Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:25, 15 February 2013 view sourceHijiri88 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:30, 15 February 2013 view source ZarlanTheGreen (talk \| contribs)2,391 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 246:		Line 246:
	== 3RR violation on ] ==		== 3RR violation on ] ==
	An IP editor openly using different accounts has reverted me three times in the last few hours. Can I get some help in dealing with this user? (They are also under investigation for ].) ] (]) 11:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)		An IP editor openly using different accounts has reverted me three times in the last few hours. Can I get some help in dealing with this user? (They are also under investigation for ].) ] (]) 11:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kendo}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kontoreg}}

			<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			Previous version reverted to:

			<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			* 1st revert:
			* 2nd revert:
			* 3rd revert:
			* 4th revert:

			<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AKendo&diff=538379523&oldid=534786532
			Also, on his user page (and this somewhat pre-dates the above attempts): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AKontoreg&diff=538200582&oldid=535784166

			<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			This is the first time I have reported an edit war, so I am not sure if I've done this right. The bits about reverts, are rather confusing, as this isn't a case of 3RR, as far as I know. Please excuse me, for any clumsiness or errors, due to ignorance.

			There was some , on ], which was by ]. Kontoreg then straight away. Ffbond then for it giving undue weight to an unnotable issue. (admittedly, Ffbond has some blame here too. Also, please not that these are not all exact reverts. There is some slight modifications here and there)<br />
			All the while Kontoreg also , which to be a bit more coherent.<br />
			...all of which was then instantly by Kontoreg.

			Having seen all this, I felt I needed to say something. Thus , that such behaviour is wrong, and why it is so. I have myself been involved in a few editing disputes, and even a Dispute resolution noticeboard (which ended up quite well, I must say). All of that, with some blame being on my own behaviour, until I've learned the policies and guidelines (the wisdom of which, I generally instantly understood and accepted, once I understood the policy/guideline), so I didn't wish to be too harsh, but I felt Kontoreg needed to be informed of how things are supposed to be done, and why the things that he/she was doing was wrong.<br />
			I pointed out that these things have to be discussed, not just reverted back and forth. This was swiftly followed by Ffbond , saying he/she would discuss the matter in the talk page, which straight away, as promised. This discussion was, once Kontoreg entered them, mostly derailed into a discussion of pointless and confused semantics (and I'm not saying that semantics are pointless).

			Sadly Kontoreg , concerning an issue being discussed, during the discussion, which I instantly , pointing out that it was inappropriate.<br />
			This incident aside, we were quickly able to form consensus. Kontoreg didn't agree, but then consensus doesn't require all to agree. Ffbond was good enough to , in accordance with the consensus.

			Sadly this was then by Kontoreg, in complete disregard of the consensus.
			, pointing out that Kontoreg's edits were going against wikipedia policy and guidelines, but Kontoreg simply it.
			Following this, I pointed out, (and also , just to be sure), that the issues have been discussed and consensus formed, and that these edits were against policy and guidelines. I informed Kontoreg that he/she needed to undo the edits, or I would report this as edit warring.

			Kontoreg made some more additions to the talk page, and later proceeded to make a few edits on the main article. Edits that, in no way, were an undo of anything. This I took as a sign of refusing, but realising that not much time had gone by, I decided to give him/her some more time.
			Still, , appealing to the values of Kendo (which seemed appropriate, given Kontoreg's apparent passion for the subject) ...and pointing out that I had written a edit warring report ready to post.

			Kontoreg did not respond in the manner I hoped, but rather that he had .
			Dispute resolution noticeboard are, as far as I've understood, about better being able to establish consensus and then apply that. However, discussion has already occurred and finished, with consensus having been formed. You need to be able to respect the decisions reached by it. Kontoreg has clearly shown utter disregard for such things. Kontoreg does not seem to be able to accept the consensus, not because of any lack of discussion, but rather simply due to the fact that the consensus wasn't to his/her liking. (and I say this despite trying to assume good faith)<br />
			This in the talk page, as well as pointing out that the DRN request had been done quite badly (as well as the informing of other editors). I also pointed out the fact that, for all the assumption of good faith, and keeping ] firmly in mind, I could not really consider this an honest attempt to reach consensus, but rather an attempt to try to get through Kontoreg's own opinion. I am reminded of a child asking for something from it's parent, and when told no, rather than accepting that their request has been denied, tries asking the other parent, to see if he/she will say yes.<br />
			Thus I saw the DRN request as nothing more than a further disruptive act. Whether it was intentionally so, is irrelevant.

			The DRN request , as it was badly done, the involved editors weren't properly informed (or even mentioned in the request) ...and quite importantly, Kontoreg pointed out in the DRN request, that he/she was going on vacation the day after making the request (until the 26:th), meaning that no real discussion could happen for quite a while.<br />
			This would also mean forcing Kontoreg's version of the article (which goes against consensus) to stay on, for quite some more time, meaning even more disruption, intentional or not.

			I do not see this as something to be dealt with in a DRN, or where a DRN would help. I do, however, see it as a clear case of edit warring. Thus I make this report.--] (]) 12:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:30, 15 February 2013

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

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Eaglestorm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

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

Time reported: 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

First version: 00:56, 2 February 2013 (edit summary: "rvt back to previous version; you want to start again?")
Subsequent version: 14:57, 6 February 2013 (edit summary: "")

Reversions:

1st revert: 14:57, 6 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
2nd revert: 13:41, 9 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
3rd revert: 09:02, 10 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Episodes */ adjusting; argument about not teasing is nonsense. Thought of previous revision is still too close to original.")
4th revert: 14:11, 10 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537520168 by AussieLegend (talk) thought behind revision about identity too close to original. nothing more than ganging up on behalf of troll editor")
5th revert: 12:38, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Episodes */ rvt edit by SPA editor")

Diffs of edit warring warnings:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:
Back on 22 January, an IP made a minor, and reasonable, change to an episode summary at How I Met Your Mother (season 8), replacing vague information with a specific point about the episode plot. This was later reverted by another IP, who claimed it was a spoiler. As removal was contrary to WP:SPOILER, it was reverted. On 2 February, Eaglestorm reverted the change without explanation. That edit was reverted, with the editor stating quite correctly in his edit summary, "Summaries are supposed to summarize, not tease". Eaglestorm's next visit was 9 February, and since then has been edit-warring over the content. Multiple attempts have been made on his talk page to engage him in discussion, but these have proven fruitless. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page, and invited Eaglestorm to the discussion, to no avail. After I initiated the talk page discussion, an IP posted to my talk page, explaining that Eaglestorm will not engage in discussion. This claim seems well supported by Eaglestorm's talk page history. There are numerous cases where editors have attempted to engage him, but he refuses, instead simply deleting requests with inappropriate edit summaries, calling editors trolls, socks and SPAs. Even my attempts to engage him were deleted as "nothing more than prodding at the behest of some SPA editor", and the edit-warring warning was reverted as "unjustified warning at the behest of SPA". Eaglestorm has now posted at my talk page, but still has not engaged in any discussion over his contentious edits, and his 5th revert above clearly indicates that he intends to continue his edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that after Eaglestorm's peculiar (dare I say "paranoid") post on my talk page,, his next edit was to delete the notification of this discussion on his talk page as "harrassment". EdJohnston has since posted on Eaglestorm's talk page requesting response to this complaint. However, Eaglestorm has not edited at all in the 32 hours since he last deleted content from his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kpopnz reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

After notification of this discussion

5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , and

Comments: Uploading show logo images from fan-sites and replacing an official image from the site of the show creator. No communications

No longer relevant as user has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Griffy013 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

02:51, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537946830 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (Because no specific reason given for revert of cited material)")
02:56, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "(Reverted deletion of cited entry without explaination)")
03:01, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537981124 by Bbb23 (talk) (more specificity is needed - there are many sources only delete information that is improperly sourced not a wholesale deletion ))")
03:09, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537981780 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (your editing to make the language more neutral is welcomed - i did not write this - but there are many cited items in this entry)")
03:15, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537982575 by Bbb23 (talk) (be specific and we can talk about it - you are repeatedly deleting a large portion of materials with multiple citations)")
03:19, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537983007 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (again, this appears to be cited - is there is an issue with language - change to neutral language)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The user keeps reverting. This is a sensitive WP:BLP article and there are serious problems with the material that was initially added by an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He is reverting a large amount of cited information from multiple sources without specific reason or a line item edit. Has not responded on talk page.--griffy013 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2013 (EST)

Despite taking the time to repeatedly remove my re-edits no one will talk to me on the talk page of the page in question. It is removal without discussion.--griffy013 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2013 (EST)

I attempted both to talk to you and to warn you on your talk page, as the diff shows. Also, RedPen tried to explain to you the BLP problems inherent in the material. However, despite three editors reverting you, you continued to insist. I might add that you reverted twice more since I posted the list of reverts above. I'm going off-wiki now, so I will have no more comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My personal talk page is not the place for a discussion of the page. It does not help future editors at all. See the Vargas talk page. My continued efforts at re-editing smaller chunks of the material you originally removed have been again removed without discussion - the revert is of different, re-edited material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffy013 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This incident involved so many reverts that it ought not be allowed to close as "stale". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result:Article is full-protected)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Edit warring about inclusion of primary sourced information.

Both parties are edit warring. Rather than block anybody over something this trivial, I full-protected the article. Please take it to the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:67.185.8.191 (Result: Semi-protected)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Yes I know the 4th revert is slightly more than 24 hours old, but the full pattern goes back several days and there is an obvious intent to preven any/all changes from his preferred version of the page.

Page protected by User:Airplaneman.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Respectfully, having recently encountered Roscelese at a catholicism based article, and knowing how hard they work to protect the content of these works, this looks more like the IP trying to get their way by removing longstanding text from the work and then blaming Roscelese for edit warring. The only reichstag climber here is the IP user. Good call in protecting the work. Fish 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Sonofbengal reported by Freemesm (talk) (Result: Warned)

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

Time reported: 06:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

21:22, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
21:47, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Organized more logically. Removing excess irrelevant/unrelated materials and void references. Edited for neutrality of the article.")
14:21, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538047646 by Sabih omar (talk)")
14:24, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538047456 by 103.9.114.246 (talk)")
14:33, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538049158 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) don't edit further until consensus is reached in the talkp page")

Diff of warning: [here

Comments:
This user is trying to insert info from This Blog which is WP:Copyrightvio, remove a large part of sourced material Which is WP:Verifiability vio and engage in edit warring with other newbie editors. As a result this 2013 Shahbag Protest article become protected. I think he will start the edit war again just after removal of protection. This account start editing from yesterday and from the beginning try to vandalize the article. Even he vandalize his own talk page , where few users warn him. I think he will be blocked. Actually this is my first 3RR reporting by using this tool, If done anything wrong, please help me to report in write way. Thank you--Freemesm (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Warned. The only thing you neglected to do, Freemesm, was to notify the editor of this discussion. I've done that and I've also warned the user. However, blocking the user at this point would be punitive as they can't continue to disrupt the article while it's locked. However, once the lock expires, if they continue to edit disruptively and I see it, I will block them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kits1972 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Indeffed)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Additional issues of WP:COMPETENT are noted on the talk page

I was notified of this dispute through my involvement at WP:DRN, and have no involvement with the article myself. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Blocked indefinitely. The editor is either completely incompetent or trolling.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikpapag reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts at discussion have been made at Talk:Nook Simple Touch and User talk:Nikpapag#Concerning your edits at Nook Simple Touch

Comments:
Not a 3RR report, but a general edit warring report. There are issues with the edit that I've explained in edit summaries and on the talk page, but Nikpapag has demonstrated that he has no intention of discussing it, but chooses to edit war without explanation, not even bothering to use an edit summary in the last two diff, and there's no indication that the edit warring will cease. - Sudo Ghost 02:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking any action on this because I'm about to go off-wiki, so I'll leave it for another admin. I will note, though, that Nikpapag does not talk. Hasn't talked on an article talk page since 2010 and then only a few times. Doesn't do user talk, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR violation on Jigai

An IP editor openly using different accounts has reverted me three times in the last few hours. Can I get some help in dealing with this user? (They are also under investigation for sockpuppetry/block-evasion.) elvenscout742 (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kontoreg reported by User:ZarlanTheGreen (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AKendo&diff=538379523&oldid=534786532 Also, on his user page (and this somewhat pre-dates the above attempts): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AKontoreg&diff=538200582&oldid=535784166

Comments:

This is the first time I have reported an edit war, so I am not sure if I've done this right. The bits about reverts, are rather confusing, as this isn't a case of 3RR, as far as I know. Please excuse me, for any clumsiness or errors, due to ignorance.

