Misplaced Pages

Diff of edit waring: User_talk:Solicitr#Edir_warring.2F3RR

—Damwiki1 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Comments - I am unfamiliar with this process. Can an admin help me with it? This is a link to the relevant talk page: Latest revision: capacity comparison. Two editors have reverted the above edits but the page now reflects the last edit above, which an admin should revert?

• Well, an admin could revert that. An admin could block Solicitr for edit warring, but they haven't broken the 3RR rule since this is really a bold edit, and your revert the first in the process. But I'm more interested in seeing what the current discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Flight_Deck delivers: whether Solicitr is blocked or not, the problem is still there. So I'll leave this unresolved and will let the usual admins on this noticeboard decide, but my suggestion is to not block but await dispute resolution. That the article is now what you consider the wrong version is immaterial to me: there's no rush, and this is not a pressing matter. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit 1, above, is substantially the same as the last 4, so edit 2, above, does not seem to be a bold edit.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Result: User:Solicitr, User:Damwiki1 and User:BilCat are warned not to make further edits like the ones listed above, contrasting the capacities and merits of USN and RN carrier flight decks, until consensus is reached. You should wait for the result of the DRN. Judging from Talk:Flight deck, this dispute has been running since 2012. User:Solicitr may be sanctioned if he keeps referring to 'lies'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:PR12477 reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24 hours)

Page: John A. Coleman Catholic High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PR12477 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User_talk:Thomas.W#Hi_there.21. Also on user's own talk page.

Comments:
Straightforward edit warring to include promotional and unverified language. User does not seem to be aware of various guidelines and informs us, for instance, that there are no references available for the text they keep re-adding but that it doesn't matter because it's true: "It's all accurate. No citation is necessary or even available!" Other juicy commentary includes this, "SO...what is your problem? You like to patrol Wiki looking for meaningless words to edit out to make yourself feel important?", on User talk:Thomas.W. As far as I'm concerned this is headed directly toward an indefinite block for NPA, EW, OWN, INCOMPETENCE, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• And I don't mind the "Go fuck yourself" so much, but being called "Sheldon" must be some kind of Yankee offense and I won't stand for it. No I won't! Drmies (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Enok reported by User:Rob984 (Result: Protected)

Page: List of aircraft carriers in service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
Much discussion took place within the edit summaries, as I was attempting to explain that there was not consensus for their edit. Note: This is my first time reporting another user, apologies for any errors or issues. Rob (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected You both broke 3RR, but I've chosen to protected the page instead of blocking you both. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So another editor must also be reverting their edits? I didn't realise. Apologies, Rob (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:203.87.133.107 reported by User:NeoBatfreak (Result: No action)

User being reported: 203.87.133.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User repeatedly engaged in edit war on the article Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox by adding irrelevant plot point.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note. NeoBatfreak, this report is malformed, was put in the wrong place, and there's no edit war. Please familiarize yourself with policy and read the instructions before filing a report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 reported by Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: FergusM1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

1. diff(edit summary: "This is not a health effect. It's just an unfounded "concern." We've been through all this") - removes statement about addiction from the CDC, it is a revert of previously added content, the edit summary even indicates Fergus knows this removal of well-sourced content has been contested, see for example diffs from August
2. 03:09, 12 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 581274363 by Jmh649 (talk)No justification given for revert; the "restored content" was outdated and is superseded by new research and emerging consensus.") - second revert of CDC statement
3. 03:10, 12 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Health effects */ None of this is a health effect.") - revert of other material too
4. 03:11, 12 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Addiction */ Removing again. No health effect is cited, only "concerns."") - revert #3 removing the same statement about addiction from the CDC
5. 23:21, 12 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 581402547 by Yobol (talk)Undoing vandalism - not a revert.") - straight revert, claiming "vandalism" exemption but that's clearly suprious

• Diff of warning: here, editor blocked previously for edit warring.

Zad68 02:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:TameImpalaFan reported by User:UpendraSachith (Result: Both warned)

Page: Tahan Lew-Fatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TameImpalaFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581396316
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581406908
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581432002

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• User keeps unilaterally blanking the page because he doesn't think the person should have a page. UpendraSachith (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• User:UpendraSachith keeps reverting an edit to a redirect page. The person in question is not notable enough to warrant an entire page dedicated to them. The majority of information on the page has been copy-pasted from https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan and doesn't need a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TameImpalaFan (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that I wasn't aware of the "3 revert rule" and I apologise for breaking it, but my intentions weren't to "vandalize" or "censor" the page as User:UpendraSachith incorrectly claimed that I was. I've explained my reasons above and it was purely due to the total lack of notability of the person in question.

