Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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.

    Click here to create a new report


    User:Historiographer reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: protected)

    Page: Internet in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Historiographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5] this editor has been blocked a few times regarding edit warring, and is very aware of rules regarding it.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] (my comment on the article talk page) [7] (another editor's comment on the article talk page)


    Comments:

    Before someone points out the obvious, yes I do realise that there have only been three reverts, not four within a 24 hour period. It would be very easy for me to be an asshole and bait the other user by reverting the article again (with me remaining within 3RR) and wait for the article to either be reverted (making four reverts and an easy 3RR report) or have the other user realise that he is one revert away from breaking the 3RR and force them to accept my version. However, given the block history of this editor, this [8] edit summary in which content was removed, but the edit summary was rather deceptive, stating that only a title had been changed and the fact that these edits have been disruptive, I think this warrants action.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and - after re-reading my above comments, I would like to make it clear that being an asshole and baiting the other user, is not something I was planning, suggesting or threatening to do. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tim Song (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    89.210.* reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: indef/1 week)

    Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Pomaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: PoamkRomani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and dynamic IPs

    1. 5 June 2010, 20:17 (two successive edits, undoing this)
    2. 5 June 2010, 21:12
    3. 6 June 2010, 11:53 (rv intervening compromise edit [9])
    4. 6 June 2010, 12:11 (subsequent with the preceding; undoing yet another unrelated edit without explanation)
    5. 6 June 2010, 15:51
    6. new rv following this report: 6 June, 19:39

    Warning and attempt at discussion: [10] (prior to rv #3)

    Parallel rv-war on Pomaks:

    1. 1 June
    2. 2 June
    3. 5 June, 00:15
    4. 5 June, 20:04
    5. 5 June, 21:11
    6. 6 June, 11:56 (rv compromise edit)
    7. new rv following this report: 6 June, 19:40

    Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: continuing reverts on both articles, now through 89.210.44.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked: account indef'd; 89.210.32.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked one week. Tim Song (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mk5384 reported by User:Montanabw (Result: No violation)

    Page: Thoroughbred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Page: Standardbred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Page: Hambletonian 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Mk5384 (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: [link]

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

    Comments:

    A capitalization debate, editing against consensus that is growing nasty quite quickly, see last comment on my talk page, where a vulgar term was used. Not quite a 3RR yet on any one article, but this editor is now changing multiple articles, including a featured article (Thoroughbred) where the issue was resolved during FA review. This needs a neutral admin to supervise as the editor is failing to understand a longstanding consensus at WikiProject Equine (WPEQ) on the capitalization of horse breed articles and fails to understand the use of terms of art in place. Montanabw(talk) 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And I reverted MYSELF. Read, "self revert to avoid an edit war". Please find something to do.Mk5384 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I believe that others are on board here to review the situation, my plea for some additional eyes has been heard, so my thanks and sorry if this wasn't the right spot to report. Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hayek1818 reported by User:E. Ripley (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Dino Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Hayek1818 (talk · contribs)

    Previous version reverted to: [16]

    (There are prior reverts as well.)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

    Comments:

    Edit warring to keep edits on a BLP that are peacockish, possibly improperly sourced, and in his most recent iteration, that includes commentary directed at other editors who are reverting him, inside the body of the article. I was reluctant to bring a report here because this user appears very new and most likely doesn't understand Wikipedia's policies entirely, but his last revert came after I tried to warn him about 3RR. His next edit was to revert again. He has made no effort to engage in dialogue except for the strange commentary he's edit warring to keep inside the body of the article itself, which basically accuses good faith editors reverting him of working for his political adversary. He needs something to really get his attention, I think. — e. ripley\talk 22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree and have issued a 24 hour block. WP:BITE has a limit, given WP:CIR (which I agree with and act upon). One editor with direct disruptive activity, block is more appropriate than protection. Some BLP advice and some links to WP:BLP in a talk page message might be of some use to this user. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.30.16.93 reported by User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (Result: 31h)

    Page: Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 76.30.16.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [23]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

    Comments:

    IP address user has continued to add uncited information to the article that main contributors are reverting on-sight. Not only are the disputed statements the user is adding uncited, they are dubious and have not received significant coverage from any media sources that have written about the game. User has ignored attempts to discuss on the article's talk page and his/her talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contribs)

    User:Jeremy 414 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Not blocked)

    Page: William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Jeremy 414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [32]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] Also informed in edit summary: [38] to which he subsequently responded.

