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 Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 13:06, 23 April 2011 (→User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: ): blocked). 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:SISPCM reported by Nmate (talk) (Result: stale)

    Page: John Hunyadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1][2]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

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

    1. 12:21, 17 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424218857 by Hobartimus (talk)")
    2. 19:17, 17 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424563560 by Hobartimus (talk)")
    3. 13:33, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424676474 by Nmate (talk)")
    4. 15:08, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424696708 by Nmate (talk)")




    Comments:
    Yesterday, I found myself in an edit war with the user I am reporting here. And albeit ,technically, there was no violation of 3RR going on there, the user has been consecutively made as many as 4 reverts, remainig out of 24 hour timeframe, which is officially imposed by the 3RR rule without having started any discussion on the talk page of the John Hunyadi article, while I expressed my intention on the talk page of this user that I want to discuss edits instead of edit warring. But of course I can't do that on my own. Also, It is important to note that user:Hobartimus ,who too made some reverts there, is also willing to discuss edits as his active presence on the talk page of this article speaks for itself --Nmate (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The above user is lying. He never attempted to settle the issue in a civic manner, he simply reverted to the un-encyclopedic and contentious edit made by an anon. IP. User Hobartismus is part of a group of three Hungarian editors (together with user:Fakirbakir and User:Hobartimus) imposing their POV using mutual support, hectoring Romanian, Slovak, Serbian and other users with debased tactics like unjustified accusations in edit summaries, threatening and harassment. SISPCM (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the above user, SISPCM is acting as a proxy for the banned user:Iaaasi, editing on his behalf. He might be a straight up sock of the banned user, or might be a simple meatpuppet. The above comment is even written in the usual style of Iaaasi who has a severe case of hatred against Hungarians. Please note this recent communication with the banned user which indicates further off-wiki communication. [4]. Hobartimus (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A few recent edits of the banned user:Iaaasi are as follows [5] [6], please compare against the edits in the report. More information on the banned editor Iaaasi here[7] Hobartimus (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SISPCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also removing sourced contents in Aryan wiki page. It is not the first time. He has already been banned for this a few months ago.Rajkris (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LevenBoy reported by User:Armbrust (Result: Protected )

