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 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 17:22, 22 January 2014 (→User:Mark Marathon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warnings, protection): Closing). 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:Petesmith2013 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Indef)

    Page
    Emma Kenny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Petesmith2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 07:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC) to 07:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
      1. 07:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591354223 by Flat Out (talk)"
      2. 07:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591346810 by Flat Out (talk)"
    3. 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Ownership of articles on Emma Kenny. (TW)"
    2. 07:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of Interest on Emma Kenny. (TW)"
    3. 08:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "‎3RR Warning on Emma Kenny."
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 06:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ unreliable"
    2. 08:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */"
    3. 10:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ done"
    4. 10:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */"
    5. 10:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */"
    6. 10:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ WP is never a reliable source"
    7. 10:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ response, lead rewrite, notability"
    8. 11:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    9. 11:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ provide sources"
    10. 11:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    11. 11:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    12. 08:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "response."
    13. 08:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "response"
    14. 08:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "response"
    Comments:

    Author of article works for the subject and has a declared COI, tedious editing and exceeded 3RR Flat Out let's discuss it 11:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:96.241.218.72 reported by User:Lvivske (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Svoboda (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 96.241.218.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: version

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. RR1
    2. RR2
    3. RR3
    4. RR4
    5. RR5 (against another editor)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see warnings. Talk page discussion didn't really take off since interaction began with his accusing me of a conflict of interest to disqualify me from editing, and then accused me of disruptive editing in retaliation for my warnings. On the article talk page he accused me of "political propaganda" so I just didn't see further talking going anywhere.

    Comments:

    I realized I got to the 3-line and stopped right there. I apologize for this and am stepping back from the article while this is ongoing. The accusations of bad faith, "soap boxing" and "pushing propaganda" I think were over the line in establishing any sort of positive collaboration. User's edits removed sources (including scholarly sources) to fit their original research insertions...just messy, sticky stuff.--Львівське (говорити) 00:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Lvivske, just to be clear, my finding that the IP violated WP:3RR says nothing about the content dispute. Therefore, the fact that I blocked them does not give you permission to revert their latest edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that not like telling me I'm not allowed to edit the content at all? The user's reverts removed sources, and inserted a bunch of OR in there; any move to fix the content would fall under a 'revert' IMO --Львівське (говорити) 01:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As you yourself stated, you were up to three reverts and were (sensibly) "stepping back". I'm not saying you can't edit the content forever, but in the short-term, I think it would be wiser to get others involved in the content dispute on the talk page and for an uninvolved editor to decide what is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    oohh, sorry, thought you meant just in general to leave his as the status quo.--Львівське (говорити) 01:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Golden Prime reported by User:Flat Out (Result:24 hours)

    Page
    Tiger versus lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Golden Prime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC) to 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
      1. 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "If you persist in saboting this topic with no reason, higher authoritys will be notified"
      2. 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "You are the one using fictious sites like your self made jackjacksonj, and opinions are in the opinion catagorie jacky, as the death accounts are from credible sources along with everything crybaby"
    2. 05:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Again sabatoges revision, with no reasons, if you have a complaint, post in the talk section"
    3. 05:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "You have no reason to undo the more accurate and reliable/credible changes"
    4. 23:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591481763 by EvergreenFir (talk) whats the reason ofr undoing the post, it states the exact content on the article"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tiger versus lion. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit warring here after 3RR warning. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note- User:BigCat82 has also exceeded 3RR but they stopped after receiving a warning and engaged in discussion at my talk page, so I haven't reported them. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stack:prism reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: No action)