There was some content added by Kontoreg, on Kendo, which was removed/modified by Ffbond. Kontoreg then re-added it straight away. Ffbond then reverted this for it giving undue weight to an unnotable issue. (admittedly, Ffbond has some blame here too. Also, please not that these are not all exact reverts. There is some slight modifications here and there)
All the while Kontoreg also added some information on katas, which was modified to be a bit more coherent.
...all of which was then instantly re-added by Kontoreg.

Having seen all this, I felt I needed to say something. Thus I pointed out to Kontoreg, that such behaviour is wrong, and why it is so. I have myself been involved in a few editing disputes, and even a Dispute resolution noticeboard (which ended up quite well, I must say). All of that, with some blame being on my own behaviour, until I've learned the policies and guidelines (the wisdom of which, I generally instantly understood and accepted, once I understood the policy/guideline), so I didn't wish to be too harsh, but I felt Kontoreg needed to be informed of how things are supposed to be done, and why the things that he/she was doing was wrong.
I pointed out that these things have to be discussed, not just reverted back and forth. This was swiftly followed by Ffbond making a reply there, saying he/she would discuss the matter in the talk page, which Ffbond started straight away, as promised. This discussion was, once Kontoreg entered them, mostly derailed into a discussion of pointless and confused semantics (and I'm not saying that semantics are pointless).

Sadly Kontoreg made an edit, concerning an issue being discussed, during the discussion, which I instantly reverted, pointing out that it was inappropriate.
This incident aside, we were quickly able to form consensus. Kontoreg didn't agree, but then consensus doesn't require all to agree. Ffbond was good enough to clean up the article, in accordance with the consensus.

Sadly this was then reverted by Kontoreg, in complete disregard of the consensus. I reverted this, pointing out that Kontoreg's edits were going against wikipedia policy and guidelines, but Kontoreg simply re-reverted it. Following this, I pointed out, in the talk page (and also in Kontoreg's user talk page, just to be sure), that the issues have been discussed and consensus formed, and that these edits were against policy and guidelines. I informed Kontoreg that he/she needed to undo the edits, or I would report this as edit warring.

Kontoreg made some more additions to the talk page, and later proceeded to make a few edits on the main article. Edits that, in no way, were an undo of anything. This I took as a sign of refusing, but realising that not much time had gone by, I decided to give him/her some more time. Still, I tried to convince Kontoreg, appealing to the values of Kendo (which seemed appropriate, given Kontoreg's apparent passion for the subject) ...and pointing out that I had written a edit warring report ready to post.

Kontoreg did not respond in the manner I hoped, but rather said that he had made a Dispute resolution noticeboard request. Dispute resolution noticeboard are, as far as I've understood, about better being able to establish consensus and then apply that. However, discussion has already occurred and finished, with consensus having been formed. You need to be able to respect the decisions reached by it. Kontoreg has clearly shown utter disregard for such things. Kontoreg does not seem to be able to accept the consensus, not because of any lack of discussion, but rather simply due to the fact that the consensus wasn't to his/her liking. (and I say this despite trying to assume good faith)
This I pointed out in the talk page, as well as pointing out that the DRN request had been done quite badly (as well as the informing of other editors). I also pointed out the fact that, for all the assumption of good faith, and keeping Hanlon's Razor firmly in mind, I could not really consider this an honest attempt to reach consensus, but rather an attempt to try to get through Kontoreg's own opinion. I am reminded of a child asking for something from it's parent, and when told no, rather than accepting that their request has been denied, tries asking the other parent, to see if he/she will say yes.
Thus I saw the DRN request as nothing more than a further disruptive act. Whether it was intentionally so, is irrelevant.

The DRN request was closed, as it was badly done, the involved editors weren't properly informed (or even mentioned in the request) ...and quite importantly, Kontoreg pointed out in the DRN request, that he/she was going on vacation the day after making the request (until the 26:th), meaning that no real discussion could happen for quite a while.
This would also mean forcing Kontoreg's version of the article (which goes against consensus) to stay on, for quite some more time, meaning even more disruption, intentional or not.

I do not see this as something to be dealt with in a DRN, or where a DRN would help. I do, however, see it as a clear case of edit warring. Thus I make this report.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories: