Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by NekoBot (talk) when the backlog is cleared. |
| Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
|---|---|---|
|
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
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.
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.
| ||
User:71.85.120.252 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Blocked for 48 hours and page protected)
71.85.120.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
With the semi-protection on Charles Whitman inexplicably removed, the IP has resumed his edit war. He's at about 5 reverts now, in the last 24 hours. Either block or semi-protect, or both, please. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Note Repaired header for report, please remember in the future that new reports go at the bottom of the page and please try to use the template provided to make the administrator's job easier. -=- Adam Walker -=- 07:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours *
Page protected (all by another Admin) Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
User:189.31.107.221 and many other IPs reported by User:SaskatchewanSenator (Result: Semi)
Page: Rivaldo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 189.31.107.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 189.31.106.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 201.11.106.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 189.30.118.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 187.7.57.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 187.4.212.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 189.30.110.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 201.11.109.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and others.
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rivaldo#Recent_edit_war
Comments:
All of these IPs resolve to Brasil Telecom.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected three months. A puzzling edit war. A large crowd of IPs have been reverting each other for weeks. Article can be unprotected when the fight is over, but I don't know how soon that will be. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Hubertgrove reported by User:Tirronan (Result: 3-day protection)
Page: Battle of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hubertgrove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]
Comments:
Two months ago, I made an edit to the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands
The edit was a new section called 'Secret Service Trap'. This section dealt with the influence of British secret service codebreakers on the battle. This small - two paragraph edit - was properly verified and sourced. However, the facts that I presented were disputed by the editor Tirronan (the same editor who has reported me for 'Edit War' now). The editor Tirronan presents himself as an expert in naval warfare and in espionage techniques. He is one of the major contributors to the article. For the next six weeks, he argued that the edit was a "hoax". He continually threatened to report me and to ban me. He persistently reverted the edit. He tried to discredit my sources. Throughout, his intention seemed to rubbish my edit. He attacked me on my talk page and on the talk page of other editors who came to my (eg Jezhotwells (talk) )
You can see the "discussion" I had with him here in discussion page. I had to justify every sentence in my edit - the discussion extended to 7500 words!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section
Eventually, I became exasperated at this harassment and requested the assistance of other editors. One of them suggested a compromise: that the "Secret Service Section" of the article be arranged in the following way:
That the section comrpise one large sub-section comprising the "mainstream" opinion.
That this be followed by a smaller sub-section summarising my edit which Tirronan insisted be presented as a "minority opinion".
I agreed to this. I wrote up the section as three paragraph text (two paragraphs for the "mainstream" opinion, one paragraph for the "minority" opinion). This section contained all the citations that Tirronan wanted. It removed some copy to which he objected. It dealt with British secret service code warfare as it related to the Battle of the Falkland Islands and to the pursuit and destruction of the remaining German ships following the battle.
I prepared this new section for the review of Tirronan and other contributors last week. I did this on the discussion page of the article. Tirronan made revisions which I accepted in entirety - and then made a final comment:
Perfect.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Today, I posted the section as previously agreed with Tirronan.
Immediately - within a few minutes of posting - I found that the section was edited by the editor Binksternet. His edit made a stylistic change and deleted a final sentence that he argued was irrelevant. He added TWO new sections to the Discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Similarly..._Dresden
I undid this change - and placed my reasons, with citations and evidence, on the discussion page.
After a while, I found that Tirronan had restored the edit. His reasons were not clear. I reminded him that the original text was the one he had approved on Friday - "Perfect!". I once again, went through this argument point by point. I got the following answer:
Yes I disagree and your edit is reverted.Tirronan (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I told him that he was using a spoiler edit to rubbish the section and that I would revert to the original text he had already accepted. He reverted the text again which I undid. I warned him that I would use the dispute resolution procedure if he had not undone the spoiler edit. Before that could happen, I was notified that I had been referred to an Edit Warring section. Here I am. I only reverted to the text that he had already approved less than two days ago!
