked and read like trivial statements rather than encyclopedic content. As no edit summaries were provided for the reversions, I assert that the burden of proof is on Electricburst1996 to determine whether their reversions were appropriate. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – 24 hours. I don't like the pattern of removal of comments at WP:AIV by Electricburst1996. Whether IMDB is a reliable source is not listed as an exception to the edit warring rules at WP:3RRNO. You are responsible for counting your own reverts even if you think you have good reason for making the reverts, excepting only serious matters like BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lipsquid reported by User:StAnselm (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [38]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [39]
    2. [40]
    3. [41]
    4. [42]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:
    This is not technically a breach of 3RR, since the four reversions were made in a space of 27 hours. But it is clearly edit-warring, and involved adding material which two editors (including myself) deemed to be a BLP violation. The last reversion adjusted the wording, but made it an even more flagrant BLP violation; the other edits also added material that was not in any source. In any case, the material should not be in the lead (per arguments on the talk page), and there was never anything remotely close to a consensus to restore the material. StAnselm (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not a breach of 3RR and we have already been to the BLP Noticeboard who determined an even harsher wording of the point of contention was not a BLP [45]. I have made many attempts to make a compromise edit asked for options of compromise and User:StAnselm says I don't agree to any changes so you have no consensus, (no one else seems to be visiting this article). The information I added is plainly sourced for the article. Sources actually called it sexual abuse and he has been accused of allegedly enjoying to masturbate on his young nanny. Again, we have already been to the BLP noticeboard with the wording and the sources. Lipsquid (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not what the BLP noticeboard determined at all. In any case, the sources do not say there was actual sexual abuse, only alleged sexual abuse. There is a very important difference. If you can't see the difference, you shouldn't be editing BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not true that no one else is "visiting" this article. I'm someone else. I've both edited the page and commented on the talk page. There is no consensus for inserting this material into the lede. In my view, that would be undue weight in a BLP of this length. The allegation and the subject's response are covered properly in the "Controversy" section. David in DC (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is what the BLP board determined, the link is there for review. Also, my first edit of the contentious material did in fact include "alleged" [46]. More nonsense that flat out isn't true. This BLP had their notability questioned in 2011 and it was left open with no consensus. Now in 2016, the only thing they are notable for is the fall from grace and lawsuit that is a result of the alleged interaction with the nanny. I understand that some people might dislike the material, but it is impeccably sourced and the vast majority of sources say the same thing. There is no reason to keep it out, especially since he has no other notability. Lipsquid (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair argument, but you should have made it on the talk page rather than edit-warring. In any case, it is easily refuted: In her book Building God's Kingdom (OUP, 2015), Julie Ingersoll devotes a whole chapter to Doug Phillips, and only two pages out of 27 concern the events surrounding his resignation. StAnselm (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please re-read the advice at the bottom of the BLP/N thread you are citing. You thank another editor for this advice "It's not a BLP violation, but whether it's included in the article is a matter for editors to decide by way of consensus...." That editor also suggests using a direct quote, but that's not the final resolution. It a suggestion for, perhaps, coming to consensus, nothing more. It surely does not justify the edit-warring.David in DC (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have read it several times, it says "not a BLP violation" several times. I am fine with using a direct quote. I would also be fine with having a compromise edit in the lead. I am okay with all of the advice from the BLP board. I just can't get consensus on a low trafficked article for any change. I will walk away and remove it from my watchlist, I will watch the board here, but this is one of the travesties of Wikipedia. Low volume articles get WP:OWNed by people who say BRD, BRD, then have no intention of ever agreeing to a compromise. Lipsquid (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution to disagreements on low-traffic arguments is often to start a RfC, as I suggested to you a few days ago. As for BLPN, the specific thing that was "not a BLP violation" was the assertion in the Vision Forum article that VF closed as a result of sexual abuse allegations against Phillips. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason people have to waste their time on RfCs for very common sense edits is because some editors have zero interest in compromise and know they can game the system with "BRD, no consensus, no consensus" and have the other person walk away rather than be blocked or waste more time. I walked away, Doug Phillips is a great guy. Can we be done? Lipsquid (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hawkeye75 reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Sausage Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Hawkeye75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "I have removed the quote all together. More is less in this instance. WP:QUOTEFARM also adds to this edit."
    2. 08:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733814284 by Mean as custard (talk) I have started a section on your talk page, please read WP:BOWDLERIZE"
    3. 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "Per WP:BOWDLERIZE"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "General note: Censorship of material on Sausage Party. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user seems to insist on removing swear words from Sausage Party and has done nothing to actually discuss the issue, despite my attempts. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note The user has "banned" me from posting on their talk page after sending them some messages about their actions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ok per WP:NOBAN. I also never used the word "ban", please don't put words in my mouth. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was paraphrasing with the word "banned." -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Note This user has had some past warnings about edit warring: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 10:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There's already a user called Hawkeye7 who has been here much longer. Perhaps a name change is in order, as to avoid confusion? Just a suggestion. Zerotalk 09:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure how to do all this fancy stuff, but it seems like MorbidEntree has an attitude where she thinks that she can have the last edit on all situations. First off, she is breaking the rules by not using edit summaries on Sausage Party's revision page. I have explained by reasoning behind the edits (WP:BOWDLERIZE) and (WP:QUOTEFARM). I have also asked MorbidEntree to stop posting on my talk page, but he ignored by request and did so twice here. This is a violation of rule WP:NOBAN. I know, I may not edit as frequently as her, but I still have way more back-up. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye75: Your allegations against me are, well, untrue.
    1. "First off, she is breaking the rules by not using edit summaries on Sausage Party's revision page." - A quick check shows that 100% of my edits have a summary.
    2. WP:BOWDLERIZE says that we should not alter quotes to censor profanity or offensive content, which is the opposite of what you were doing.
    3. "I have also asked MorbidEntree to stop posting on my talk page, but he ignored by request and did so twice here. This is a violation of rule WP:NOBAN." - While you can request that another user doesn't post to your talk page, sensible notices and messages are still allowed (which is all that I've posted to your talk page).
    4. Just a note: I'm a guy, not a girl. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You need a "brief" explanation in your edit summaries. You didn't add anything to the "auto" "revert" message.
    2. Someone has already explained that.
    3. A warning template is not a sensible message. I even confirmed with 2 admins a couple days ago, that you should post at another board if a user has requested you to stop.
    4. Please don't include calling someone the wrong gender under "allegations" Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In replacing a profanity from a reported quote by a euphemism, and in reverting my revert of this, User:Hawkeye75 justified the action by quoting WP:BOWDLERIZE, however these guidelines show the opposite is correct: "In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline." . . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And WP:QUOTEFARM Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What about WP:QUOTEFARM? . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It is worth noting that Hawkeye75 has made 8 talk page edits compared with 156 mainspace edits[52]. logged out edit by--Adam in MO (talk)