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

    Page: Peter Edwards (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 16:54, 12 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423690701 by HighKing (talk)POV removal of disputed term")
    2. 18:24, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423854197 by HighKing (talk)")
    3. 16:18, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424599137 by Eliaspalmer (talk)Revert obvious sock")
    4. 16:11, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424731315 by HighKing (talk)nope, definitely a sock, and a POV pushing one at that")
    5. 16:30, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424877474 by Snowded (talk)Revert. I thought you'd given up on this, but clearly you like the disruption")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Page: Neil Robertson (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Time reported: 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 20:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424911661 by SmackBot (talk)")
    2. 20:41, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424910621 by Domer48 (talk)See Talk")
    3. 20:51, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424913340 by Armbrust (talk)It doesn't match the surce - do I need to spell it out in words of one syllable? see Talk (and UK & I is not better)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • NOTE: LemonMonday another SPA account who edits in tandem with LevenBoy is now up to six reverts on the same article, three within in the last 24 hours together with some failures of WP:AGF on the talk page. The behaviour of these two really needs some admin attention--Snowded TALK 06:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it weird what a small wiki-world it is? No offense about the autopatrolled mess, Armbrust, seriously :> LevenBoy has only one goal: to insert the term British Isles in as many articles as possible. I'm quite familiar with this editor, and this is a SPA account if there ever was one. I suspect there are others involved, and this goes back a long way. Even if there isn't a technical 3RR violation (I see only 3 reverts vs. the usual 4 required to file a report), LevenBoy is acting disruptively as usual. Doc talk 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptively eh! I suggest you check the facts here - carefully, like none of the anti British Isles POV pushers have done. I mean it! Check the edit history of that article, check the text in the article and how it matches the reference that I'm proposing, and check how the other reference being offfered does not match the text of the article, but do it carefully, it's a bit unclear in parts. However, you will see I'm tyotally correct in my assertions and the other editors are simply desparate to do anything not to include the term "British Isles". LevenBoy (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot rightly call other editors "POV pushers" when you engage in the exact same behavior. There are two sides to this coin and you know it. Why can you simply not move beyond this narrowest of topics and edit constructively? I have always wondered that... Doc talk 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your question is irrelevant, but did you study the detail of this case, including the article Talk page? If so, what is your conclusion, because I'm getting to the point of thinking that some of the contributiors at that page are being less than sincere. LevenBoy (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial edit warrior and SPA account, works in tandem with another SPA LemonMonday (see edit history of the pages referenced above. Issues appear minor but consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour, rarely engages with content. Aggressive comments and accusations against other editors are also par for the course. --Snowded TALK 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please address the issue of the discussion rather than proffering your opinions as per the above. I would also welocme your view on the facts of this matter as described at the Talk page, where, I'm sure you know I'm right. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about the "bigger picture" LevenBoy. You are an edit-warrior, you are a SPA, and any specifics of any case with you inevitably boil down to your reverting other editors on the British Isles issue. No matter how much time you take off. I am shocked you have lasted as long as you have. Seriously. Doc talk 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on! You're just miffed because you were blown out on that stupid sock report you filed where you thought me and TritonRocker were the same person. LevenBoy (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really: we all make mistakes. But you continue to make the same ones time and again. You cannot get beyond edit-warring to make your point, and it's disruptive. Doc talk 22:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And your comments on the facts of the matter - the real matter that is, concerning the bastardisation of a source text? LevenBoy (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The issue here is a behavioral one. In general you edit war rather than use the talk page. It was behavioral evidence that resulted in the sock report on Triton Rocker and also on Lemon Monday. OK it was shown that you were not using the same IP address but there was more than enough justification for the report. While the immediate issue is 3rr, there is a strong argument for a topic ban--Snowded TALK 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well actually no, it's 2RR if you look at the facts (yes, try it some time). Two of the "reverts" were actaully a single one due to the intended revert having been superseded by a bot. LevenBoy (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called "gaming the system". I think your disruption far exceeds your constructive content, and your guerrilla warfare tactics are tiresome and predictable. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Doc talk 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Gaming the system includes things like PRODing articles simply because they contain the words "British Isles". One could, perhaps, level the same accusation against you - you're more concerned with admin stuff like this. Anyway, what about the discussion in hand. What is your view on the assertiong being made at the talk page? LevenBoy (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm done with this thread. Hopefully the closing admin will see this for what it is and make the correct decision. This has gone on for far too long. Doc talk 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend that an SPI be done on the LevenBoy & LemonMonday accounts as possible socks of User:MidnightBlueMan. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend you crawl back under your slimey little stone. Every time there's any issue such as this up you pop with your stupid suggestions about SPI or whatever other idiotic thing comes into your mind. Why not try addressing the matter in hand for a change? Try commenting on my assertions at the Talk page in question, since no-one else has bothered to do so yet, merely being content, like you, to bang on about SPIs, SPAs and other such irrelevances. LevenBoy (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, this lame fight over inclusion/exclusion of British Isles across Wikipedia, should be ended with blocks to accounts that begin adding or deleting BI in articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough I agree. There are few, if any, editors trying to add it, but a veritable army, well a platoon at least, of them trying to get rid of it. And sorry about the slimey stone stuff, but you can be most annoying at times. LevenBoy (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: I'v suggseted a compromise to the above issue at User talk:Ged UK#No personal attacks ? Maybe we wait to see what he thinks. If the compromise is accepted we can all move on unscathed. LemonMonday Talk 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's very creative. It defies logic that LevenBoy would have gone to that much trouble to trace that edit before he inserted the phrase for his very first edit to the article. You should bring it up on the article's talk page where others who have edited the article beyond inserting the term can see it and consensus will form, instead of the admin's. This is strictly about the edit-warring issue on this board, and it seems that nothing is going to be done about it anyway. Doc talk 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DeadSend4 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi )

    Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DeadSend4 (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]

    See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above

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

    See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    User:DeadSend4, aside from being uncivil, indeed borderline abusive, at his latest talk-page comments here, is apparently attempting to evade his block (See Nicole Kidman history here) through anon IP 24.92.19.152, which, despite this being its one-and-only edit, makes the same wholesale reversion that DeadSend4 has been making.