Tirronan has told me he is a senior editor. He has been in a number of other disputes. I found his behaviour harrassing, bullying and deceitful. I genuinely have tried to be flexible and to offer compromises. I am glad that this issue will now be reviewed by other editors since I genuinely believe that Tirronan's behaviour in this case will be admonished. Hubertgrove (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
While the claims of content dispute are amusing, they have no place in the 3RR notice board. However if an admin cares to read the Secret Service Trap section there are ample examples of Wikipedia:Civility violations, by said user again yours truly. However to make this case quickly Hubertgrove decided in his wisdom that he needed to revert again yet a 5th time here [13] when I attempted to add additional cited content noting this in the talk page and noting in the edit that no revision took place whatsoever. Apparently I am not allowed to make edits to the article by Hubertgrove. I'm sick unto death of this fellows actions see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. His claim this time being that the section was out of context when in fact it covers a period starting in Sept, 1914 through a period ending in 1917, so I find myself at a bit of a loss.Tirronan (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Both parties have been edit warring, but Hubertgrove is the more guilty of kneejerk reversions, wholly unconsidered ones which restore an obvious misspelling. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Page protected For three days, with warning. It was just good luck that both of you, Hubertgrove (especially) and Tirronan, avoided blocks. Please consider each other more and remember that WP:AN/3 is not a forum of dispute resolution. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)
User:Jack11111 reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: Warned)
Page: 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]
Comments:
Attempts to resolve have been via edit summaries. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Warned Reluctant to block when the user is relatively inexperienced/hasn't been interacted with much, and has clearly been in bed the last while. I'll give the user a warning and keep an eye on it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Pmanderson reported by User:Rememberway (Result: no vio)
Page: Wikipedia:Article titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diff of edit warring: [26]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27] (There's an entire thread started by somebody else other than me.)
Comments:
Mostly me actually undoing his edits, and another user Kwamikagami has reverted it on the policy page itself as well, and a further different user Tony has also expressed concern on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#generally where he started an entire thread on it. There genuinely seems no overall consensus for this on the talk page, So far as I've noticed, only one other user, Blueboar, has supported him, but Pmanderson (and to a rather lesser extent Blueboar) has been trying to simply edit war it through anyway. So that's three people that think it's a bad idea, and only two supporting it, but Pmanderson has evidently just gone to war to push it through, and they're no longer even responding on the talk page. They're at the point they don't care about establishing consensus for it; in fact (regrettably) Pmanderson in particular doesn't seem to have cared about consensus at any point.
He's repeatedly rewriting the policy and edit warring the policy literally to however he wants it, and is not supporting his edits well, he's been reverted by numerous people, and he's not caring about consensus.Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is really, seriously not ever how it's supposed to work on policy pages!!!Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I just want him to start editing sensibly to be honest, and staying within consensus! He's more like 'I know the only answer I'm rewriting the policy, and I will edit war until you leave it like I wrote it.' All I've been trying to do is revert back the things that are obviously non consensus, but he just sticks them right back in again. He's made lots of other fairly dubious recent changes that I didn't even dare touch.
It may sound trivial 'generally' but in fact Pmanderson and blueboar seem to be trying to remove the policy by equivocating it out of existence, and without bothering to get consensus to do that. It went from a 'should be a noun' to 'preferred to be a noun' to 'generally preferred to be a noun' which probably doesn't mean anything at all any more. There's no way you could argue with a title not being a noun.Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Quoting Rememberway: I just want him to start editing sensibly to be honest, and staying within consensus!. That should not too much to ask but is a sentiment that far too many editors have whenever they must interact with PMA. I suggest consideration be given to identifying particular types of venues on Wikipedia in which PMA simply gets himself into too much trouble and ban him from them for six months. He may be too much of a pain in WP-space such as MOSNUM and policy pages. Greg L (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is, of course, raking up irrelevant past grievances, something the instructions of this page frown upon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a report of six different edits, over a period of twelve days; all of them are alternatives - not always the same alternative - to an edit by the complaintant, who has always made the same one; he has therefore reverted more often than I have. No dates or times are given (this list begins and ends with edits on the same day, but they do not even resemble chronological order), nor did Rememberway bother to inform me himself. (Thanks for installing a bot.)
The "effort to resolve on the talk page" consists of this section in which three or four editors tell Rememberway that his preferred text doesn't belong in the nutshell, depends on a non-consensus view of what article titles are, and is factually incorrect.