I'd also like to point out that User:UpendraSachith also broke the 3 revert rule, and this was before I actually broke the rule, so that needs to be taken into consideration:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581393102
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581401805
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581431568

--TameImpalaFan (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved user: User:TameImpalaFan appears to have not have been warned about the 3RR prior to this posting. Both users have reverted the same number of times, and User:UpendraSachith obviously knew about the rules on edit warring since they came here. I have posted a warning on both editors' talk pages; if anything this seems like a case of WP:BOOMERANG. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• RE: User:VQuakr

I don't actually ever remember being warned about the 3 revert rule. I wasn't even aware that it existed. Where have I been warned before? It must have been a fair while ago because I've totally forgotten.

Once again, I apologise for breaking it, because I honestly do not remember knowing about it before. --TameImpalaFan (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, missed a key adverb there (added in italics above). VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• User:UpendraSachith has once again added back all the information. This is getting ridiculous.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It was ridiculous when you decided to remove all the information on your own initiative. Are you trying AFD a redirect page because that doesn't work. UpendraSachith (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• You've reverted my edits for a fourth time after reporting me for doing the same thing to you. Shouldn't you practice what you preach and leave the page as it stood after a deletion tag was added and after being warned for edit warring? You've reported me, yet I've not retaliated after being warned, while you continue to do the same exact thing that you've reported me for.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. The article is currently intact and nominated for deletion. Despite the edit war, I don't like to lock an article that is being discussed at AfD. However, I don't expect any more battles fro either TameImpalaFan or UpendraSachith. If either editor reverts at this point, they risk being blocked with no notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:200.104.245.226 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ian Gow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.104.245.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ian Gow#IP Edits

Comments:

You will note that the talk page discussion referred to is from 2 years ago. This is a dynamic IP who regularly returns to editing Ian Gow and other articles to remove information they consider trivial but other editors disagree and consider adds information/context to the article. A simple content disagreement is elevated to high drama as anyone who disagrees with him is a "moron", "a fucking idiot" or "a despicable liar" or anyone of a series of delightful epithets reserved for anyone who disagrees with their edit. Eventually after a series of escalataing blocks, example, for edit warring he will usually move to a new IP and the cycle starts again. As it starts with a new IP the clock is reset to usually it starts with a 24 hr block. Started a WP:ANI thread this morning see WP:ANI#‎Abusive IP Editor is back Wee Curry Monster talk 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:2Awwsome reported by User:Toccata quarta (Result: Locked)

Page: Frédéric Chopin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2Awwsome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: there have been multiple revisions reverted to.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Frédéric Chopin (last two discussions); see also Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 80#Frédéric Chopin

Comments:
User has been edit warring on this article for a long time already, disregarding the point of view of the vast majority of reliable sources and long-standing consensus. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Two of the reverts were of removal of content. The removals were blatant and deliberate WP:NPOV violations to get their point across. WP:NPOV is a core content policy, and core content policies cannot be superseded by other policies. And 5 v 3 (becoming 5 v 4) is not a vast majority. 2Awwsome 18:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The warning was after the fourth reversion. And Toccata quarta, Nihil novi and Volunteer Marek are evidently a tag team. 2Awwsome 18:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you're saying 'vast majority' because it has 10 times more WP:GHITS, remember that adding words greatly decreases the number of results. 2Awwsome 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Locked for two weeks by Nikkimaria. That doesn't mean that 2Awwsome didn't violate WP:3RR and personally attack other editors. I rarely block anyone after an article has been locked, but another admin is free to take a different view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I protected before becoming aware of this report, and also gave the user a final warning regarding edit-warring on a different article - I was quite lenient under the circumstances, and wouldn't object if anyone wanted to block. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.20.161 reported by User:UsamahWard (Result: No violation)

Page: Andrew Gilligan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.20.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first of his recent removals, concerning the introduction, is strange, given the uncontentious inclusion of the subject matter in the main body, and the strong source attached to the introduction.

The second had not been discussed on the article's talk page, but had been discussed at WP:BLPN#Andrew_Gilligan. The sources, not the text, had previously been discussed by another editor and me here, where that editor felt less was more; I left it at that. The IP editor removed the text after this, but in his responses at BLPN quoted the sources from the earlier version, not those that he had actually removed.