    Concerns addressed here: Talk:William_Lane_Craig#Evangelical_Christian. Re-addressed, and edit warring noted, here: Talk:William_Lane_Craig#Evangelical_Revisited

    Comments:

    User's 3rd revert may have been unintentional. Some good faith edits from both him and me resulted in undoing the lead. Therefore, I don't believe he's intentionally violated WP:3RR. He is, however, edit warring, despite being warned. These changes have been added (and subsequently reverted) numerous times over the past week, culminating in the diffs listed above from today. The user has yet to respond to sources listed on the talk page. Thank you. Jess talk cs 00:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit: Also worth noting, the edit warring has been going on for longer than today, including:

    ...and others. These were prior to being informed of WP:EW and warned, so may have been innocent. We've subsequently engaged in discussion regarding the lead on my talk page and the article talk, but little progress has been made, and his edits are becoming hostile. I believe any clarification from a 3rd party (particularly an administrator) would be helpful in him understanding policy. Thanks for your help. Jess talk cs 02:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on his recent edit, it seems like it is! I'm going to re-revert the changes to the article based on consensus, and continue discussion on the talk page. Thanks for your help. Jess talk cs 02:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would caution you that you are approaching 3RR yourself. Also, please see my comments on the talk page ... I'd be happy to help with sourcing if I can. I'm not that familiar with Craig, although I do have one of his books around here somewhere. --B (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:ManasShaikh (Result: Both blocked)

    Page: IHH_(İnsani_Yardım_Vakfı) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IHH_(%C4%B0nsani_Yard%C4%B1m_Vakf%C4%B1)&oldid=366379787

    • 1st revert: diff
    • 2nd revert: diff
    • 3rd revert: diff
    • 4th revert: diff (This one was not done using "undo" link. Manually deleted all contributions, and made allegations violating wp:agf. Despite repeated requests, refused to engage on the talk page.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments: User is known to be disruptive. He was recently blocked for 12 hours and immediately after the block was over, he started edit warring. Refuses to engage despite repeated requests. Provides false edit summaries (marks significant changes as minor), makes unfounded allegations etc, and removes warnings on his talk page.

    (More details on this page )

    ManasShaikh (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Back-to-back edits are generally counted as a single revert, even if both of them reverted or undid different aspects of the article. By my count, there are only three reverts. I'm looking at the rest of the history, though. (3RR obviously is not an entitlement.) I should also point out (1) removing warnings from your own talk page is permissible - it is taken as a sign that you have read them and (2) templating a regular user with anything other than a pro forma template (eg, notifying them of a pending deletion) is considered rude. Personal messages are best when dealing with a regular user and in particular, using a template that says "welcome to Wikipedia" is very rude. --B (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi B, thanks for reviewing this. "[R]emoving warnings from your own talk page is permissible- it is taken as a sign that you have read them". I agree. However, the edit summary provided ("removing threats by user pretending he's an admin") shows the difficulty of engaging this particular user. I never "pretended" that I am an admin.
    About the second point, I was trying to be polite. But if it's considered rude, then I'll try to refrain from using it. ManasShaikh (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anufriyev reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: Indefblocked)

    Page: Tower of Hanoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Anufriyev (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: [46]

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

    Comments:

    User is repeatedly inserting spammy links to "cup puzzle" software and has now been successively reverted by three different editors. SpinningSpark 09:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked - indefblocked as a spam only account. --B (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dennisjuris reported by User:Native94080 (Result: Indef blocked )

    Page: Chaz Bono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Dennisjuris (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: [link]

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

    Comments: Blocked – for a period of indefinitely BLP, 3RR, vandalism-only account, call it what you will- it's just trolling. Courcelles (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    User:GreenGov2010 reported by User:Gregbard (Result: username blocked/48h)

    Page: California Proposition 14 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: GreenGov2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [50]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning / User was advised: [55]

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

    See:[56]

    Comments:
    User has stated specifically on user page that the account creation is for the purpose of political campaigning. Insists on inserting irrelevant and inflammatory claim about David Duke.