In short, this is a pretended conduct offence, invented to get a fringe view into Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No violation Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:DerbyCountyinNZ reported by User:Jack11111 (Result: Declined)
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [diff]
- 2nd revert: [diff]
- 3rd revert: [diff]
- 4th revert: [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Reported user does not exist. -=- Adam Walker -=- 09:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note, I fixed the link to the user. It's still malformed, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
CommentWe of course would also have to block the reporter, and I note that the reported editor is not the only editor reverting Jack1111q at what I presume is the article, 2011 nor did he notify DerbyCountyinNZ. Another editor has warned Jack11111 Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:24.128.247.159 reported by User:Tired time (Result: 24 hours)
Page: The Great Mom Swap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.128.247.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: [28]
- 2nd revert: [29]
- 3rd revert: [30]
- 4th revert: [31]
- 5th revert: [32]
- 6th revert:[33]
- 7th revert:[34]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]
Comments:
I know my actions were not perfect either, because I was too lazy to find out how I should behave in these kind of situations. I apologize for that. File:The poster of the movie The Great Mom Swap.jpg was a good poster of the film which since got automatically deleted because it was not used in the article for 7 days.--tired time (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please also note that this is not the first time user makes edits claiming that a movie or a show won an award which it did not win: [37], [38]. Also, it is not the first time he participates in edit warring. However you can not see that in his talk page because he always blanks it: [39], [40], [41], [42] --tired time (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours No 3RR vio, but a block is probably needed to get this user's attention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:OptimusPrimeRibs reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24 hours)
Page: John Edward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OptimusPrimeRibs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [43]
- 1st revert: 09:30, 23 May 2011 UTC
- 2nd revert: 16:08, 23 May 2011 UTC
- 3rd revert: 16:42, 23 May 2011 UTC
- 4th revert: 16:56, 23 May 2011 UTC
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]
Comments:
User only has edits to the John Edward article, no others. Apparent disruptive WP:SPA account. User has indicated that he will continue edit warring until banned.[45] Dreadstar ☥ 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Sidebar comment: You pointed us to a clear cut edit war between you two. You at 3, them at 4. Them trying to scale back a controversial statement. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Not necessarily an SPA;
so don't use such words Dreadstar. User has indicated he will continue edit warring; and I agree; therefore, the block. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Gerardw reported by User:Pangurban1 (Result: No Vio)
Page: Los Angeles Unified School District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gerardw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [46]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]
Comments:
- This is now at a RFC and it takes two to edit war. You seem to be editing against the consensus so you should step carefully yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Dcupdates11 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24h)
Page: So Random! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcupdates11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [50]
New version being reverted to: [53]
New version being reverted to: [56]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. There have been numerous posts at User talk:Dcupdates11 trying to resolve various issues, including those related to this report, with this editor.
Comments:
Dcupdates11 has been editing disruptively at several articles virtually since he first started editing on 8 May 2011. Attempts to resolve numerous issues on his talk page have been fruitless so I started an ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dcupdates11 editing disruptively. However, Dcupdates11 has since breached 3RR at So Random!.
First and second reverts restored factual error and a previously removed uncited claim to the article. I'm unwilling to get into an edit-war so the content is still in the article. Dcupdates11 then added more unsourced claims to the article resulting in the third and fourth reverts. After this I warned the editor.[60] The fourth revert included the use of a citation that does not in any way support the claims made so I tagged it with {{failed verification}} rather than deleting it, as I knew deletion would just prompt an edit-war. The fifth revert reverted that edit. A subsequent restoration of the tag by another editor was then reverted (sixth revert). All reversions were made over an eight hour period today. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
User:74.47.103.42 reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Warned)
Page: Fingerpoke of Doom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.47.103.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [61]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]
Comments:
The user is consistently trying to replace verifiable content with original research despite warnings. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Warned. The IP hasn't reverted since the last time you warned them. So giving another warning for now. Do come back if this continues; it'll be an immediate block then. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The last revert was 1 hour and 11 minutes after the 3rr warning, but if the IP is finished, I agree that we can call this finished. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
User:U21980 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Protected 2 Weeks)
Page: Keith Raniere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U21980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [67]
- 2nd revert: [68]
- 3rd revert: [69]
- 5th revert: [70]
- 6th revert: [71]
- 7th revert: [72]
- 8th revert: [73]
- 9th revert: [74]
- 10th revert: [75]
- 11th revert: [76]
- 12th revert: [77]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78] (see also talk page)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see conversation on talk page
Comments:It's hard to see the forest for the trees; I came to this when this edit war was already going on. I issued 3rr warnings (User:Intoronto1125 issued one to this editor), and U21980 proceeded to revert again anyway. It is entirely possible that the other users crossed the line earlier, but not since the warnings were issued. Thank you, and good luck--please don't get a headache looking at the history. (I also put a note on the BLP noticeboard, by the way. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hot off the press: User:Link1914, another of the warriors, found it necessary to also revert, here, though plucking out the specific diffs of when this info was added and removed and added and removed and added and removed might be tricky. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- AND they're going at it on NXIVM as well. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there, I apologize for what is actually occurring at these pages. The problem is my lack of knowledge of Wikipedia rules and that is something that I am responsible for. I have been trying to discuss these issues with the users in question, also posting for help on admin sites in order to get assistance with the constant edit warring that is going on. I know that action may be taken against me, and I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. I thought that information being added in that could not be cited was still able to be removed without violating any reverting rules that Wikipedia had, and apparently after having read them, I am in error there. Is there anyway for me to be given a second chance when it comes to this kind of thing? I have been posting on discussion boards and trying to help build consensus, but have rarely received responses when asked for them. I will stop reverting any changes and will strictly work on discussion pages for now to try and resolve the many disputes currently present on the pages.