    Page
    India–Nepal relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    [[User:Stack:prism]|Stack:prism]]] ([[User talk:Stack:prism]|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Stack:prism]|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/Stack:prism]|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/Stack:prism]|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/Stack:prism]|block user]] · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. on User talk:Stack:prism
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Keeps inserting the unnecessary content, won't ever explain the reason behind inserting it either. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian government, which has the power to close these brothels,police the border,repatriate these enslaved women, has done virtually nothing to curb this humanitarian crisis. India's disregard shows great callousness towards Nepal. If one really believes that the governments have no responsibility in what goes on within their borders, even if it is greatly hurting another country's sovereignty, then the section about human trafficking in China-Nepal relations should be removed first, since compared to India, trafficking between China and Nepal is virtually nonexistent. It doesn't change India's situation, and I don't think either should be removed.Stack:prism (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2014 (EST)

    • In general, we block after four reverts, not three (the 3 in 3RR refers to the maximum before the rule is breached, not the minimum to breach). While we do have discretion to block for non-3RR edit warring, I don't see anything here to suggest it's needed. Please discuss on talk, and pursue dispute resolution as needed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, he tried to discuss though, now if he resumes edit warring now, may file a complaint. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mark Marathon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warnings, protection)

    Page
    Napoleon Chagnon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "The issue is not Sahlins. the issue is that the reference is just a rehash of the same work covered elsewhere."
    2. 08:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "And this is nothing less than a book a review of "Darkness at El Dorado", already covered in detail below. Failed reference checks. Material removed."
    3. 06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverting. Referrnce check failed. See talk."
    4. 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Not a reliable source. See talk."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* 3rr */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
    2. 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
    3. 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
    Comments:

    Since I only reverted each those references once at the time of reporting, this should be fairly easily resolved. The fact that one editor keeps posting the exact same material in a BLP with different, but still unreliable, references, does not violate 3RR, nor constitute edit warring. Each removal of a different reference is a different edit, not in any sense a revert. Each edit had achieved consensus on the talk page, at least to the extent that the editor didn't challenge that the reference check had failed. Instead the editor added the same sentence with a different, still unreliable, reference.

    At no stage was the edit reverted for any reason other than it failed a reference check, and hence had to be removed immediately as per WP:BLP. So clearly no edit warring on my part. It will be interesting if the mods find otherwise since the first 3 edits to reject the references had achieved consensus, and leaving the material in the article unreferenced would itself violate WP.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The material as supported by a reference to something by Marshall Sahlins in the Washington Post is by no means a BLP violation; not sure what it means to say it "failed a reference check". And no-one was proposing to leave the material without a reference. I think it's obvious there's a problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The material with the reference to Sahlins has only been reverted twice by me, and twice by you. I will point out that even you don't dispute that one of your references was not RS, and was just a Blog repeating a reference that had already been judged not RS. Some of us are now engaging in good-faith discussions about your second reference on the talk page. Meanwhile you are here making accusations of edit warring after just two reversions. There clearly is a problem here.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope others can see through the inaccuracies here. This edit adds information to the reference a different editor provided and so is not a revert; that means I've reverted once [4]. Moreover they're not "my" references (though I'm happy to stand behind the Sahlins one). The edit-warring by Mark Marathon here is obvious; it's just a case of seeing through the red herrings. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing? Not a violation of 3RR? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Still? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Three editors are warned and the article is protected two weeks. It looks to me that User:Nomoskedasticity (4 reverts since January 1), User:Mark Marathon (5 reverts) and User:Jimjilin (6 reverts) are engaged in an edit war. They are reverting some criticisms of Napoleon Chagnon (a living person) in and out of his article with no indication that consensus was obtained. I recommend that all the parties stop reverting these items until agreement is reached. Open a WP:Request for comment, use WP:RSN or follow other recommended steps of dispute resolution. It's possible that some reverts are excused by BLP but there is no reason for this to go on so long without proper closure. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.73.193.200 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    DISC assessment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    75.73.193.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591443250 by Aiko (talk)"
    2. 14:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591531277 by Aiko (talk)"
    3. 14:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591564480 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
    4. 14:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Please read entire report before posing as an expert: http://www.everythingdisc.com/UserFiles/Everything_DiSC_Research_Report_AT.pdf"
    5. 16:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "The previous statement could be said about EVERY psychological assessment (e.g., NEO-PI, CPI, 16-PF). There are, for instance, whole peer reviewed articles debunking the big 5, but this is not, and should not be, included in the headline for the big 5."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on DISC assessment. (TW)"
    2. 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on DISC assessment. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    75.73.193.200 has now made five edits to this page today. I did not report on the fourth edit as I hoped if I re-worded it and, more importantly, added sources, that would suffice as a compromise. However, the editor continues to remove the sentence. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obozedalteima reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Rape in the Bosnian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Obozedalteima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591579797 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
    2. 16:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591576690 by PRODUCER (talk)"
    3. 15:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591282656 by Praxis Icosahedron (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [5], [6], [7]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [8], [9]: "What you personally think about ICTY and newspappers IS utterly irrelevant, adn no one cares what one Muslim thinks. You are not going to send warnings to me, nor to edit my page, because NO ONE asked you about opinion, especially ahving on mind who you are"