    Another of the multiple editors he is warring with, User:Crohnie, also noted this at the above talk-page post. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    User:68.99.91.135 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 48h )

    Page: Nanuet, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 68.99.91.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    See contribs. TwoThree (third added since posting this) edits today, but this same edit pattern goes back to November and has been reverted by a number of independent editors.

    The IP editor persistently adds the same para of text to the same article. It's not an unreasonable edit at first sight, but it makes three claims that should be, but aren't, referenced. As it has been regularly reverted by others, it needs a reference before it can be added, per standard policy.

    I came to this editor's contribs through POV statements (similarly repetitive) on an unrelated article. As it's an IP, then it may not be the same editor.

    There has been no communication from this editor, by either edit summary, response to warning templates, or through talk pages.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Comments:


    Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sam Degelia reported by User:Nkgal (Result: 72h )

    Page: Charles Harrelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sam Degelia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [9]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:28, 20 April 2011

    Comments:

    This user has had a periodic edit war on this article since February 2009, and was blocked for it in April 2009, but returned in 2010 and again this month. User:Kww, an admin, semi-protected the page since the user was switching between their login and their IP address, though they've continued to edit the talk page using their IP address. The user has been trying to refocus a section on a tertiary character by citing a file they uploaded to the Commons. I've been trying to remove that citation, explaining Wikipedia can't be used to cite itself. The file they uploaded has been already deleted twice for copyright violations. The user has had no edits on other articles, or even in other sections of this one article. Given their username, there's also a strong possibility that they have a conflict of interest. Looking for a little help!--Nkgal (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tgandz reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: User indef blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [12]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

    Comments:

    Palestinian people, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction.

    Please read this editor's edit summaries to get a sense of where her/his head is. Consideration should be given to a long-term, possible indef, block. Frankly, I would have done it myself were I not involved. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind. I see that User:Tgandz was indef-blocked while I typed this notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dimestore reported by User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish (Result: Protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [16]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

    Comments: Editor has been warned about edit warring, but has continued. No attempt has been made to reach a consensus. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RESPONSE: This was my reply to Catfish Jim's message to me regarding the edit war:

    '"Hi,

    thanks for your e-mail. I just saw it. I changed the sentence again but if it is reverted, I'll avoid the edit war. I already put the explanation in the talk page, otherwise I'll just appeal to place a POV tag on the article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimestore (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)"'

    If the understanding was that I changed it AFTER reading the message, then it is wrong. I had changed it PRIOR to reading his message, which is why I had wrote "I just saw it," meaning I had just seen the warning AFTER I made the final edit to correct the POV sentence that is threatening the neutrality of the Kent Hovind article. A warning is not necessary. A consensus has not been reached because nobody has made any replies to my explanations in the talk page. I am willing to reach consensus. Those, however, who wish to push a POV statement and present it as fact are not. I have presented my case to both WP:RSN and WP:NPOV to dispute the contentious sentence.Dimestore (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Interferometrist reported by User:86.183.175.94 (Result: Already protected)

    Interferometometrist keeps reverting the article Vacuum Tube to incude an invalid definitionn of a term.

    Last reversion here: here

    I have requested a citation that the term is as he claims here

    His reaction is to simply delete the tag here

    I am perfectly entitled to challenge material added where it is incorrect. I am also perfectly entitled to remove unsourced material. Interferometrist has sought to effectively prevent my challenging his inaccurate information by getting the article protected so that I can't challenge him. This seems to be an abuse of the protection of articles. It isn't there to prevent invalid information being challenged. 86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And the citation neded tag has once more been deleted here claiming that no citation is needed. This goes against WP:VERIFY