This IP editor has in the last couple or weeks, with variations of his IP address, removed almost all text from the article that he felt was negative. Orginally he seemed to argue that blog sources couldn't be accepted in BLP under any circumstances, and that none of the negative material mattered or was fair. However, recently he has removed content regardless of sources. UsamahWard (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• No violation The IP hasn't broken 3RR, and you're just as guilty as they are in terms of edit warring. Note that a couple established users have voiced similar concerns to those of the IP in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:212.9.8.161 reported by User:Moxy (Result:31 hours )

Page: Human evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.9.8.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Just need to look at page history - 6 reverts just today. Simple case here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Has been warned as seen on talk page at User talk:212.9.8.161 Comments:

Already blocked for disruptive editing/edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Hammerb and User:Arbor to SJ reported by User:GregJackP (Result: Locked)

Page: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammerb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arbor to SJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College

Diffs of the Hammerb's reverts:

Diffs of Arbor to SJ's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Uninvolved editor, found due to report at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 06:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

They seem to be talking now as Hammerb found the article talk page. 129.9.104.10 (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Page protected. I've locked the article for a week. I left more detailed comments at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Chelios123 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: )

Page: Chile–Peru football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chelios123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:User has been warned that the information he is adding, based on personal conclusions, constitutes WP:OR. The user refuses to understand and continues to edit war the article despite also being reminded about the WP:BRD process.--16:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The user simply refuses to WP:GETTHEPOINT. Please read the discussion at Talk:Chile–Peru football rivalry.--MarshalN20 | 17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20, how is the first diff above a revert?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, I placed it in there by mistake. However, the edit warring behavior is still evident (especially in the talk page). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been notified about this on my talk page. Per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#MarshalN20 topic banned, MarshalN20 is banned from "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed". The article subject to this edit war relates to the history of Latin America, considering that its lead section reads: "Peru and Chile have a rivalry that dates back from the War of the Pacific. Previously, the two nations had been on friendly terms sharing mutual alliances during the South American wars of independence and Chincha Islands War. Territorial, maritime, and cultural disputes have fueled tensions since the ending of the War of the Pacific. These historical feuds and lingering bitterness have led to a large football rivalry between both nations." – In consideration of this, MarshalN20, please provide reasons why you should not be sanctioned for violating your topic ban by editing this article, most recently today.  Sandstein  18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I studied this aspect of the report as well, Sandstein, and, honestly, I wasn't sure whether MarshalN20's involvement in this was a violation of their topic ban or whether that was construing "broadly construed" too, uh, broadly. At the same time I am frequently disappointed by topic-banned editors pushing the envelope.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, this is not a violation of my topic ban on "Latin American history" for three reasons:

1. The football' rivalry between Chile and Peru is a current event.
2. The Chile–Peru football rivalry has a history section (please see ) which I have not edited.
3. The "Incas del Sur" matter took place this year, on October 26. The "broadly construed" clause, if used, does not apply to "recent history". I remember that User:Cambalachero asked for clarification on the range of "history", and the agreement reached (from the administrators) was that "recent history" does not apply to the ban (I'd provide a direct link to the clarification request, but "Wikimedia Error" messages prevent me from doing so).

This listed, thank you for giving me a chance to explain. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that the administrators defined a "recent history" range for Argentina, but not for Peru or Chile. However, 26 October 2013 is a date that, logically, falls into the category of "recent history". Regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to the clarification request (see ). Quoting NewyorkBrad, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." Regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside from anything else, the edits concern recent events the foundation of a new team in Chile in 2013, this is hardly history chaps. Sorry but even that absurdly broad topic ban description is being stretched here to imply a breach. The original edit is clearly WP:OR and per WP:BRD a talk page discussion should be initiated. Its been substantially improved since, making the original reason for reverting somewhat moot. I consider Marshal a wiki friend so it pains me to observe they shouldn't have been solely responsible for reverting Chelios123 as it makes their 3RR report somewhat problematic as both have edit warred. It would have been better to allow another edit to revert and equally I don't think his first edit summary helped. I'm not convinced this merits a block of anyone but they both definitely deserve a WP:TROUTing. Take a deep breath, WP:AGF and take it to talk guys. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In reply to MarshalN20: The clarification request is not relevant here. It was about the question of when past events become "history" in the sense of the sanction. Arbitrators commented that anything later than 1983 shouldn't be considered "history" in Argentina. However, in this case, the article which you edited is related (or at least "broadly construed" related) to much earlier events, that is, the 1880s War of the Pacific, which clearly are "history". In passing, this concerns the same time period as the Paraguayan War, in relation to which the Arbitration Committee found you had been engaging in misconduct. Other parts of the article deal with such historical events as the creation of football teams in 1895 or 1927. It does not matter whether you edited these more historical parts of the article. Because the article as a whole is related (or at least "broadly construed" related) to the history of these countries, you violated the topic ban by editing any part of the article (see WP:TBAN). Your conduct is aggravated by your evident habit of pushing the boundaries of your topic ban, as seen in the WP:AE requests of 10 July 2013 and more recently 5 November 2013, which resulted in a one-month block which I lifted following your assurances that you would not violate the topic ban again. Considering that these assurances are now shown to have been less than sincere, and that a one-month block has proven to be an insufficient deterrent, I am blocking you for the period of two months. After the block expires, you must strictly comply with the ban and not edit any page remotely related to Latin American history. – As to Chelios123, they seem to have edit-warred, but we should wait on a statement by them.  Sandstein  19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)