Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:18, 28 February 2009

Archives

/Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 75 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Edit-warring consensus?

Can someone point me to the discussion where it was decided to change the name of this board? I strongly oppose it, but don't want to rehash a settled matter. IronDuke 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

*Points up* Tiptoety 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here, friend. It was decided that it was better because Edit warring encompasses all, and not just 3RR. Scarian 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. Thanks for the pointer <<hits self in forehead with it>>. I have commented above, please feel free to disagree. IronDuke 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

this isn't good. AN/3RR was intended for clear cut cases where you could just check the diffs and issue a block. Anything else belongs on AN/I. The upshot of this move will just be an overlap of the scope of AN/EW and AN/I, and this board will get bogged down with epic discussion of what is or isn't a "slow edit war". Remember, admins, you can make a call on 3RR without using your higher brain functions, but if you want to make a call on an "edit war" in a wider sense you will need to make a cognitive effort to understand what is going on. We can and always did block users for slow unproductive revert warring under WP:DISRUPT. No problem. Take it to AN/I. This isn't what this board is for. I strongly urge you to revert this well-meaning but misguided move. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Largely true, except that very few reports of "simple" 3RR violations were or are actually simple. I don't recall once when I could legitimately have just checked the listed diffs and left it at that. The cases here since the change are no more or less complex than they ever were; the simplicity of the three-revert-rule has always been theoretical at best, an acknowledged fiction at worst. CIreland (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

even if, for argument's sake, I grant this is true (which I do not really believe), that's no reason to make it even worse. --dab (𒁳) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CI. I opposed the change initially, but in practice it has caused no problems, apart from a few amusingly weak reports William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Transclude 3RR bot report?

I'm wondering if it would make sense to transclude the bot-generated 3RR report onto this page somewhere, a bit like the bot-generated vandalism reports are transcluded onto WP:AIV. This would give the bot report much more visibility, and I would think increase it's effectiveness. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is such a bad idea. Maybe have it post to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/bot reports or something? Tiptoety 17:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We can do that, several things to note though.

1. The format it is using is not final, I intend to change it to make it more readable.
2. The reports it does are not always mentioning the right person as the problem editor. We get reports saying the person that is reverting vandalism is the problem editor... that is incorrect. I intend to fix this, however it needs to be noted before any such move is made.
3. The reports are currently archived every 6 hours. Not archiving this often would result in the page literally being too long. In other words this page has high turnover. People almost need to watchlist the bot's reports separately from WP:AN3.

I'm gratified that people like the bot's work enough to make it more visible, however I feel that it is also important to list the caveats. If the consensus is to move it to a more visible location, I will do so, just please note my concerns. —— nixeagle 18:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit War in Progress

The article Christopher Cox the outgoing chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission is targeted by user 71.217.3.20 and possibly by user Tycoon24 as well. These two will without reason, revert previous edits and improvements made by other editors. The disruptive reverts has already violated Misplaced Pages 3RR. Please help. Ronewirl (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please file your concerns on the main page. Cheers, Tiptoety 06:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this failing as a noticeboard for edit-warring?

As I've pointed out before, I haven't kept up on why this board was expanded to include edit-warring, but I am concerned that we don't have enough guidance for report creation or response (See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Should_report_format_change_to_accommodate_edit-warring_better.3F).

Once again, I'm at a loss as how to properly report an editor with a long-term history of edit warring, who is threatening other editors while threatening to edit-war further (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Timeshifter_reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_stale.29).

Do we need to change this noticeboard back to 3RR, define edit-warring better, or something else? --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor Reverting to his version, refusing to discuss, 3r violation

User:Dodo bird User_talk:Dodo_bird consistently reverts edits to his version without commenting or responding to talk. He has done this on the neutering, Pedigree Dogs Exposed no-kill shelter and other pages. I have repeatedly reverted his edits, asked for discussion, discussed the issues as well as this editor's insulting comments to no avail. This editor has blanked his user page, reverts any changes to his talk page and in the past has even redirected his talk page to another page. While some of this editor's edits are legitimate, many appear intended to insert POV rather than improve article. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:96.239.140.104 Report

It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards " and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of the two editors in that regard has no substance. Considerable havoc was raised today on the four articles noted in the report, based on false or spurious claims. Multiple edits were made by individual users in an apparent attempt to make reverts difficult. Curious that in all four cases, the articles may be of special concern to persons with particular racial preferences, who may not be sympathetic to the civil rights of others. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor/Edit warring

A case of edit was presented at WikiProject Football (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Dagoberto) and, as i, upon a careful look, saw a familiar "face" emerging, added some info (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#DAGOBERTO_-_Adendum).