    86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a discussion on the article's talk page that Interferometrist has been referring to. Instead of trying to get Interferometrist sanctioned for edit warring (which you're also guilty of if they are), you should keep on discussing it on the article's talk page. Also, Interferometrist, by what I see, did not protect the page or request its protection. It was done by another editor. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the user/pagelinks for convenience, by the way.
    Zakhalesh (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. But I was just about to request the page protection (actually I should have done so a while back when we had another edit war over terminology) when someone with less patience for this crap went ahead and did the obvious thing. As far as no {CN} being needed, I invited reactions on the talk page. Anyone can thus reinstate it (but if it's done by DieSwartzPunkt I will revert that too, as he well knows). Interferometrist (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw your intent to request page protection and was prepared to decline it if it was a request for semi. Content disputes need to be worked out on the talk page, not in edit summaries, not in revert wars, and not here on this ANI page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I surely agree with you about settling content disputes on the talk page. I did adress the content there when this initially arose, but it went way beyond content when this person continued to waste our time rather than seriously listening to what he was being told. This case was more clear-cut, by the way, than the previous case where you DID (briefly) grant semi-protection to this page when he was also wasting our time over a different linguistic concern (this person has been on a long crusade to rid WP of American English in favor of British English, but automatically assumes that any term he hasn't heard must be "American" -- as I've disproved -- and begins an edit war with that petty motivation).
    He even admits that he didn't understand the issue initially but then invents a different and PURELY LINGUISTIC issue: that two words which are synonyms (in the context) are not to be interchanged because HE had never heard of one. There are 134 editors watching this page and none of them felt that his {CN} was needed when I invited anyone else to revert my removal of the tag if they felt it was needed (although someone did finally add references at that position to shut him up, but those actually detract from the article where the use of the term was incidental to the purpose of the discussion). The wording he felt so strongly about removing as "unsourced" had been in the article since 2005 as "high-gain" until some time ago when I overhauled portions of the article I made it more precise: "high voltage gain," both of which meant "high mu," a more technical (and obscure) term which is synonymous with "voltage gain" (and I include both terms in the recent versions).
    I'm not interested in this particular issue so much as being able to edit without defining every little term that one person fails to have heard of. A NORMAL person (who isn't out to pick an edit war) will go educate themselves or at least discuss their concerns on the talk page (constructively) rather than spending one minute adding a tag just to waste other people's time (the purpose of adding citations is to back up FACTS, not language usage when the article isn't about linguistics). If I spend an hour (or 2 or 3) editing an article to make Wikipedia better, then I'm happy with what I have done and feel my time was well spent. If I spend an hour (or more!) dealing with disruptive behaviour by this or other anonymous editors trying to pick a fight, my time has been wasted. For the sake of Wikipedia, editing good content shouldn't have to involve this sort of hassle and I'd be happier if every editor were forced to take responsibility for their entire history of edits, not just the ones that you can trace to the IP address they've been using for the last week :-( Interferometrist (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.194.239.60 reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: 2 weeks)

    Anonymous user (IP address of 68.194.239.60) is causing problems on several articles including Puerto Rican people, Dominican immigration to Puerto Rico‎, and Puerto Ricans in the United States‎. User is apparent sockpuppet of banned editor User:Afrodr. Others editors such as User:SamEV have reverted edits and and have pointed the fact that user is posting unbased claims with no concrete evidence. I require some help here on what to do as I have reverted an article three times, but do not want to cross the 3RR rule. Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your help. I have reverted all his unconstructive edits. he apparently cursed me out on my talk page, but that was removed by an administrator keeping an eye on the situation/--XLR8TION (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Traditha reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: Discussion moved to ANI)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [25]


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

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

    Comments:
    In addition to the 3RR warning and the article's Talk page I made the following attempts to engage the editor in discussion: 1 2 3 4

    I also sought help from the WP:SOAPS community here

    The edits this person is making are entirely unsourced, made up of original research, completely in-universe, and notability hasn't been established. Not only are Wikipedia guidelines not being followed but even the soap opera project's guidelines are being ignored (here).