Once again, I apologize for the inconvenience! — Preceding unsigned comment added by U21980 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why didn't you stop when InToronto asked you to on your talk page, or when I asked you to on the article talk page? Drmies (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies, once again I guess I just misunderstood what stopping actually consisted of, I thought that deleted uncited information from the page was not something that would have violated that. I guess I can chalk that up to inexperience though. Either way, I appreciate the role that you are playing in this as it will help the page hopefully gain a semblance of order. U21980 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In an attempt to chronicle the events that were occuring on these pages, I posted the following message to the admin noticeboard last night:
Request for Intervention in NXIVM/Keith Raniere/Clare Bronfman/Sara Bronfman pages - Users Link1914 and Keyser Sözetigho
Hi there, I am requested help on these pages especially due to the problematic edits inserted by users Link1914 and Keyser Sözetigho. In regards to the first user, he seems to be intent on adding information on the page that violates NPOV from blogs and forum posts. On top of that, his claims of living in New York and supposedly attending meetings of the organizations listed in the page make it seem like he has a personal vendetta against the individuals and organization. Keyser on the other hand does not insert the information from blog posts or forums, but has been adding uncited information. When asked to cite the information he has added (in this case - NXIVM's twelve rules) he has not complied and has not responded to my talk post in that regard. Keyser's early edits were especially problematic since there was no attempt to even make the content neutral in any sense. Keyser also posted that he believes that I am affiliated with these organizations and individuals since most of my edits are on these particular pages, blindly ignoring the fact that every single edit of his has been on the same page but for one purpose, to make NXIVM and the individuals affiliated with it look as bad as possible. These issues are especially frustrating since it takes so much time to clean the pages up while trying to maintain these pages as close to neutral as possible. I want to note that I am in no way affiliated with these individuals or NXIVM, but have basically built the pages from the ground up after noticing that there wasn't any information listed for them in Wikipedia. I just want to do my part in creating the best, neutral page that can be created in Wikipedia, a page that is built on consensus and not negatively biased claims. These individuals do not contribute to discussion pages, try to initiate conversations on talk pages, but make these edits with a clear agenda. I just want to work together with others to build consensus, not continue the editing wars which have consumed these pages in the past few days since the two aforementioned user accounts were created. I hope that you can assist me in this manner. Thank you for your help! U21980 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
An example of what I was trying to explain above: http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com/2011/05/nxivm-info-wars-battle-for-hearts-and.html The claim that I am a member of this organization is not true. The problem is that the people representing anti-Raniere/Bronfman/NXIVM views are not willing to be dispassionate when it comes to their contributions. Thanks again for your assistance!U21980 (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have tried posting on their talk pages and discussion boards but was ignored, except by a post from Keyser accusing me of being a part of NXIVM, a claim that Link also put forth. They have made no attempt to try to make the page neutral and have used questionable sources for most of their material. Keyser posted NXIVM's rules without citation and Link cited them to a blog as well as making citations from forum posts. Anyways, I figured that this post would help explain my side of the story.
