Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:48, 15 August 2012 editLionelt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,463 edits →User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:{{subst:Belchfire}} (Result: )← Previous edit Revision as of 08:45, 15 August 2012 edit undoStillStanding-247 (talk | contribs)4,601 edits →User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:{{subst:Belchfire}} (Result: )Next edit →
Line 684: Line 684:
:*I'm taking the liberty of amending the report by adding the preemptive warning placed on the talk page 2 days ago --to which Still responded.&ndash; Sir ], ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC) :*I'm taking the liberty of amending the report by adding the preemptive warning placed on the talk page 2 days ago --to which Still responded.&ndash; Sir ], ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> <!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

To put this in context, Lionelt is the editor who openly stated that he plans to get me permanently banned by reporting me as often as possible. He's reported me here three times here, including this time. The first time, his report was not taken seriously. The second time, he got me blocked by lying about my edit count; he treated two adjacent edits as separate.

I was asleep so I couldn't correct his error. I'm awake now, so let's see the play-by-play, in reverse chronological order:
1) Changed "the the" to "the". This could have been marked Minor.
2) Restored Nobel prize mention; labeled as 2RR and last, as I'm keeping myself to 2RR voluntarily.
3) Restored Nobel prize mention; labeled as 1RR
4) Mistakenly restored cite, followed immediately by full self-revert
5) Restored "conservative", labeled as 1RR

Now, I'm guessing no sane person would imagine that #1 or #4 count. I've been trying very hard to stay at or below 2RR, but ] is so active that #5 had scrolled out of sight, causing me to lose track of my count for the day. If I had seen it, I would not have performed #2. If I could revert it now, I would, but it's too late. So I accidentally hit 3RR but, as before, Lionelt miscounted it to 5RR so as to make me look bad. How amusing.

As I said, I'm holding myself to 2RR and actively participating on the discussion page. I believe we have a consensus forming for "conservative", but it's not clear whether the Nobel prize mention will make it. I would suggest that this self-restraint and discussion is the exact opposite of edit-warring. On the other hand, given the "errors" in this 3RR report and Lionelt's history of "errors", I am rather unhappy with his behavior. ] (]) 08:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:45, 15 August 2012

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

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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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.

    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)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    User:Youreallycan reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Page protected)

    Page: British Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 20:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:44, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Ed Milliband is a living person that is not even in the catagory British Jew - is clearly not notable as a british Jew - open a RFC")
    2. 19:50, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "As per my commentsd - living person that is not even in the BLP cat British JewUndid revision 507087743 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")
    3. 19:53, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "POv pushing BLP violator - Undid revision 507088197 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")
    4. 20:43, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "BLP - you open a discuasiohn - the subject is not even in the wiki cat British Jew so does not belong in the infobox here - Undid revision 507094282 by Viriditas (talk)")
    5. 20:55, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "BLP - the subject is living and we have not even catagorised him as a British Jew - so there clearly needs discussion in regars to this disputed addion")