    I've also left messages in my edit summaries: 1 2 3

    It was a different editor who initially trimmed the article down here

    I know that I'm guilty of edit-warring myself but I was really trying to get the editor to engage in discussion and honestly trying keep the article from being unencyclopedic. Thus far the editor has refused to even acknowledge my attempts at discussion or even leave any kind of edit summary. SQGibbon (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note Looks like admin intervention is needed, as you've got multiple issues going on here, with possible tag teaming/sock puppetry at work from Big BLA (talk · contribs). According to the talk page of User talk:Traditha and the article talk page, you've tried to engage this user in discussion since February 2011 with no success. More to the point, the user has made 205 edits to articles and zero edits to user or talk pages.[32] Based on the evidence, I think User:Traditha requires a block for failing to respond to repeated queries, for refusing to work collaboratively with other editors, and for edit warring and introducing OR to Wikipedia. I also recommend an SPI on Big BLA and Traditha. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this be closed and then I report it to ANI? SQGibbon (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe report it to ANI first? Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've basically copied my report here over to ANI. Thanks for the advice. SQGibbon (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:212.124.170.220 reported by User:John (Result: 24h)

    Page: 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 212.124.170.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Adds material


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:212.124.170.220

    No recent talk page discussion, but the article has long been subject to shall we say nationalistic editing. I just added this to try to resolve the situation but I am reluctant to get involved in a discussion if this user is just going to revert their preferred version ad infinitum. I'd like this anon editor to get a block or a stern warning about edit-warring. Obviously I am not able to do it as I reverted the addition once. --John (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment As far as I can tell from the diffs, the IP was warned about edit warring at 19:20 on their talk page just after making their third revert. However, they ignored the warning and made a fourth revert at 20:20. The IP has been edit warring with two other users. Although Wikipedia culture frowns upon commenting on content, I don't subscribe to that POV. Looking at the edits in question, it appears that a compromise is possible, such that both edits can be combined. I say this, because the IP's source (BBC News) mentions an "Italian defence ministry" report which may also be included in the UNEP report. A compromise is therefore possible such that both POV can be presented. The NGO in question, "l'Association nationale des familles des victimes des Forces armées" (ANAVAFAF) may or may not be notable, I don't know. But the fact remains, the IP is using a secondary source from 2007 to make their claims while the competing editors are using a primary from 2002. Granted, a pressure group isn't the best source for medical claims, but the BBC News report mentions at least one other study. I think the IP's point can be preserved if it is rewritten to adhere closer to the source and attribute the claim to "Anavafaf". If this is not possible, then use the talk page to explain why not. However, it is clear that the IP was wrong to attribute the claim to a nebulous entity referred to as "European non-governmental groups" when the source clearly says "Anavafaf", and to specifically claim that the use of weapons with cancer-causing depleted uranium was the cause of their deaths when that is not known or actually claimed by the source in question. If these speculative claims rise to the level of significant source coverage, then they should be added in a neutral manner. If not, they should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 3RR violation, and this edit summary is unacceptable - even if POVs can be combined. Administrator John is reminded not to use the rollback tool is a dispute. If the IP evades the block, feel free to request protection on my talk page or at RFPP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Financeguy222 reported by User:Insider201283 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Amway Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Financeguy222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [37]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

    Comments:1. It would be appreciated if you could revert the page to the version with my hard work if any blocks are added! 2. I placed a 3RR warning on FG222's page, he removed it[44].

    --Insider201283 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Charges of conflict of interest aside, the user is engaging in little constructive talk and blanket reverting. The way to handle a conflict of interest this is surely not, especially after requests to do otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Owain the Ist (Result: 1 week)

    This editor has continually reverted well sourced information without any discussion or excuse.He has done it again and again in the following articles and others.

    [45]1

    [46]2

    [47]3

    [48]4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Great minds think alike: :Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Owain the 1st Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cannot see that they do actually as you never reported the guy responsible for vandalism and I did.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Others have complained about him reverting/editing stuff without reason as well. [49]1 [50]2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Andres has been blocked for a week I believeOwain the 1st (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Adotrde reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: PP)

    Page: Robb Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 09:06, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Speaking and networking */ restoring info with citation")
    2. 10:20, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424832589 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) What? Read about Streaming Faith -- most definitely relaible and notable")
    3. 10:37, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424835602 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) "Revert-wars do not help build consensus" Before reverting, please post on the talk page...sthg I have been doing.")
    4. 14:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "added two new refs from City News Singapore (one refs him as speaking to business group, one includes info on talking to govs) / added one new ref from The Christian Post")
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51], [52]

    Comments:

    • These edits amount to an on-going effort to peddle the notion that Thompson is an advisor to business and government leaders. I have added {{fv}} to the source originally provided for this claim and have made a case that alternatives provided do not satisfy WP:RS. The fourth removal of {{fv}} subsequent to a 3RR notice today puts this editor into >3RR territory, and a block is warranted to reinforce the message that the talk page -- not repeated edits -- should be used to form consensus for this sort of change.