    Blocked – 24 hours. Three reverts are listed above, but the user made a fourth at 08:57 with the edit summary, "Undid revision 733817782 by MorbidEntree (talk) Stop edit warring". Edits made to comply with a guideline such as WP:BOWDLERIZE don't count as exceptions to 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.138.68.102 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: )

    Page
    Roy Sebag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    217.138.68.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    2. 19:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733729928 by Marianna251 (talk) Image not publicly sourced, as are other elements of this profile."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC) to 18:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
      1. 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Edits reflecting the actual level of notoriety and publicly available sources."
      2. 18:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Roy Sebag. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Edits by 217.138.68.102 */ new section"
    Comments:

    212.9.31.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just made the same deletion as the reported IP. That IP appears to be the same user, attempting to avoid reports/warnings. Marianna251TALK 14:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlecCollie reported by User:Velella (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Chapel Cleeve Manor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    AlecCollie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Present Day */"
    2. 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Present Day */"
    3. [53]
    4. [54]
    5. [55]
    6. [56]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Chapel Cleeve Manor. using TW"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [57] Rodw suggests a collaborative way forward and provides further guidance here. Uncle Milty endorses previous advice given here

    Comments:

    This is an issue that started on 5th August and has continued to the current day. Uncle Milty and I have both been involved in restoring referenced text which has been replaced by unreferenced and sanitised text. Warnings and advice has been given at User talk:AlecCollie and at User talk:Velella#Chapel cleve only to be met with some invective.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AlecCollie (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC) i have a few points to add.[reply]

    1. I know a lot more about the subject than any other the other editors. As explained I am not censoring or taking out information that is of public interested. Indeed the relationship break up, the cost of the house or for that matter any monetary or personal issue is not relevant. Ms Wilkins is an old lady who is a very private individual. Yes she sought help from a programme but this is because she wanted to save the house. Ms Wilkins is a private individual and is not a public figure. 2. The other editors don't publish the cost if their houses on their Wikipedia pages or the state of their current relationship. It is therefore not relevant to the article. 3. The comment about Ms Wilkins thinking she is a custodian of the house and the pain staking work involved in it renovation are far more relevant to the history of the Manor. 4. The previous owner (who was actually made bankrupt) is not listed, therefore the history is incomplete. Without a full history of ownership, the current details of purchase price, sale price, the financial affairs or marital\relationship status if Ms Wilkins is not relevant. 5. Lastly, I have not made any "invective" comments about another editor. According to Wikipedia it means insulting, abusive, or highly critical language. Calling someone a busy body doesn't count! EndAlecCollie (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chevyoncé reported by User:Carbrera (Result: )

    Page: This Is What the Truth Feels Like (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chevyoncé (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [58]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [59]
    2. [60]
    3. [61]
    4. [62]


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


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

    Comments:

    • The user repeatedly is labeling an entire album under several genres, when the record is not all those genres. The aforementioned is a pure pop record, but the user insists that it is also a "'punky' electropop, disco, and R&B record". This dispute is very similar to this: a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. The user's source that he or she repeatedly is using is not the most reliable when trustworthy sources like Pitchfork Media and NME are being used properly. Carbrera (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've warned both Chevyoncé and Carbrera for edit warring. I've requested temporary full protection for this page because it doesn't look like either of them are going to stop. A temporary block for both of them may be required. Marianna251TALK 08:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I never started it, I know that the source explicitly calls it R&B, hip hop and punky electro-pop, Carbrera is making it worse by cherry picking it and making my edit out like it's influenced (to be honest, Pitchfork's review says it explores pop sounds and doesn't call it a pop album or set), some people are stuck in their own ways and don't even read a source that's added and are only tunneld vision when it comes to editing) Chevyoncé (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=733974172"