    • Diff of warning: here


    Comments: User is using the excuse of WP:BLP to engage in edit warring, even though the subject self-identifies as a British Jew and there is consensus for inclusion. User has been asked to use the talk page but refuses. —Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Can we just get an admin to lock the page? Youreallycan is before ArbCom. It makes more sense to let them sort it out rather than handing out any blocks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, not really. If you grant immunity from blocks to users before Arbcom, you give them an incentive to behave as badly as they like with impunity. That would be counter-productive. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    I should note that if Youreallycan is blocked for this it will be his 8th block for edit-warring and his 20th block overall; the wider issue of his conduct is currently under review at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. It would be helpful if the administrator who deals with this matter could notify the arbitration page of the outcome so that arrangements can be made for YRC to participate in the arbitration while blocked. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Prioryman, does it really have to be pointed out to you that your involvement in a case such as this makes it less likely that Youreallycan would be blocked for edit warring, if that was indeed the case here? I strongly suggest you restrict your vendetta, and stay out of such matters, especially if the only thing you can contribute are accusations that don't even involve this current case. Accusing you of violating WP:HOUND is easier than taking candy from a baby. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless Prioryman was himself involved in edit warring on that page, I don't see how his comments here would influence how the conduct of YRC regarding the edit warring on the page would have to be judged differently. All the PM is saying is that he has been blocked quite a few times before and that there is now a RFAR which may then complicate matters. This is something that NYB has also addressed below. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Amazing who shows up here. WP:BLP was, IMO, properly invoked on this, and the history of those promoting conflict seems to be worth noting here. Misplaced Pages is not the arena of a MMORPG in which to get your foe in as many simultaneous battles as possible, and in the case at hand, I suggest this battle be dropped by simply protecting the article. BTW, some of the YRC blocks were, IMHO, of less than major import especially counting very short blocks which most people regard as pro forma only. And generally for civility issues, not for violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    BLP was not properly followed. It is Off2riorob/Youreallycan's pet theory that the subject is not a British Jew, even though there is consensus for including the subject as a British Jew and the subject has self-identified as a British Jew. Off2riorob/Youreallycan has been blocked at least 10 times just for edit warring, and in each instance he's promised not to do it again. List follows. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Your drive by escalating revert was not beneficial diff in any way - Your comments are simple content discussions - open a RFC on the talkpage - there are clearly disputes - Ed Miliband on his BLP is not Categorized as a British Jew - has not been presented a a notable such etc etc - go discuss - its disputed about a living person - Youreallycan 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Your reply is disingenuous. You were the one who de-categorized Miliband and you are the one who disputes his categorization. The subject self-identifies as a British Jew and there is consensus for inclusion. I've discussed this already in another forum, only to discover that you were pushing original research and your pet theories about who can be Jewish. What's going on here and in other places, is that you use the cry of "BLP" as a cover to push your POV. You disrupt multiple articles with your behavior and you make a mockery of the policies and the community. There's no discussion about your edits on the talk page because you have no way of defending them. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, just your POV and your drive by escalation of conflict - open the discussions rather than edit warring - this is a living person - Youreallycan 21:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Although being a party to a request for arbitration does not exempt an editor from 3RR or any other policies, it would obviously be quite awkward for Youreallycan to be blocked right as an arbitration case concerning him is about to open and an RfC concerning him is still pending. In lieu of continuing this AN3 report to a result, I instruct Youreallycan not to edit British Jews, List of British Jews, Ed Milliband, or any related page until the arbitration is resolved. I am not expressing an opinion here regarding whether a valid BLP issue has been raised, but if it has, it is not the sort of BLP issue that creates a risk of harm to the subject of the article such that it needs to be addressed immediately. If Viritidas were to step away from this issue temporarily as well, this would also be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    This comment from Brad is one of the problems ,imo ow its not important - but it is also - there is a risk of harm - Youreallycan 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Indef blocked)

    Page: many pages
    User being reported: Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    The user is reverting editors across a dozen or more pages in the last few minutes, without edit summaries, mostly restoring edits they made again without edit summaries. A warning on their talk page was ignored and deleted .

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not mine)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    --JohnBlackburnedeeds 03:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Hold on--user is currently blocked, temporarily, a block which is likely to be extended. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Based on the ongoing confrontational style, history of rapid reverts & at best incompetent edits, and "I'm your boss" user name, is it really necessary to let the block expire and fix the inevitable round of disruptive edits before indef blocking this user? VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      • This polemic suggests that this user's introduction of errors to the encyclopedia was intentional and was designed to elicit first an editorial response and then an administrative response. On the other hand, his grammatical errors continue in his comments here, so those may merely reflect bad grammar overall. His reference to a "goal" of reaching "50 random case examples" suggests that this user intends to engage in a pattern of like behavior. bd2412 T 14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Churn and change reported by User:OliverTwisted (Result: )

    Page: Paul Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Churn and change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    It's not the first, but it's a place to start:

    Diffs

    • Time:
    • 1:50
    • 1:55
    • 2:49
    • 4:12
    • 4:24

    Warnings

    • 1st warning at 4:02 by 1st editor:
    • 2nd warning at 4:03 by 2nd editor
    • My warning at 4:29

    Talk Page

    I suppose we should start here, rather than showing diffs:

    Comments:

    This user does not seem interested in dispute resolution. The user and I do not have opposing viewpoints on the information being edited in the diffs above. This user is not the only editor involved in edit warring over the last 24 hours. I'm not sure what other steps can be taken. I have exhausted my abilities as a mediator at this point. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Edit numbers 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the remaining edits. The first two edits, in fact, have revealing edit summaries. As to the brown-noser issue, that is being actively discussed on the talk page and WP:BLP noticeboard, and I haven't put it back based on the ongoing discussion. The earlier reverts were because new information was added (a new source, The New Yorker), and there was further discussion on the Talk page and more editors wanting it in. Technically, there weren't three reverts; just two, and those were before the other user reverting got to the discussion page. After discussion started, I didn't revert. As to the warnings; after the last warning shown there, I didn't revert, so I have to question why this has been taken here. I am mostly not going to be around for a week to defend this (no, not because of this; will be back on August 23); I trust WP's admins to address this. I would actually ask the admins for page protection and routing everything through them. Churn and change (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Since 24 hours have already passed, we can dismiss this case, and move on. I'm not sure how to flag this for deletion. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Binksternet reported by User:Pantothenic (Result:No violation)

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=507214483

    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:

    Comments:

    User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 week)

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

    User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 16:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 10:59, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "Edit was explained")
    2. 13:31, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "Edit was explained. Do not call me a vandal just because I just know more about Irish heraldry than you do, dickhead. Family arms do not exist in Irish heraldry")
    3. 08:05, 11 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 506737508 by Blackshod (talk). Read up on Irish heraldry.")
    4. 11:57, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Rm OR. Not in source given. Again, the arms referenced belong to individuals, not to names.")
    5. 22:35, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Per the Chief Herald of Ireland, that is entirely incorrect ")
    6. 23:04, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507112325 by IRWolfie- (talk). That link is from over a century ago.")
    7. 23:13, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "rm OR by IRWolfie- (talk)")

    Comments: User is a consistent, problematic edit warrior. He's been warned repeatedly (at least once a month) for edit warring. Check his talk page history. Most recent is here.

    —  — Jess· Δ♥ 16:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Please note the user's response to the EW warning "If someone repeatedly adds OR, I have to repeatedly remove it."   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Msalmon reported by User:RachelRice (Result: 24 h)

    Page: Big Brother 13 (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Msalmon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    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:
    I have also spotted another user also involved in the edit wars with the reported user on the page Big Brother 13 (UK). User Msalmon keeps deleting the 3RR warning I put on his user talk page. --RachelRice (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. 86.137.180.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also been involved here but has ceased editing at 18:32, 13 August 2012‎. @RachelRice: People may remove content from their user talk page as they see fit, there's no need to restore any warning once it has been issued. De728631 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Joseprzprz86 reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: 24h, page protected)

    Page: Colonia del Valle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Joseprzprz86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    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:

    Comments:
    In addition to posting to the article talk page I have twice previously approached this editor to explain the problem. The response did not acknowledge or address the problem. I think part of the problem is a language barrier but this editor appears to be intent on proceding without regard to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.
    Please note that the fourth diff above is not listed chronologically as the edit was execute by an IP and not the named account. It may be the named user or not, but the pattern is identical. Tiderolls 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Page protected Semiprotected due to numerous unconstructive edits by IP addresses apparently by the same editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User: Mertface reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:24 hours )

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

    Please note: Times are in UTC.


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 03:59, 12 August 2012 (edit) (undo)Dr.K. (talk | contribs)(Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Turkey.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    Keeps edit-warring days on end against multiple users, adding original research and accusing the other editors of racism multiple times. Δρ.Κ.  00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:71.191.12.12 and his obvious sock User:Paull_Barlow reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Semiprotected, 259200 seconds)

    Page: Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.191.12.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock account Paull_Barlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert: - Note that he's reverting Paul Barlow.
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    The IP started off on 96.231.119.38 originally, but is an obvious IP hopper from reposting the exact same misspelling-filled POV-pushing unsourced original research, and an obvious sock from imitating one of the people he's edit warring against.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Seeing how he's created an illegitimate sock account to imitate another editor to continue to insert his unsourced editorializing fringe POV-pushing, the only thing that's keeping me from dumping this at WP:AIV is the conviction of the edit-warrior. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Semiprotected by LadyofShalott for three days. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:94.192.176.126 reported by User:Digifiend (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: The Beano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 94.192.176.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Full history here.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&oldid=507302290 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&oldid=507302406

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not much point since it's an unregistered editor. Warnings posted on personal talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&pe=1&

    Comments:

    The only possible source for the information he/she keeps adding back in would be either message boards or Facebook. Those sources cannot be cited per WP:SPS. Digifiend (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Jojhutton reported by User:Aprock (Result: Page protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert: 17:23, 12 August 2012 "removal of content a WP:OR"
    • 2nd revert: 17:29, 12 August 2012‎ "only one editors opinion that they do not follow them."
    • 3rd revert: 17:31, 12 August 2012‎
    • 4th revert: 17:42, 12 August 2012‎ "Discuss removal of content per WP:BRD"
    • 5th revert: 03:28, 13 August 2012‎ "there's an ongoing discussion on this. Please join in."
    • 6th revert: 04:56, 14 August 2012 "Still an open discussion. Outside source is now used"


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:40, 12 August 2012

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion begins at 20:13, 12 August 2012

    Comments:

    At 5RR in 12 hours, continued reverts without talk page discussion. Despite repeated references to talk page discussion in edit summaries, jojhutton (talk · contribs) has yet to join the discussion and continues to revert. aprock (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    It takes 2 to tango: let's not overlook user:Galestars participation in this edit war.– Sir Lionel, EG 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    There have been more than two tangoing here. Page protected for a few days. Jojhutton is strongly cautioned that a return to the edit war following the protection will result in a lengthy block, other editors are also requested to hash it out on talk please. Seraphimblade 12:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Minotaurgirl and User:Wolfcho reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Both blocked for 24h)

    Page: Belle (Disney) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    h User being reported: Minotaurgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wolfcho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert: - 6:39, 14 Aug
    • 2nd revert: - 6:42, 14 Aug
    • 3rd revert: - 6:56, 14 Aug
    • Warning of both users by Jim1138 at 7:02 / 7:03
    • 4th revert: - 7:11, 14 Aug
    • 5th revert: - 7:21, 14 Aug
    • 6th revert: - 7:25, 14 Aug
    • 7th revert: - 7:32, 14 Aug


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Wolfcho, - Minotaurgirl

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    Apparently, the question of the exact color of Belle's hair and eyes is of the utmost importance, and MUST be settled TONIGHT or EXTREMELY HORRIBLE THINGS WILL HAPPEN.... well, if you listen to Minotaurgirl and Wolfcho, anyhow. They're accusing each other of lying, well, the whole thing is quite the amusing spectacle of a catfight... too bad they're too involved to find the humor in it.

    Productive comments:

    Apparently, the color of Belle's eyes is quite the controversy. In reading the talk page, ALL of the "Edit requests" are in regard to changing Belle's eye color in the article. These go back as far as 26 June 2012.

    It seems that Wolfcho and Minotaurgirl each said their peace, writing fairly long epistles in the talk page, before today's little war really got going. After the edit warring began, the only talking was done in the edit summaries. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    I know this is completely off topic, but this reminds me of the "something is wrong on the Internet" XKCD comic. I mean seriously? Large-scale edit warring over the color of a fictional character's eyes? David1217 18:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm only aware of this thread because one of the parties filed a (completely premature) request for arbitration ... but as best I can tell, the page on which the edit-war was taking place was protected several hours before these blocks were imposed, and everyone has been telling these two editors to take it to the talkpage. Under these circumstances, it's conceivable to me that these blocks might not have been absolutely necessary.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Trasamundo reported by User:Santos30 (Result: 2-week protection)

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

    Since the discovery of America (1492) the territories were granted to the crown of Castile by Papal bull Inter caetera (1493). Castile was incorporated into the development of Spain in the Iberian peninsula during Spanish empire. But the new Spanish state emerged from Peninsular War was rejected by Latin American countries that made ​​a retroversion of the sovereignty to the People of Americas from the heirs of the kings of Castile (not the modern Spain).

    Trasamundo delete all information to try to explain the American Independence against Spanish Empire. kidnapped the article and impossed POV map and delete references and information. It is impossible put this references and explain it:

    It is impossible to upgrade the nationalistic map of Trasamundo of national Spain (Brown color. I only put the two crowns of Aragón and Castile (Brown and yellow color). And Trasamundo say it is "Agressive".

    The 3RR:

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

    Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Comments:

    The sockpuppet Santos30 kicked out of Misplaced Pages in Spanish due to the impossibility to impose his POV in Misplaced Pages in Spanish, arrived to wikipedia in English to impose their POV.