    Don't forget to vote tomorrow in CA! Greg Bard 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Greg Bard has repeatedly argued in favor of the proposition and is working to keep facts off the front page which are highly relevant. A primary argument made by it's creator is that it will remove the polarization of the campaigns by favoring moderates. Fact: Louisiana elected David Duke using the same voting method as Prop 14. User Greg Bard doesn't want voters to know that. It's a single phrase inserted into a single sentence and is factual. GreenGov2010 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You will notice that my version is entirely neutral. The whole Duke thing is obviously pretty ridiculous. Nothing in the article claims any such thing as favoring moderates or anything like that. There is no need to address the issue in the article. Wikipedia isn't part of anyone's campaign "gov." Greg Bard 01:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the "whole Duke thing" that Prop 14 introduces is important. If you can show how that election is somehow impossible in California under Prop 14, you should do so. Both elections use the same method. That you did not mention anything about a central claim of the proposition's creators and backers is not anything to be proud of. If someone wants to read the legislative text they can do that at ca.gov. Average voters need to hear how analysts, advocates, and opponents see that the Proposition may change things. GreenGov2010 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Insofar as the Wikipedia article goes, no it is not important. Pehaps in the course of you r OTHER campaigning it is a big deal. However the article make no claims about electing moderates. Therefore it is not something that needs to be addressed in the article. You joined Wikipedia what a few days ago? Why don't you read some of the discussion about what is and is not appropriate to include in articles. Tendentious material is left out. Furthermore, your belief that you are somehow warning people that some Nazi could get elected is delusional. Please take a step back and think about it. Even furthermore, it is very irresponsible to suggest that somehow the people of Louisiana had nothing to do with Duke's election. So then I guess racism just isn't the problem then. Is that the brilliant analysis you glean from the fact that Louisiana uses a simple majoritarian system? You are caught up in partisan campaigning, and that has no place on WP. Relent. Greg Bard 06:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef for a username vio. If the edit warring starts again, either re-report here or let me know and it will be dealt with. Tim Song (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The username is now fixed. GreenIn2010 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and is apparently up to the same hijinks. Am I going to have to make another report, or shall we just tack it on to this one. This person is continuing to be a tendentious editor under the new name. Greg Bard 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And so Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Tim Song (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:O Fenian reported by User:Qwerta369 (Result: Not blocked)

    Page: Overseas Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: O Fenian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [57]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

    Comments:

    User:O Fenian appears to have an issue with the flag used in the country data of the Northern Ireland flagcountry template. I have pointed out to User:O Fenian that the issue was discussed at length at Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland. The consensus is that the current flag should remain. User:O Fenian's issue appears to be with the flag contained within the Northern Ireland flagcountry template and not with the flagcountry template itself, yet rather than discussing the issue on Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland, User:O Fenian continues to remove the template. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest looking at the history carefully, the first "diff" is from 5th June. And you will also note the warning came after the so-called 4th revert, but as I am already aware it is irrelevant but it shows this editor's sloppiness when it comes to this report. As I have explained repeatedly, the claim I need to amend it on Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland is wrong. In the first discussion on that page an administrator says "If you think that the flag is inappropriate for that set of articles, just remove the Northern Ireland string from {{Northern Ireland elections}}. You don't need to change anything else", meaning it can just be removed as inappropriate without amending the template. He also says "I still maintain that the best course of action is to patrol the pages that link to this template and replace the inappropriate instances with {{noflag}} (or outright removal), than it would be to edit ~2500 pages to install a variant label". That is exactly what is done, a change to the template has been ruled out as unwieldy so inappropriate instances like this are removed instead. I have pointed this editor to WP:IRISH FLAGS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations, and to reliable sources saying Northern Ireland not having a flag, because it does not. All I get is a refusal to listen and claims I need to amend it on the template, when a change to the template has been ruled out and we have been told to remove inappropriate instances instead. O Fenian (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was using simply "[[Northern Ireland]]" rather than {{noflag|[[Northern Ireland]]}}. I would not care which was used, as long as an unofficial flag is not used. But if you read the "discussion" on Talk:Overseas Chinese all I got was a non-discussion with a fingers in the ears repetition of "you need to amend it at the template". Change to the template itself has been ruled out as unwieldy and we have been told to watch out for inappropriate usages instead, but then we get editors saying "you need to amend it at the template". It seems to be a bit of a Catch-22 situation. O Fenian (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought cab's comments were helpful, to be honest. However, they were directed more at Qwerta369 than yourself.
      O Fenian, regardless of the merits or otherwise of your reverts, I would recommend that you try and avoid repeated reverts, and discuss earlier.
      Qwerta369, would you be prepared to accept {{noflag}} at Overseas Chinese and all relevant infoboxes?
      TFOWRidle vapourings 11:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi TFOWR. My opinion is that, since all countries in the infobox in question are represented by their national flag, Northern Ireland should not be exempted. I accept, however, that the "Ulster Banner" which is used in {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}} is no longer the official flag of Northern Ireland and so I agree that it is incorrect that this flag remains in the country data of {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}}. My view is that the best course of action is to amend the flag within the country data of {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}} if a consensus to do so is reached. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your willingness to use an amended {{flagcountry}}. If O Fenian was prepared to discuss this with you further (at, say, Template talk:Flagcountry or whatever venue you both felt was appropriate) would you be prepared to withdraw this edit warring report? TFOWRidle vapourings 12:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi TFOWR. Yes I would. If I may, I'd like to suggest that the issue of the flag contained in the country data of {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}} is discussed at Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland. Thank you. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, thank you for being so accommodating. So long as you two discuss this somewhere, I'm happy ;-) I'll leave a note below. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, CaliforniaAliBaba's comments were helpful, but seemingly Qwerta369 ignored my knowledge of the problems regarding use of the flag and kept trying to pass the buck by making me get the template amended, which has already been ruled out. I generally try and avoid multiple reverts, but on this occasion I slipped up. However I also feel obliged to point out that a slightly inaccurate picture has been painted, in that the flag has not been present in the article for some time, except when random unaware IP editors and one registered editor added it (which you will see me reverting over a period of months), until Qwerta369 added it on 6 June. This morning I received what I deem to be a hostile message with ownership overtones, and then a general refusal to discuss in any meaningful way on the talk page. And now, I must go to work. O Fenian (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      My hope here would be that you can both resolve this amicably, without any recourse to anyone being blocked (I'd regard a block as punitive if it was clear that you were discussing the underlying issue). However, since I can't block anyone, and since there are no doubt editors watching this who can, I can't make any promises. I'd like to wait for Qwerta369 to comment further. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Additionally O Fenian, I should like to add that there was no hostility intended in the message to which you linked and I apologise if it could be perceived that there was. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Qwerta369 is graciously prepared to withdraw this complaint against O Fenian, and both parties are prepared to discuss the issue further. I've warned O Fenian to avoid repeated reverts in general. I have not looked at the reverts described here, and have no comment as to the validity of this report (I consider it irrelevant in light of Qwerta369's withdrawal of the complaint). Could someone uninvolved close this? Or is further action needed? TFOWRidle vapourings 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined - Not blocked as there is no ongoing threat of disruption. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. --B (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prem555 reported by User:Doniago (Result: 72h)

    Page: Terminator Salvation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Prem555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [64]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:
    User has failed to discuss edits or stop making changes despite repeated requests. Doniago (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours 3RR is not an entitlement. Tim Song (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Checker Fred reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: protected)

    List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Checker Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 15:56, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Series overview */ said in preview for break up in pairs some of the episodes are counted as two episodes.")
    2. 16:33, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 366812479 by AussieLegend (talk)HER'S A SCOURCE")
    3. 17:10, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by AussieLegend; There is no copyright here plus I added up the episodes this is an hr long and lost at see is as well there are 28 episodes add them as 2 and you get 30 epis")
    4. 17:25, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Series overview */ a commercial on tv and it said the season finaly")
    5. 17:28, 8 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Kww; C fred said it was fine. (TW)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Bidgee (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tim Song (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • And the user gets off? Others like myself have been blocked (even though I really shouldn't have a blocklog) for less? Right makes lot of sense, not! Bidgee (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion seems to be ongoing on the talk page, and since the user reported is participating in the discussion, I'm not minded to block. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether they are part of the ongoing discussion or not the editor clearly breached the WP:3RR by making not 3, not 4 but 5 reverts. They will now think it is ok to breach it (3RR) and that they can get away with it. No wonder why we are losing good editors as the seem some treated better then others.
    and what is the point on having WP:3RRNB when we have Admin's just protecting pages? We may as well just have WP:RPP. Bidgee (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are preventative, not punitive. When the user has started participating in discussion, a block does not prevent anything. Tim Song (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sovietia reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 48h)