Once again, I apologize for the inconvenience!U21980 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have been watching the edit war develop and it looks like we have a very serious case of people who are hostile to NXIVM coming on and trying to edit war. This is especially the case after a blog in upperstate accused some of the editors (myself included) of being members of NXIVM. The author of that blog encouraged its anti-NXIVM readers to come over and start posting. [1] This whole-you-work-for-NXIVM bunk is a pretty unsubstantiated rumor on their part, but hardly surprising, given the antipathy for whatever reason some folks have against this admittedly strange program. Again, we should treat this stuff like any other old page and try to put up as much factual, not biased, and not slanted information as possible so people can understand NXIVM and Raniere. I don't have a bone to pick in this fight, but I do want the page to be nice and pretty AND ACCURATE. I recommend locking it if people can't behave.JamesChambers666 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Page will be unprotected 2 weeks from this notice. -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have been watching the edit war develop and it looks like we have a very serious case of people who are hostile to NXIVM coming on and trying to edit war. This is especially the case after a blog in upperstate accused some of the editors (myself included) of being members of NXIVM. The author of that blog encouraged its anti-NXIVM readers to come over and start posting. [1] This whole-you-work-for-NXIVM bunk is a pretty unsubstantiated rumor on their part, but hardly surprising, given the antipathy for whatever reason some folks have against this admittedly strange program. Again, we should treat this stuff like any other old page and try to put up as much factual, not biased, and not slanted information as possible so people can understand NXIVM and Raniere. I don't have a bone to pick in this fight, but I do want the page to be nice and pretty AND ACCURATE. I recommend locking it if people can't behave.JamesChambers666 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Really UB I thought we were making progress.All I want is a fair and balanced edit. I see you too are obsessed with Saratoga in decline and I wonder where you came to believe I was a former student? Not sure where you got that one. I have friends who took courses some say cult some not. I will put my money on the 6 various media outlets who call it a cult over NXIVM promotional material.I don't think their propaganda is neutral do you?Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
User:Gerardw reported by User:Pangurban1 (Result: page protected)
Page: Los Angeles Unified School District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gerardw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [79]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]
Comments:
User Gerardw has reverted and revised the work on this entry 3 times within the last 24 hours. I have repeatedly asked the user not to delete the work wholesale, but he continues to do so. The reasons he has given is that the work does not fall withing wikipedia guidelines of verifiability, but the materials deleted by him come mostly from sources like the Los Angeles Times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangurban1 (talk • contribs)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
IP editor reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: semiprotected)
Page: Greek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: dynamic IP user:
- 77.49.171.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 46.12.142.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 94.64.43.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
(Identity of all three IPs seems clear from contribution profile and style; same aggressive tone, same broken English.)
Previous version reverted to: various versions; all are re-adding unnecessary disambiguation links back in
Reverts between 20 and 24 May; the last four are a 3RR vio:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85] (note abusive response)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Greek#Pruning down, for the 3rd time. Again, note unconstructive postings by IP.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
* IP can get an account and discuss if need be. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
User:John Foxe reported by User:Routerone (Result: Both 24h)
Page: Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
comments
For a long time now John Foxe has claimed some sort of absolute authority over the content of this page, he reverts every single uncontroversial edit made to it by numerous editors, whom he does not agree with. He seems to have became the arbitrator of what is ultimately allowed into the article and what isn't, this an almost 3 year along conflict involving dozens of editors. I was attempting to some necessary and uncontroversial changes to the page and he continually reverted me with the rude edit summary "take complaints to the talk page", I then did justify my edits on the talkpage [89] and another editor made a respective compromise edit [90] and after discussion he quickly reverted it back to his own version.
He has now violated WP:3RR in attempting to defend his own version of the page and has not engaged in any dicussions. I did leave a warning before he made the 3rd edit, which he was quick to remove [91]. Rather than falling into his trap of me reverting him for a 3rd time, I am ceasing my editing here to report him to avoid rulebreaking on my own behalf. Routerone (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Admin note both editors are clearly edit warring, aside from which side of 3RR they are on. I got involved by putting up a compromise lede and requested short-term full page protection, which is probably better than a scorched-earth approach of blocking one or more editors. (I'd normally full-prot myself but I put up the compromise content instead, so I'm "involved"). Other issues (such as ownership) should be handled with WP:DR after sufficient talkpage discussion, which hasn't taken place. (ec- both users are discussing on the talk page, but this shouldn't be accompanied by revert-warring and user-warning templates) tedder (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have not actually violated WP:3RR however. I have ended editing the page in the risk of doing so. He will continue to revert me as long as he lives. My edits were not problematic, yet he is content to revert anything that goes into that page which is different to the way he has wrote it. I did mention my changes on the talkpage and he continued to revert me. I initially reverted back because I do not believe he has a justification to revert them, does a summary saying "take your complaints to the talk page" sound like a justifying revert to you? Its an immediate assertion of authority! Routerone (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- 3RR is only one form of edit warring. Again, I'd encourage taking the editor-specific issues to edit-specific steps of WP:DR, and discuss the content on the talk page. tedder (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that this is the 4th time in the last month that John Foxe has violated 3RR with regards to content disputes on this page. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Both editors blocked 24h for edit warring. The article came off two weeks of full protection on May 12, and it appears that a long-term war is continuing. Foxe has been heavily reverting this article for a long time, and Routerone was his main opponent in the latest episode. Routerone was warring even if he didn't cross 3RR. I am reluctant to put back full protection on the article when it was tried so recently without stopping the fight. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Cyperuspapyrus reported by User:Oleola (Result: )
Page: Helder Ferreira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98] He uncivil insulted me so I refuse the conversation with him.
Comments:
I removed rubbish and unreferenced info, and the way this guy is acting is below any decency. Oleola (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Mattyjacky/User:18.252.5.59 reported by User:Medeis (Result: )
Page: Chinaman (term) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mattyjacky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18.252.5.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
these are a continuation of the same edits by the IP user:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See comments here and here.
Note that the registered user carries on the IP user's arguments on the talk page, indicating their identity.
Please note that these edits are apparently part of a web campaign to pursue a POV at wikipedia ("the battlefield has shifted to wikipedia. Need help") described in this ANI report. (Since these pages have been deleted, I cannot provide diffs.) Assuming the IP user is involved I suggest that should be taken into account for any sanctions.
Comments:
Please also note the user's blatant willful vandalism of this very AN3 page [107]. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- If this article is, as you indicated, part of the web campaign, semi-protection may be called for here in addition to or instead of sanctions to the reported editors. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- There have been other edits to that page adding material from the deleted pages addressed at the ANI report above [108]. I do not oppose semi protection of Chinaman (term) in addition to strong sanctions, which are clearly warranted given the user's multiple edits with two different single purpose accounts to avoid 3RR and his carefully premeditated vandalism of this very AN3 report. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleting Medeis's report was faulty. I planed to use his/her report as a template and add a new one. As a new user, I am in the process of being more familiar with wikipedia policies. I will take responsibilities of having revised his/her report by fault. The user Medeis has conducted many personal attacks and made above-mentioned false accusations. I have indicated on the discussion page that I agree that it is counterproductive to argue with you indefinitely. I'd like to raise this to a third party evaluation. Mattyjacky (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC). From the 3rd reverting rule, both Medeis and I were involved in an editing war. I call for a complete review and a third party opinion on the debate in the talk page. His statement of carefully premeditated vandalism is a personal attack. On his imaginary false statement about the association of my ID and the IP address. This can be easily disproved by administrative board by checking the log. Thanks. Mattyjacky (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- For a "new user" (who has indeed had two single use accounts in less than two days, the second being formed immediately after the first had garnered several warnings) Mattyjacky is very familiar with the use of templates, language such as "NPOV" and "personal attacks", etc.
- Regardless, Mattyjacky was warned, and understood the warning given he placed the same on my talk page [109], yet has four reverts under his registered name in less than 24 hours. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Medeis made 4 revert within 24 hours
1rd [110]
2nd [111]
3rd [112]
4th [113]
Thanks for your compliment about me not being a new user and thanks for praising my familiarity with "NPOV" and "personal attacks", etc. Mattyjacky (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to the talk page and see that the lengthy debate was between the two of Medeis and me.
BTW, the link provided by Medeis above [114] seems to contain a new controversy with reliable sources from a famous university website. He/she has suggested that there was a campaign about trying to include this incident. However, I will step away from that discussion since this controversial incident has never been relevant to any of my edits. My statement here is that in the lead of the article Medeis used biased judgmental language from one side of some controversies that are listed in the controversies session. This seems to result from his/her personal taste of mitigating the derisive meaning of a racial slur. I was just trying to convince him that in describing controversies in the lead, causing controversies is a better wording than without intention, which is the precise statement of the offender (not the people being offended) in these controversies. Mattyjacky (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please note, since MattyJacky/18.252.5.59 implies that it is untrue, that the editor is likely one and the same is shown by the highly unlikely coincidence of his same day one after the other appearance on the same page, his seamlessly continued arguments on the article's talk page, and his use of the same idiosyncratic address, "To Medeis:" "To Stradivarius:", to begin many of his comments.
Mr/Mrs Medeis: I should not let me fall into another editing war with you again. I'll leave the point to the administrative board. You have associated me with a lot of (and ever-increasing) names already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjacky (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Medeis reported by User:Mattyjacky (Result: )
Page: Chinaman (term) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I call for a complete review and a third party opinion on the debate in the talk page. Medeis's reports can lead to relevant links.
Medeis has made 4 revert within 24 hours
1rd [115] 2nd [116] 3rd [117] 4th [118] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjacky (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
There seems to be something wrong with MattyJacky's diffs. In any case, this edit of mine [119] was the removal of material about a living person which had been removed from at least four deleted articles mentioned in this ANI. Also be aware that while no editor beside this user has reverted my edits, which are based on a concern for balance, among other things, the accusing editor's edits have been reverted by three separate editors [120] [121] [122] beside myself, along with the accusation that my motivation is racism. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Mr./Mrs Medeis often makes personal attacks exemplified as above. Please also review this talk page to check his interactions with other users.
Also, Mr./Mrs Medeis is clearly involving in a online campaign, but with an opposite opinion. As indicated by C.Fred, Mr./Mrs Medeis with his awareness should have made this page protected, instead of participating the (counter)campaign and falsely assume that anyone who has a different opinion is from the "enemy". In the talk page, he has indicated that he is Chinese and not familiar with California, this explains his ability to find the campaign link in the Chinese language. However, his racism accusation above is simply absurd and is a blatant personal attack. I don't believe he has a neutral standpoint in editing the article.
He/she had already provided a source of the online campaign.Mattyjacky (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Danceking5 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: one week)
Page: Trance music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danceking5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [123]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129] and [130]: Note that the 4th revert probably came before the user received the first warning, thus the pass and clarifying of the warning in the second diff.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this issue directly (saw it come up on ANI). I do see that Roux has attempted significant discussion at both Talk:Trance music and User Talk:Danceking5
Comments:
Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just adding, WP:ANI#User:Danceking5 is the link to the thread on ANI discussing the multiple problems with this user. I'm trying my best here but my AGF is gone. → ROUX ₪ 06:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one week Originally added a 48 hour block thinking it was lenient but I missed his last revert. He's clearly reading edit summaries and his talk page. A week might given him time to think more deeply about both the warnings and the good advice accompanied with offers of help that he's been given. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Zefr reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: )
Page: Morinda citrifolia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&oldid=430175733
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=430738051&oldid=430719772
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=430787083&oldid=430785043
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=430796162&oldid=430791147
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=430919178&oldid=430805555
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morinda_citrifolia#Categories> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User:rpeh reported by User:Tom soldier (Result: )
Page: Battle of Königgrätz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: rpeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]
Comments:
Keeps reverting infobox to the version without Albert of Saxony, on the talkpage sticks to his belief that "corps commanders do no belong to the infobox", does not respond to questions "Why?".
Tom soldier (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tom soldier continues to exhibit ignorance of basic WP policies. In this case, #4 is clearly not a revert - I inserted accurate, cited content as I had already indicated I was going to do on the talk page. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- wp:3RR A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." In case #4 do not dispute your improving of the Prussian side, I dispute your continuous removal of Albert from the Austrian side, while simultaneously ignoring my requests on the article talk page why a corps commander should not be included in the infobox.Tom soldier (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've answered your questions several times: the fact you never bother to read my replies fully is neither here nor there. You're actually welcoming my addition while at the same time reporting me for edit warring? Please realise how stupid that is then go away and stop bothering me. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, you did not answer my question at all. Tom soldier (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I give up. This user has no WP:COMPETENCE, which makes any dealings with him impossible. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)