    The lead map is consensuated since 2009. I explained to Santos30 why his changes are not valid. But santos30 hides this information and he only accuses me of nationalistic.

    This was the article before Santos30 was trying to impose their changes product from his personal concept which it cannot be mentioned Spain, and without taking into consideration the probided references. I have respected, or modified, or undone several changes, and I wrote in the talk page Santos30' bias with respect to the policies and he has accused to me about obssesion with "Spain"

    Santos30 lies when he said that I impede to that references in the article, these references are yet included in the article. I have explained several times why they have to moved and his response has been to write this report. All my statements in the article are justified in the abstract and in the talk page. Trasamundo (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    No, I have not lied. Trasamundo delete all what I try to explain about the relation between Discovery-Americas-Crown Of Castile-Spanish Empire-Independence. The references is only for verifiability. Those deletions not have valid reasons but excuses. The obsession of Trasamundo is with eternal Spain. You can see in the talk. And he not care about neutrality, importance or verifiability of the contribution of other people that he deletes.
    I'm not a Puppet. But here Trasamundo not say that he talk about User Retired not expulsed before and not involved in the discussion, and Trasamundo not say that he gives and recive in Wp:es strong support by the person that kick me and said these ugly words about WP:en. But this is a problem of WP:es exclusively. But Trasamundo not say. Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Protected for two weeks. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:173.0.254.242 and User:Cresix reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result:Page protected )

    Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

    173.0.254.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Cresix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    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:

    Comments:

    See my comments in my report below. I did not make 4 reverts, but as you can see in the links I provided, anon 173.0.254.242 made four reverts. He also did so in a previous edit war, which I have linked below. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


    Page protected. I have locked the article for 3 days for you the editors to work out the content dispute on the article Talk page. I am not going to get into how many reverts each party has made, or whether there was a warning before the last revert. Both sides are edit-warring in the spirit of the rule, regardless of whether any technical breach of the 3-revert rule has been committed. Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result:Page protected )

    Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 173.0.254.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Article before reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mabel Simmons#Reversions

    Comments:
    173.0.254.242 has been reported previously for the very same edits. The admin took no action. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive189#User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result: No action)


    Cresix (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Also, these same two users seem to have gotten involved in another edit war in July. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Page protected. I have locked the article for 3 days for you the editors to work out the content dispute on the article Talk page. I am not going to get into how many reverts each party has made, or whether there was a warning before the last revert. Both sides are edit-warring in the spirit of the rule, regardless of whether any technical breach of the 3-revert rule has been committed. Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Good call, Bbb23. Thanks. For my part, I'm taking the article off my watch list for a while to let the dust settle. Cresix (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Often a good idea to step back in these matters and take a deep breath. Thanks for understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Armbrust and User:66.199.245.66 reported by User:spc_21 (Result: Both editors blocked)

    Page: Snooker season 2012/2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.199.245.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Comments: Both making it impossible to add a constructive edit to the page. Armbrust has broken the 3RR and the IP isn't helping matters at all. Spc 21 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Update: This is getting ridiculous. We have had 10 reverts by Armbrust and the IP is just adding it back.

    Comment If you block both of us, than please also semi-protect the article to avoid the unregistered user returning under a different IP address. Armbrust, B.Ed. The Undertaker 20–0 20:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Why are you behaving so odd Armbrust? Are we not supposed to talk things through constructively on talk pages instead of reverting 15 times? You know better than this and the article should also be protected from yourself. Look at the history of it now..... It looks ridiculous. Spc 21 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)The edit warring continues. This is ridiculous. Ryan Vesey 20:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I know that's 16 reverts now I think - I thought 3 was really bad lol. Why have you moved it to the bottom of the page in the hope no one sees this Armbrust? For an experienced editor to revert 16 times is staggering. Spc 21 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    New requests go to the bottom, as a side note 2.100.234.199 (talk · contribs) also violated 3RR at some point, but then continued to use the talk page. Noom talk 20:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Just the 20-odd reverts then. I was blocked a few months ago for accidentally making 3! Go figure.... Spc 21 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment While this is ridiculous and a block is easily appropriate, I suggest temporary full protection. I feel the problem could be resolved at that point and we could avoid blocking the editors. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    But I want to add constructive edits to the page. Why should I and the countless other editors be punished for the actions of 2 people? Spc 21 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:VictoriaR2020 reported by MacAddct1984 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Lesley Arfin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: VictoriaR2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 06:01, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "This section includes verifiable sources and direct quotes that illustrate Arafin's writing "style".")
    2. 15:51, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Information has to be *FALSE* to be slander. Furthermore, you don't decide what's relevant. Stick to indexing porn stars and transexuals.")
    3. 18:32, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Quotes are accurate and verifiable.")
    4. 19:32, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    5. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Significance is subjective. I've seen entire sections devoted to a writer's "controversial" work or positions. This is a verifiable pattern in her work. It's worth noting.")
    6. 20:24, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    7. 20:31, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Contribution deleted for no valid reason.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —MacAddct1984 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The formal edit-warring warning was not posted to the editor's Talk page until after her last revert. However, the discussion on the article Talk page clearly put the editor on notice of her conduct and she was clearly aware, despite being a newly registered account, of what edit-warring is, before her last revert. Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Embattled Grady and User:Fry1989 reported by Esoglou (talk) (Result: Fry1989 indeffed, Embattled Grady warned)