    Page: Chris Noth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Sovietia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [72]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78] [79]

    Comments: User is repeatedly inserting a piece of unsourced (and inaccurate) trivia into a BLP, despite objections from multiple editors. User appears to be the same as the IPs making the same edits. The bottom line is that in-universe "facts" about fictional characters should not be treated as facts about the actors who portray them; deliberately editing to that effect is vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Tim Song (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dawnseeker2000 reported by 97.92.44.231 (Result: Protected)

    Page: Amateur_Radio_Emergency_Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User keeps attempting to link to an unrelated article. User is likely a developer of the software which the unrelated article is about.

    Comments:
    I've fully protected the article for 3 days and asked for talk page discussion in lieu of blocking both parties for what appears to be around 6RR behavior; neither may have understood edit warring policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec - but agree with above action) I agree with the IP editor on the merits as a content issue (and the comment GWH left on the article talk talk page[80] to that effect), but: (1) both sides are edit warring when it is better to seek dispute resolution; (2) this is a days-long slow speed revert war, not a 3RR type of thing, and (3) Dawnseeker is a productive good faith editor, not an WP:SPA, so I see no reason to assume a conflict of interest. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dawnseeker is the person who pretty much wrote the whole DSTAR article. Conflict of interest is assumed from that and his failure to justify linking to a pretty much unused and proprietary technology. 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up the D-STAR article a few months ago. I added quite a few sources and helped to conform the article to the manual of style, but there isn't any conflict of interest here. I'm not sure why the ip user thinks this. I'm just an average Wikipedian trying to improve articles. I've been doing this for a few years. Dawnseeker2000 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We're constructing an article here and are looking to build content. There is this tool that relates to this emergency service. There are sources. I cannot understand why there is resistance to building the article. If someone were to start a section on methods of the ARES or how they go about their business, it would be lacking without a mention of D-STAR/D-RATS. I dunno, I'm a little confused about this. A person should not have to quarrel in order to build an article. I'm merely doing to this article what I did to the D-STAR article. Here's the before and after. That article improved a bit in terms of sources and quality content.

    I don't see how I haven't shown the relationship. There are not many thousands of articles that are related in this way. Dawnseeker2000 22:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DSTAR is a widely unnacepted and unused technology in ARES. While the DRATS section is great in the DSTAR article it frankly is not of significance in ARES organizations to warrant placement. ARES teams use a wide variety of tools including flashlights, raincoats, antennnas, cars, microphones, coax, etc. Should we link to those as well? 97.92.44.231 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As this report has ended, discussion of the article and the validity of edits should move page to the article's talk page. IP, please weigh in there. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.113.255.64, User:Pypr, and User:WagnerCliff reported by User:Gregbard (Result: Protected)

    Page: Rick Keene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 24.113.255.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pypr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WagnerCliff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Please just look at: [81]. This has been going on for a while.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I have attempted to moderate: Talk:Rick_Keene Comments:

    Political campaigning.

    • Result - Fully protected at an old version for two weeks. The latest version seemed to me to violate WP:BLP, with language such as "In 2009 a website was launched tracking Rick Keene’s exaggerated claims and fact checking him. It can be viewed at www.KeeneFacts.com". I arbitrarily picked the last version by Gregbard since it seemed to be free of gratuitous non-neutral language. If anyone prefers a different way to fix these problems, please make a proposal on the talk page and use {{editprotected}} to get the attention of administrators. Take a glance at the comments in the edit history to get the flavor of the political warring that is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It might seem fair to leave some of the political opinion regarding In 2007, Keene authored AB 735 to permit undocumented immigrants in California to have valid in-state work permits. The act appropriated $250,000,000 to give undocumented immigrants ID cards and included a tax increase of 8% on workers to pay for the program. Except the bill never had a hearing it did not apporate anything. Leaving up the outright lie without any cite or reference "Supported and voted for a $33 million dollar subsidy to pay for abortions in the 2008 health budget trailer bill." is justified how? And the DUI bit?

    User:92.11.165.71 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: )

    Page: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 92.11.165.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edited under: 92.4.91.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [82]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold#Marilyn Manson/Misleading use of quote

    Comments:


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=366913407"