    Comments:

    I reverted one instance of edit-warring by this editor, but have not contributed to the article myself. That said, the persistent edit warring and the tone of the comments above indicate that this editor is not willing to discuss the edits constructively. Ruby Murray 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:132.254.68.86 reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Withdrawn)

    Page: Albert, Prince Consort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 132.254.68.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16][17]

    Comments:

    User being reported has self-reverted their fourth revert [18]. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ParkinsonProject reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Pedophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ParkinsonProject (talk · talk history · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · (permalink) · block log)

    Time reported: 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

    This is an edit warring report, the editor keeps reverting unsourced and poorly-sourced challenged content back in without discussion despite multiple attempts to get the editor to engage, without any indication of stopping.

    • Initial addition of unsourced and poorly-sourced history section: [19]
    1. 01:48, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Notable historical examples */") -- revert back in Charles I of England, unsourced
    2. 01:53, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590601531 by Flyer22 (talk)")
      • [20] -- adds a bunch more unsourced and poorly-sourced
    3. 11:44, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590633517 by Frze (talk)")
    4. [21] adds more poorly-sourced to wiktionary.org and urbandictionary
    5. 19:39, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590860243 by Zad68 (talk)") - reverts wiktionary.org and urbandictionary back in
    6. 21:05, 19 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* In law and forensic psychology */ Putting back the history section.") - reverts unsourced and poorly-sourced "history" section back in
    7. 20:13, 20 January 2014 (edit summary: "Stop removing the history section. Expand it instead.") - and again
    • Diff of warning: here. Both Flyer22 and I tried to detail the problems with ParkinsonProject's edits on their User Talk here. ParkinsonProject not join Talk page discussion regarding history section here despite being ping-notified, and despite being aware that the Talk page exists as ParkinsonProject commented in another section.

    —Zad68 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be a rubbish wikipedian, but nevertheless I sincerely think the Pedophilia article needs a history section. You cannot just brand this predilection a "mental disorder" from a modern perspective, you need to have a historic perspective. User:ParkinsonProject (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's already been explained to you what is wrong with trying (because "trying" is all it would be) to include a "historic perspective." Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ephestion reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:55
    2. 20:09
    3. 20:21
    4. 21:47
    5. 22:18 (update, rv made after this report)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion ongoing on article talkpage.

    Comments:

    Highly aggressive and opinionated editing, previously through various IPs (58.170.183.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Note that the first three reverts include what appears to be a case of rather blatant source falsification: the editor is turning several statements into their exact opposite, but is leaving all the footnotes unchanged, making it seem that the previously used references now support the opposite of what they were thought to support earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Highly biased and unfair report. The edits are done because of the lack of any credibility to the current article's page and it's content. The entire page is riddled with fabricated facts and the user Future Perfect at Sunrise has refused to acknowledge the illegal use of a flag claiming to belong to the island. The article has fabricated a flag for the island and it is not even the official logo of the municipality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:204.116.3.106 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: South Carolina Gamecocks football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 204.116.3.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]
    5. [29]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

    Comments: IP user was warned twice to stop making unsourced edits to this article without seeking consensus on Talk page. User refuses to start a discussion for these edits after being prompted to do so, and instead continues to revert without edit summary. Today, user makes a bright-line violation of 3RR policy. Clearly, this anonymous user is not getting the message of how Wikipedia works, and appears to be uninterested in learning. Please help get that message across. Thank you.
    GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The pages for UNC and NCST football both list USC as a rival. This isn't some absolute matter, as the nature of rivalries is mercurial and ineffable. I have the consensus of other Wikipedia contributors on my side. User GarnetAndBlack rules that page with an iron fist, and he will not let his blatant misconception of reality stand in his way. He's also a poor dresser, and rumor has it that he doesn't brush his teeth very often. It is my recommendation that he be banned from Wikipedia, and publicly condemned for his behavior. I am willing to offer my services should it be necessary to create a Wiki page about his actions here. I am also willing to purchase for him a subscription to GQ for his own personal use. Thank you, and God bless Hogwarts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Taneyhill (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think the above pretty much speaks for itself. I rest my case. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You see what I've been dealing with here? I would like to formally recommend that user GarnetAndBlack have his name forthwith changed to "StickAndMud". As his current handle is far less appropriate. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Taneyhill (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. And as it is patently obvious that User:Steve Taneyhill is the same user as the IP, could we get a block there as well? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Kuru (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Puhlaa reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: no violation)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [32]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [33]
    2. [34]
    3. [35]
    4. [36] (This edit after edit warring warning issued on user page)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

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

    Comments:

    User has clearly broken 4RR. Last minute attempt to invoke WP:BRD does not alter this clear fact.

    I appear to have made a mess of the reporting process. Not sure what to do to sort it. Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from accused editor