Upon discovering there is a proper space for edit wars' reporting, i now "invaded" this space and proceed to counter-report: That edit war, between user PAULOZIN and an anonymous user is not new to me, because the anonymous user is none other than BRUNO P.DORI (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori), banned for disruptive editing, which consisted in enlarging football players' infoboxes needlessly, he only works in that (i do mean only! in infoboxes, does not add one single line in story or links or references). He was duly warned (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bruno_P._Dori) and finally indefinitely blocked.

I have recognized, before and after his ban, more than 30 (!!) anonymous IP with the same disruptive pattern. Here is a sockpuppet list (http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bruno_P._Dori). For instance, the last four IP in Antonio Longás (another pattern, he solely operates in football players connected past or present with FC Barcelona, please check BRUNO P.DORI, the original account, list of contributions) are also his, the one numbered 217.129.67.28 is my anonymous IP (forgot to sign in). Another pattern is that he engages in no talkpage discussions, does not respond to messages and, in over 1000 contributions (all IP added), has not written one single edit summary, none, immediately re-reverting actions that have been reverted (Three-revert rule constantly violated), inclusively leading to some articles being protected (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sergi_Busquets&diff=260741413&oldid=260737132)

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Exactly, in only one hour, a different anonymous IP of this person (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/189.73.104.59) proceeded to enter LONGAS' article (among others) and re-reverted everything again, no edit summaries.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Comparison of wiki farms

Reviewing the recent histories diff I see a tempest building between User:HelloAnnyong and User:Timeshifter that may benefit from administrative intervention. I tried myself to get parties to "sit down" and discuss, but each side is adament in their particular interpretation of guideline. This is escalating. Though each is being careful to avoid 3RR, the war is ongoing and escalating. Summary of recent edits:

1. 19:14, 10 February 2009 Akve adds a link
2. 19:17, 10 February 2009 Akve adds a link
3. 19:17, 10 February 2009 HelloAnnyong immediately reverts
4. 15:49, 11 February 2009 Yaron K. updates data
5. 20:53, 11 February 2009 122.57.32.174 updates data
6. 18:46, 14 February 2009 Ikip adds links
7. 18:47, 14 February 2009 Ikip minor copyedit
8. 18:48, 14 February 2009 Ikip adds qikilink
9. 19:36, 14 February 2009 HelloAnnyong reverts all Ikip edits
10. 21:22, 14 February 2009 Ikip returns his edits
11. 02:05, 15 February 2009 Childofmidnight minor spelling correction
12. 02:45, 15 February 2009 Ronz reverts to last edit by HelloAnnyong
13. 02:47, 15 February 2009 Ronz resores earlier version of first sentence
14. 03:11, 15 February 2009 Ikip reverts to last version by Childofmidnight
15. 03:12, 15 February 2009 Ronz reverts Ikip
16. 03:21, 15 February 2009 MichaelQSchmidt reverts and suggests discussion
17. 03:23, 15 February 2009 Ronz reverts
18. 03:30, 15 February 2009 MichaelQSchmidt revert and again sugest discussion
19. 03:39, 15 February 2009 2005 reverts
20. 04:18, 15 February 2009 ChildofMidnight minor copyedit
21. 04:25, 15 February 2009 ChildofMidnight minor copyedit
22. 05:48, 15 February 2009 117.198.241.30 contribution
23. 05:54, 15 February 2009 HelloAnnyong reverts
24. 06:06, 15 February 2009 Galoubet contribution
25. 16:41, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter returns ELs and points to talk page
26. 17:13, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter changes ELs to Ref format
27. 17:23, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter wikilink and additional Ref
28. 17:28, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter ref fix
29. 17:29, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter additional ref
30. 17:31, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter ref format fix
31. 17:33, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter additional refs
32. 17:35, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter fix redlink
33. 17:44, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter format tweak
34. 17:46, 15 February 2009 HelloAnnyong complete reversion of all Timeshifter additions
35. 17:48, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter minor section tweak
36. 17:48, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter added wikilinks
37. 18:13, 15 February 2009 Timeshifter returned intermediary additions removed by the HelloAnnyong reversion

I tried to gain an earlier understanding of Ronz's action by opening a discussion on my talk page, but was unable to find the insights I needed. This needs input and resolution from someone far better versed in edit wars than myself. Timeshifter and HelloAnnyong need to talk before they act, and perhaps seek mediation. Schmidt, 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the page needs to be protected? Ikip (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Question re: edit warring

I'm involved with an editor, at Delhi-6, who blanket-reverts to his vio-filled version even after I've called for an RfC at Talk:Delhi-6, saying, in essence, I have no right to call for one. (His edit summary here: "dont need an Rfc for this.")

It hasn't reached 3RR yet, but the Project Page says edit warring is more than 3RR. Given this user's unilateral rejection of RfC, and his overall aggressive, WP:OWN attitude, is there a way to report this on the Project Page withut the 3RR template? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. Use the template as described for adding a new section. then, just list all the reverts he has made recently, even if not in 24 hours. Also list any warnings he has been given for his conduct. Then include a brief summary, as you normally would. Firestorm (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Options?: User:THF & User:Ikip

• Page: Business Plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 14:31, 27 February 2009
• 14:29, 27 February 2009
• 14:32, 26 February 2009
• 14:06, 26 February 2009

Editor renamed article in the middle of a edit war with me, with no previous discussion on the talk page. THF has removed 1423 words yesterday, well referenced sections.

I have never learned how to effectively engage with POV editors who delete large amounts of well referenced material. What are my options? Ikip (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Per multiple pages where you have sought editwars, this is not one. THF is making good faith edits. The proposed renaming was clearly stated well before it occurred. Collect (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I document your deletions Collect, over 1600+ , and THF deletions yesterday, over 1400 on the talk page. THF refused to answer my questions, and is now hiding the history of his deletions, causing a new edit war on the talk page. Ikip (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I count two reversions there, each a day apart. How is a new edit that never existed before (and a page move supported by the majority of editors to comment on it) an "edit war"? Ikip seems to define "edit war" as blaming his reversion of another editor on the editor who "forced" him to edit war. I further note that this is part of a campaign of harassment Ikip has waged against me, which has included (1) multiple personal attacks at Talk:Business Plot; (2) a frivolous MfD nomination that included Ikip deleting my remarks on the page; and now (3) making this frivolous report without either warning me or notifying me of the report. The claim that I have made "1400 deletions" in a single day is delusional. THF (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• 14:06 Feb 26 is a new edit. Not a reversion, not an edit war.
• 14:32 Feb 26 is a reversion restoring content deleted by Ikip.
• 14:29 and 14:31 Feb 27 was a single reversion that got glitched by Twinkle and turned into two edits because I didn't realize the 14:29 edit happened. But I'll count that as two in refraining from further edits to Business Plot today so that I remain at 2RR for the day. THF (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I came here on how to handle this situation and get other editors feedback, without formally filing a complaint.

I would appreciate if you remove the word "delusional". As it is a personal attack. I counted all of the deletions via word, would you like a copy cut and pasted? I could cut and paste my graph you continue to hide on the talk page, here, in a collapsed table. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Time to move back

As William C. said above, the rename hasn't had much effect. That is precisely the reason to move it back. There was more opposition to the move than support in any case. This forum, de facto, was for violations of WP:3RR, and still is, despite the move and the best intentions to blur the line by stressing all-edit warring scope at the top of the board. Edit warring that does not violate this rule is routinely listed as "No Violation". This is confusing for ordinary users. My suggestion is to keep this noticeboard to its tradition role enforcing the 3RR electric fence, but have a new noticeboard for edit-warring that is merged with User:3RRBot/bot_reported_disruption_and_3RR_violations. So let's move the Edit warring archives to line with the 3RR archives, move this back to 3RR and begin a new board. There is no benefit to the current situation. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)