    Page: Coats of arms of the Holy See and of the Vatican City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:54, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Removed Escutcheon")
    2. 19:59, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Please provide a reference")
    3. 20:04, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507426297 by Fry1989 (talk) I want a reference")
    4. 20:12, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507427274 by Fry1989 (talk)")
    5. 20:34, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Request citation")
    6. 20:47, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "failed verification")
    7. 20:52, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "You are attempting to give a escutcheon using heraldic notation. I want a source.")
    • Diff of warning: here


    User being reported: Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:41, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "no shield for Holy See")
    2. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507424998 by Embattled Grady (talk) not correct")
    3. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    4. 20:04, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "It's not in the escutcheon section, it's in "other elements", there's no reason to remove the description")
    5. 20:11, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "if you remove it again I will report you for vandalism, it has been explained to you that "other elements" section is for symbols that are non-heraldic, while the "escutcheon" section is for sumbols that are, you have been warned twice")
    6. 20:39, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "the citattion is your eyes, it's clearly two keys crossed, one silver and one gold, with a silver papal crown lined in gold, that doesn't need a citation")
    7. 20:42, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "There are already three citations in the introductory sentence which confirm this, how many do you need???")
    8. 20:45, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "5 damn sources")
    9. 20:49, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "use your damn eyes, it is beyond obviously a silver key and a gold key crossed in saltire, crowned with a papal crown, that doesn't need a citiation it's infront of yoru eyes!")
    10. 20:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "FFS")
    • Diff of warning: here


    • Comment - Updated previously incomplete report, although EW appears to have slowed since warnings.

    —Tgeairn (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Actually half of my supposed "warring edits" can be cut out if you actually look at the details of them. For example, #8 was after User:Embattled Grady added a "citation needed" tag, and that edit by myself was simply adding the requested citations, clearly not an warring edit. Or look at #1, that was a minor edit I made myself against my own previous edits to correct the description I had previously added to the infobox, removing part of it that belonged in one infobox but not the other one. Or look at #10, that one was me giving a simple English description in the infobox, after User:Embattled Grady kept removing the heraldic description. That edit wasn't reverted by him because it's what he wanted (a compromise) and it seems to please him. Almost every single edit listed includes a concession in it, an alteration from the previous one in an attempt at compromise with User:Embattled Grady, based on our "discussions" (if you can call them that) on his talk page and the article page. I'll be happy to lay out each concession in my edits, they're not blind forceful reverts as the term "edit war" suggests, and I've clearly been trying hard to compromise with the user. I would also like to know why I was not notified of this discussion? Isn't that one of the rules? Fry1989 23:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I didn't cull the edits fully as some of the reverting was to combined edits, and it was in no way one sided (which I assume is why the original reporter reported both editors instead of just one) so I tried to keep in the edits that each editor was reverting that were made by the other. Yes, notification is mandatory. I checked your talk page history as you had already blanked the 3RR warning, and it looked like you had been notified and blanked it. I now see that I was mistaken, and I apologize. As the dispute has stayed on the article talk page for the last few hours, hopefully this will get resolved without this notice having to go any further. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not saying it's one-sided (I don't believe I have even inferred it), but I am saying that 80-90% of my edits on that page today include some sort of compromise in them, changing this and that which the user disliked about the the previous version of the page. His edits on the other hand, were completely unconstructive blind removals of content he didn't like. I tried telling him on his talk page several times that if you see a problem with something that can be fixed, fix it, don't just remove it all. He never did fix anything he didn't like. I did though, I fixed several things he didn't like, I've compromised very hard on this despite sources because of his "problems", and I'm still doing it now on the article talk page, and getting slapped on the hand despite my efforts. Fry1989 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    It does look like you are working hard to find a compromise, and those efforts are appreciated. The only issue here is whether or not the involved editors are edit-warring, and particularly whether or not the WP:3RR bright line was crossed. No one is interested in slapping any hands that are doing productive work! Cheers --Tgeairn (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I don't mean anybody here is slapping my hands (including yourself), I mean I'm trying to lay out some options on the talk page of the article, and they are being overlooked/ignored. In all probability 3RR was broken by other one of us or both, but the issue is more complex then a simple revision rule. Looking at the big picture, I've tried hard to compromise, and fix things that my "opponent" (I use that term loosely) disliked, and the majority of my edits follow that purpose. Fry1989 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Warned as to Embattled Grady. The formal warning of edit-warring came just shortly before EG's final revert. EG apologized for it on their Talk page and hasn't done anything since. Cutting the editor some slack.Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:89.240.173.122 Reported by User:85.167.111.129 (Result: )