    A brief history; In April of 2013, John Snow II (talk · contribs) removed the fact that chiropractic is a profession from the lede of the chiropractic article with this edit. Discussion ensued at the chiropractic talk page here, and resulted in a clear consensus to include the verifiable fact that chiropractic is a profession and an ‘approach’. This has been the stable version of the lede since the consensus in April.
    On January 17 (3 days ago) John Snow II (talk · contribs) returned to the chiropractic article and once again removed the reference to chiropractic as a profession here with a somewhat misleading edit summary "clarifying lede a little". The first link provided by Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) here shows me reverting John Snow on Jan 17; my edit summary says why I reverted and lists the talk page archive where consensus was reached last time John Snow tried this.
    Today (~60 hours later) John Snow once again removed the mention of chiropractic as a profession from the lede here. I reverted John Snow (Roxy's second diff), and restored the consensus version again. This time my edit summary directed John Snow to the talk page, where I started a thread to outline my issue with his change to the lede. Interestingly, Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) then appeared and initially reverted John Snow here stating that John Snow’s edit was "not an improvement". For unknown reasons, Roxy then changed his mind and restored John Snows controversial edit? Now Roxy and John Snow have been alternating at restoring their preferred version instead of the consensus version. At the talk page I have only received accusations of COI editing and some negative comments about chiropractic itself, but John and Roxy have chosen not to address any of the real issues I have raised; such as the fact that they are going against consensus and removing verifiable text from the lede without any discussion. Now Roxy puts a warning on my talk page, stating that I am violating WP:BRD, when I am the only one who has added any rational discussion to the talk page and my preferred version is the version that had overwhelming consensus a few months ago here. I believe that policy suggests we keep the last stable, consensus version until new consensus is reached at the talk page. There was not consensus for John Snow's controversial edit back in April and I do not see anything new here now, except that Roxy has jumped in and tried to turn the tide without any discussion first. I reverted John Snow 3 days ago and now have reverted either Roxy, or John Snow, for a combined 3 more times today. I am open to administrators recommendations/decisions here.Puhlaa (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not made negative comments about chiropractic, or you personally, Puhlaa - neither would I seek to. But it is, unfortunately, all too evident that you have a clear conflict of interest, and that puts you in the wrong here really. The right thing to do would probably be to take a break from this article for a while.John Snow II (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was involved in the discussions from last year that ended up with the "health care profession and an approach to healing" compromise consensus upset by recent edits, see the discussion in Talk archive #36 Puhlaa points to. It looked like John Snow II was involved last year in removing "profession" but didn't participate in the consensus-building discussion that followed. Although Puhlaa broke 3RR here, I think John Snow's initial edit removing "profession" without discussion and the edit summary "clarifying lede a little" is unfortunately a bit disingenuous, and I think Puhlaa is being gang-tackled a bit. I hope some administrator discretion is shown here. If I weren't involved in the content I'd lean towards closing this with full-protecting the article for a few days and directing the editors to the Talk page. Zad68 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately I would have a hard time supporting Puhlaa now that he/she has canvassed for support at the article. He contacted two editors with these two edits [[39]] and [[40]]. He did not notify anyone who disagreed with him during the old discussion just those that agreed with him. Clear definition of canvassing. VVikingTalkEdits 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was previously involved in the chiropractic article years ago and edit around medicine today; I can assure you that neither BullRangifer nor Zad68 are editors predisposed to being 'pro'-chiropractic. They're both pro good-evidence and reasoned discussion. I imagine Puhlaa contacted them because they are both excellent editors with expertise in this area and these kinds of debates. I would have done the same. Ocaasi t | c 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ocaasi, was my thought exactly. Viewmont Viking, BullRangifer will be the first to tell you that he is quite critical of chiropractic and Zad has always seemed impartial at medical articles. In the previous discussion of this same topic at chiropractic, while we had disagreements along the way, there was no dissenting opinion remaining by the end (at least no one that spoke up), we all agreed with the final text. As such, there was no one to notify that disagreed with the previous outcome and I did not think it would matter who I notified about the current discussion.Puhlaa (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was notified of this controversy, and I'm glad I was. I'm a notorious chiroskeptic, having once been named, on the front cover of a chiropractic magazine, as "Chiropractic Enemy #1", an honor I share with Dr. John W. Kinsinger, as well as having my life and the lives of my children threatened for my skeptical writings about chiropractic. Puhlaa knows that, but also knows that I'm fair and know the rules here. He, even though a chiropractor, happens to also be a reasonable editor who faithfully maintains the NPOV status of the article. His COI has not been a factor here. He has often allowed negative content into the article because it was properly sourced. That shows that he is not allowing his COI to get in the way of being a good wikipedian.
    John Snow II's edit summaries are clearly disengenuous, and his intention to edit war his nonconsensus version is rather obvious. BRD shouldn't have to be invoked with him, as he is not a newbie. He knows how it works. Already after his BOLD edit was Reverted, and he repeated his BOLD edit, that's the exact point when he began to edit war and 3RR need not be invoked against him. It's not BRBRD. In such cases, a block is already deserved for edit warring. He should simply know better than to edit war. Yes, Puhlaa got carried away and didn't notice he was close to violating 3rr. That's too bad, but he certainly was supporting the longstanding consensus version. Since that version is now restored, I think the Solomonic solution here is to drop this matter, as this report is brought in bad faith by someone who supported the edit war to begin with, and dragged Puhlaa into it. Just drop this and let's get on with our lives. The article is now back in balance, and John Snow II had better not start such disruption again. The talk page should have been used instead of edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I agree - we really shouldn't edit war, so I've heeded my own advice and taken a break from this one too. The edit was not disingenuous, or even particularly bold, but when tempers flare it's not a good use of anyone's time slugging it out. John Snow II (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation. The claimed 3RR (4RR sic) requires four reverts within a 24 hour period. Clearly, there's a heated discussion and it would be a good idea to conclude the discussion on the talk page before making any other reverts here. Kuru (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Kuru. I understand what you have said and there will be no more reverts from me before discussion is concluded at the chiropractic talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I should learn to count and read dates properly for the next time. I apologise for wasting editors time (and the time of any health professionals involved)--Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.32.136.75 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month)

    Page
    Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    68.32.136.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Please note
    Ayn Rand is under 1RR/week restriction under discretionary sanctions. IP has been informed of that prior to their last reversion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC) "please provide an explanation instead of propagandizing wikipedia readers by perpetuating false myths around Rand's legacy. there is no justification to keep the word statism and it contradicts wiki's own article"
    2. 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "wiki's own statism article says minarchism is a type of statism. you can't say she opposes statism and supports minarchism. the term 'anarchism' includes collectivist strains, and [state] collectivism better termed as state socialism"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Ayn Rand */ new section"
    2. 23:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Ayn Rand */ Adding detail per RL0919. Thank you."
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ comment"
    2. 23:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ It looks like a sock"
    3. 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ comment"
    Comments:

    IP is also a probable sock. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 1 month. The block on the original account is expired, so I've just put an AE block in place for violating the restriction. Set for 1 month since this is not his first block for this. Kuru (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.214.117.177 reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Allan Sandage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    71.214.117.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC) "citation"
    2. 04:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 01:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 20:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "cite book"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Allan Sandage. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Won't stop with refspam... no attempt at discussion. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chuz Life reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Beginning of human personhood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chuz Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [41]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    • Number zero: [42] 20:07, January 18. User Chuz Life adds text and sources in a series of four edits, including the word "recognizes". Not a revert.
    1. [43] 21:34, January 20. Restores the word "recognizes".
    2. [44] 06:06, January 21. Restores text added earlier.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Comments:
    The text added initially by Chuz Life included leading language that biased the reader toward a conclusion that life starts at conception and that abortion is murder. One example was the sentence starting "The law recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim..." I found the word "recognizes" to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it assumes the truth of the statement. I changed the sentence to start "The law defines a fetus as a legal victim..."[48] Chuz Life reverted to the preferred word "recognizes".[49] Following this, Chuz Life performed one more reversion, violating the 1RR established at abortion articles, the restriction having been explained to the editor by MastCell, and a warning placed at the article talk page by myself. The 1RR status was thus known to Chuz Life at the time of the second reversion.

    In responding to my 1RR notice and request to self-revert to avoid consequences, Chuz Life said that if it takes getting a ban then "so be it." Rather than self-reverting, Chuz Life next performed this further edit to the article. This indicates the user is not willing to abide by 1RR.

    Chuz Life is involved solely in the topic of abortion. The editor established the username L.L. Brown in 2010 then soon changed to Chuz Life. A week ago, Chuz Life reappeared after a break of three years. The editor went to the talk page of Beginning of human personhood and proposed a novel interpretation of U.S. law. This proposal got no answer at all, so Chuz Life went ahead and implemented it. No attempt has been made on the article's talk page to engage this editor. Quite a bit of discussion about this material has, however, been carried out at Talk:Abortion debate#Constitutional Arguments section(s) needed and at Talk:Abortion debate#4.2.2 Fetal Personhood debate edit request. Binksternet (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To all who are concerned and involved in this matter; it is 3:00 am at my location and I would like to have a fair chance to respond to these allegations as soon as possible and time permitting - tomorrow. The user: Binksternet has several things in error about my posts and indeed about the chronology of my account, name etc. For the user's information, I originally created my account under the name "Chuz Life" three years ago and in anticipation of a reaction such as yours, Binksternet, I changed it to my actual initials and last name. This is but one of the several errors in your allegation.
    Again, I hope to resume this discussion, my defense and my participation on Wikipedia as soon as possible - tomorrow. Your patience and understanding is appreciated. In the interim, if senior editors reading this would be so kind as to visit the talk pages where I attempted to reach a consensus on my edits, you will likely agree that I was the participant putting forth the most effort to abide by the rules, work towards a consensus, productive dialogue, etc. And I still would like to be able to work together with some of the more experienced editors on these additions because I believe them to be informative and relevant. I digress. I'm tired. Thank you for your time.L.L. Brown (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I don't see any defense to the violation. However, Chuz Life can make any defense on their talk page if they wish. Although not relevant to the block, as I understand what happened, Chuz Life did create User:L.L. Brown initially and then changed it to Chuz Life. He customizes his signature to read L.L. Brown.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 reported by User:Synthwave.94 (Result: Warned)

    Page: Radio Ga Ga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [50]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [51]
    2. [52]
    3. [53]
    4. [54]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

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

    Comments:

    Genre warring and violation of WP:SYNTH by the same way.

    User:Franek K. reported by User:Sobiepan (Result: Warned)

    There has been problems with him in the past [56] [[57]] (two linguists involved)--Sobiepan (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    On Lechitic languages

    On West Slavic languages

    --Sobiepan (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sobiepan make new controversial changes, enter non-neutral changes (POV), and also changes without consensus. I reverted his editions with description of the changes. Also, both got a warning here. I stopped the edit-war. Franek K. (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RR is a brightline rule, meaning that even if you disagree with another editor's changes, you don't get to make more than three reverts in 24 hours, ever, unless you are reverting something that is obviously vandalism or a significant BLP problem. If you have problems with edits that Sobiepan makes, take it to the talk page - don't edit war. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Sorry. Franek K. (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sobiepan reported by User:Franek K. (Result: Warned)

    On Lechitic languages

    On West Slavic languages

    Franek K. (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • The three revert rule says you can make three reverts. From the diffs you provided, it looks like Sobiepan stopped at three reverts, whereas you went higher than that. Sobie's behavior isn't perfect, but Sobie did stop before the brightline rule was crossed. Since this involves silliness from both of you, as long as you agree to not revert war and to try to work out a consensus on the talk page, I'm not going to block you for a 3rr violation. I would prefer if you self-reverted your violation of the three revert rule, though. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    if it is not 3RR (although no doubt, this is edit-warring), I authorize the removal of my notice. Franek K. (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that neither of you have behaved perfectly, which is why I didn't block either of you. I would advise both of you to take disputes to talk, and refrain from making any further reverts. (If editwarring continues, I will be likely to block.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.112.42.106 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: )

    Page: Cold-fX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.112.42.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [74]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [75]
    2. [76]
    3. [77]
    4. [78]
    5. [79]
    6. [80]
    7. [81]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83] and [84]

    Comments:


    User:H2ppyme reported by User:Djsasso (Result: )

    Page: Jaanus Sorokin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: H2ppyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [85]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 06:26, 21 January 2014‎
    2. 07:33, 21 January 2014‎
    3. 08:44, 21 January 2014‎
    4. 08:56, 22 January 2014‎

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

    Callanecc warned that any editor that changed the birth location when the protection expired without a new absolute consensus would be blocked.


    Comments: The protection expired the day before yesterday and immediately the page was changed by H2ppyme and another edit war resumed. H2ppyme has since done 4 reverts in slightly over 24 hours when he was warned not to do any by another admin. Previous consensus had been reached in this discussion and others that for hockey bios we use the compromise version of "City, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" instead of either extreme of just Soviet Union or just Estonia. If other editors want to change that a discussion is needed and more than welcome but until then there should be no edit warring. I am involved so I have brought the request to block here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is long-term edit warring behaviour, as this editor has attempted to enforce their personal preference against consensus (or, at the very least, non-consensus to change) on several occasions. Reverting runs are evident in their edit history from December 18 and December 4 related to hockey players, and they have been warring on the Estonia vs. Estonia SSR debate since at least 2011, if not earlier. Resolute 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=591893887"