    —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I changed the sources; I didn't believe I was reverting. Just because one editor disagrees with me on whether a source is reliable or not (one of which is KTBN-TV and the other Streaming Faith (the world's largest online faith based broadcasting portal)). OK, the editor disagreed on both of those sources, so to save ourselves from ongoing back and forth, I researched and found new sources and instead of "no citation given" which Nomoskedasticity added, I replaced them with the new citations. I've been referencing everything I was doing on the talk page. I really don't see what I did wrong? If I was simply reverting him, I understand, but I wasn't. I only undid him once (without editing the article) because I felt my sources were genuine and he didn't discuss it on the talk page (I asked him to discuss it on the talk page in my edit summary when reverting). Adotrde (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected The fourth edit isn't really a revert. However, there is definitely a dispute on the article, so I am protecting it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Stale Unfortunately, this report is three days old (although it was reported at the time of the edit warring), and I see edit warring on both sides. However, if you wish to report a user for tendentious editing (e.g., improperly removing {{fv}} tags), by all means I recommend taking the issue to WP:ANI. However, I highly recommend to both sides to be wary of a) edit warring, b) the WP:BRD cycle, and c) WP:BLP. Editors are warned that blocks may be placed in the future for violation of any of these principles, even if 3RR is not specifically broached. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:3456truth reported by User:GabrielF (Result: Protected)

    Page: American Israel Public Affairs Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 3456truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 13:43 April 20th [53]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] I should have gone to the talk page earlier in this process, but I referred to 3RR when I did.[65]. Additionally, I brought the situation up at the NPOV noticeboard.[66]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67][68][69]


    Comments:

    User:DeusExa reported by User:Msnicki (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [70]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75], [76], [77]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

    Comments:Numerous attempts have been made to request discussion, in edit summaries by me("Once again restoring a useful sentence that's been here over 1000 edits. Before undoing, please discuss on talk page.") and 66.59.249.107 ("It was here before; if you want it removed, discuss it first in the talk page."), on the article talk page and on the editor(s)' talk pages. The editor is simply refusing to discuss his edits and not even providing useful edit summaries. Moreover, there's reason to doubt the editor is acting in good faith, given that he's added a statement to the UC Berkeley that's remarkably similar to the one he insists on deleting from the Stanford article.

    Msnicki (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is one big difference: the material removed from the Stanford article is without sources, and the material added to the Berkeley article has a source for each claim. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (a) There are no sources there, but if you follow the links to the articles for the companies listed, you will find the sources. (b) That would be a lot more interesting argument if it was was DeusExa, not you, making it. (c) There appears to be a consensus supporting having the sentence. That matters on WP. (d) I didn't write it. Msnicki (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: )

    Page: Passover Seder Plate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:47, 21 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by 99.32.190.213")
    2. 19:59, 21 April 2011 (edit summary: "you don't get to inject your own opinions here")
    3. 20:46, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "rv again")
    4. 20:47, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie")
    5. 20:51, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie")
    Note, User:Ohnoitsjamie, being an admin has blocked the IP who made the edits he was reverting

    —Pi (Talk to me! ) 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a clear cut case of repeat NPOV editing. I gave him plenty of warnings, which were ignored. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I interpreted the edits (yesterday and today) is that firstly 69... removed a paragraph and put a POV edit summary in, and rightfully you restored it. However, it's the 4 times that you removed the word minority without going to the talk page, or going to the user talk page with an attempt to find mutually satisfying wording (for example specifying specific Jewish groups which do or don't use the orange) which I think is poor form for an experienced admin. In my opinion, just because an editor has a POV and is changing the meaning of a paragraph it doesn't mean that the original paragraph was neutral, or even more neutral than the IP's edits. Pi (Talk to me! ) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note I find the edit warring entirely unacceptable. ONJ only left boilerplate messages on the IP talk page, didn't bother to use the real talk page, and used the rollback tool. If I am to treat ONJamie as any other user, I would block him for 24 hours, and reduce the block time on the IP (the IP is using such language as "arbitration" which clearly shows the IP is aware of Wikipedia policies, and thus 3RR). But frankly, I don't feel like dealing with another shitfest on my talk page, so I'll just leave my comment and recommendation for a few hours and wait to see if another administrator responds. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am somewhat suspicious with the IPs first edit here, removing the whole section that was later warred over with the edit summary "(This is an abomination and a disgrace to Jewish culture.)". If someone started a long dispute with that and I was an uninvolved admin I might react as Jamie did here. However, I don't know if he was uninvolved or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're going to assume that this was the administrator mistaking the edits for POV pushing to the point of disruption, then a) we should reprimand the administrator for not paying attention, as the last 4 changes were not outright POV pushing, and frankly the behavior wasn't bad at all, and b) either block both of them or unblock the IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thoughts are that while the initial edit by the IP that blanked the paragraph was unacceptable POV, subsequent edits were more reasonable (as far as I know making a rash POV edit doesn't mean you can't subsequently make an edit in a better way, as the IP did). ONJ made 5 revisions, with the last 4 being to basically remove the term "minority", which may be more accurate than the original text (I don't feel I know enough about the issue to say which version I prefer). Although ONJ says he gave warnings, all these warnings were simply the template warnings, and I'd have thought he could just as easily have tried to discuss the wording on the talkpage. I'm also not convinced that removing the word "minority" is less POV than putting it in. It would appear to me that two editors who disputed whether or not the word "minority" should appear in the sentence repeatedly reverted each other until the one who was an admin blocked the other for 3RR (while making 4 reverts himself). Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamie seems to be mistaken in his edits here. This is not POV pushing as a quick check online and in the source quoted in the article shows the oranges are not really catching on. It is not vandalism either. I think they should both be blocked for edit warring, or the IP should be unblocked. Since no 3RR warnings were issued to the IP and they did not discuss on the talk page, I would suggest unblocking the IP. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops there is a wee conversation on the talk page; Jamie says if you continue to remove it you'll be blocked. But the IP did not continue to remove it. He changed the wording. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamie has not edited for three hours so this might have to wait till morning to be resolved. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've encountered this before from an admin, who I locked an article on. It's entirely unacceptable to act this way. It's either negligence in not bothering to read any of the four diffs while fighting vandalism, or it's intentionally disregarding the rules. i stlll think that a) a block on the IP was appropriate, and b) a block on the admin would also be appropriate, unless ONJ comes clean and can admit fault where it lies. Self-criticism is a vitally important tool in all of life . And meting out justice blindly, without regard for someone's title, is also important (thus, if the IP also were to come clean, I would say an unblock be appropriate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR? DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This is after consideration that
    • the evidence shows that Ohnoitsjamie has edit-warred,
    • the preceding discussion shows that other editors agree about this,
    • Ohnoitsjamie as an administrator is presumed not to need warnings about the edit-warring policy,
    • of the five edits Ohnoitsjamie reverted, only the first was vandalism (removing lots of sourced text for no clear reason) and thus exempt from the prohibition against edit-warring, while the subsequent four ([79], [80], [81] and [82]) were not vandalism but reflected a content disagreement,
    • Ohnoitsjamie did not avail themselves of the opportunity presented by this report to revert themselves, and
    • Ohnoitsjamie's blocking of the IP editor they edit-warred with is a clear abuse of administrator tools, which were used to win the content dispute and the edit war.
    I am not unblocking the IP because they edit-warred as well and have not made an unblock request. Because blocks of administrators tend to be controversial, I am submitting this block for review at WP:ANI#WP:AN3.  Sandstein  13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=425490573"