    Page: Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 89.240.173.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    1 Previous version reverted to:

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

    I haven't bothered to list the ones not marked "undid revision of" as there is sufficient evidence.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    Not sure I did everything correctly, but I have at least been able to provide sufficient diffs of reversions. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:DustyCoffin reported by User:Guerillero (Result: )

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

    Time reported: 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    7 reverts over the last 3 days. I feel like this is a bit of overkill --Guerillero | My Talk 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by ] (Result: )

    Page: Paul Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Link to one of several Talk discussions, purely for edification purposes. Talk:Paul_Ryan#Krugman

    Comments: Due to Ryan's very recent VP nomination, this article is currently the favorite Silly Season hang-out for all political edit warriors. This particular user was just blocked for edit-warring a little over 2 weeks ago, but nevertheless has managed to rack up 5 reverts in well under 24 hours. I came in late and nobody else has thought to warn him, but remember... it's only been about 16 days since his last block. He visibly counts off his reverts for all to see ("1RR", "2RR", etc.), ostensibly so he can't be accused of going over his God-given 3-revert entitlement. Strangely, he openly admits to being at "5RR" in his last edit summary. What was he thinking?

    • Still is well versed in the EW policy. He was actually a complainant 2 days ago
    • I'm taking the liberty of amending the report by adding the preemptive warning placed on the talk page 2 days ago --to which Still responded.– Sir Lionel, EG 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    To put this in context, Lionelt is the editor who openly stated that he plans to get me permanently banned by reporting me as often as possible. He's reported me here three times here, including this time. The first time, his report was not taken seriously. The second time, he got me blocked by lying about my edit count; he treated two adjacent edits as separate.

    I was asleep so I couldn't correct his error. I'm awake now, so let's see the play-by-play, in reverse chronological order: 1) Changed "the the" to "the". This could have been marked Minor. 2) Restored Nobel prize mention; labeled as 2RR and last, as I'm keeping myself to 2RR voluntarily. 3) Restored Nobel prize mention; labeled as 1RR 4) Mistakenly restored cite, followed immediately by full self-revert 5) Restored "conservative", labeled as 1RR

    Now, I'm guessing no sane person would imagine that #1 or #4 count. I've been trying very hard to stay at or below 2RR, but Paul Ryan is so active that #5 had scrolled out of sight, causing me to lose track of my count for the day. If I had seen it, I would not have performed #2. If I could revert it now, I would, but it's too late. So I accidentally hit 3RR but, as before, Lionelt miscounted it to 5RR so as to make me look bad. How amusing.

    As I said, I'm holding myself to 2RR and actively participating on the discussion page. I believe we have a consensus forming for "conservative", but it's not clear whether the Nobel prize mention will make it. I would suggest that this self-restraint and discussion is the exact opposite of edit-warring. On the other hand, given the "errors" in this 3RR report and Lionelt's history of "errors", I am rather unhappy with his behavior. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Categories: