Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 555: Line 555:


: An appallingly badly formatted report. Doesn't look like a vio to me, and since you are now both talking on talk I think thats the way forward [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
: An appallingly badly formatted report. Doesn't look like a vio to me, and since you are now both talking on talk I think thats the way forward [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Fair enough. In future, what would be a better format (unless you've used "format" to mean i was wrong to come here on the substance, in which case i understand your meaning)?[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 21:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:11, 2 January 2009

    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

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Commodore Sloat and User:Amwestover (Result: being discussed at ANI)

    This edit war has been going on for about three months. The two users named above will not let it die and have filled the article talk page with sniping and accusations. They have been warned and warned and warned and warned. The page has been fully protected twice because of this dispute. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem. They deal with them here now [1] and a topic ban is most likely.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's defer this issue to the wisdom of our colleagues over at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dylan0513 reported by Sesshomaru (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [2]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]

    User is very much aware of the discussions at User talk:NuclearWarfare#Regarding your edit to Aang and Talk:Katara#Relationship with Aang, but continued to restore the article to a disputed revision. Has violated the 3rr, and even resorted to name-calling [8]. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note 48 hours due to edit warring and incivility. — Aitias // discussion 18:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jros83 reported by User:BarretBonden (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [9]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]

    The user removed the category from the article. It was reverted and taken to the talk page and no consensus has been reached for its removal. BarretBonden (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:S3884h reported by User:Gerardw (Result: No violation 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: Sorry, I just don't know.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]
    • No violation as of yet, but the S3884h's claim about the name of the show seems wholly unsupported. "Meet the Press with David Gregory" gets zero g-hits on site:nbc.com so I kinda doubt that's what they call it. --B (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I believe this has progressed to being a violation.
    Dec 30th edits by S3884h (talk · contribs):
    14:04, December 30, 2008
    19:33, December 30, 2008
    21:04, December 30, 2008
    21:18, December 30, 2008
    And the user was previously warned about 3RR: above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So it has. Blocked 24 hours. This is silly. --B (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bwilkins reported by Tavix (Result: Not a 3RR violation)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [28]

    This all started with a question I had for User:Bwilkins about a comment he had made to WT:NCSP. Instead of answering my question, he assumed bad faith and simply removed the comment. I reverted that decision and added another comment telling him to just answer my question and to stop removing my comments. He went right back and reverted my comments, assisting that I am not good enough to have my comments on that page. Instead, he tried to deflect it back at me by trying to put it on my talk page. He went right back to reverting my contributions as vandalism no matter how many times I tried to reason with him about the situation. I am currently talking to him on my talk page, but that is besides the matter. He thinks that I am a vandal no matter how I try to reason with him, which is being impeded by the fact that he doesn't even want to talk to my on his talk page. Tavix (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    His conduct is incredibly rude, but reversions within your own userspace are exempt from revert limitations as a general rule. It isn't a 3RR issue, but it certainly isn't very polite. --B (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, reverting your comments as vandalism is not very appropriate of course. However, the policy says:
    “Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.”
    Therefore I don't think this is a violation of the 3RR. Perhaps it's better to take this to WP:AN or WP:AN/I? — Aitias // discussion 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Incredibly rude"?? Pardon me? I asked him to keep this discussion on his own webpage, and to continue the discussion on his own talkpage only. Thanks. ♪BMWΔ 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:89.214.175.137 reported by User:Eight88 (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


    Also impacting Mariah Carey discography. Also page blanks own talkpage. Moved to : User talk:89.214.29.173

    User:Eight88 reported by User:JuStar (Result:No violation.)



    Also impacting Mariah Carey discography.

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --Smashvilletalk 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CoreEpic reported by Wikiwag (Result: No violation, 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [36]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [41]

    I have attempted in good faith to caution the user about the quality of his edits, here, here, and here. Unfortunately, he has rejected my pleas and has escalated matters to include personal attacks here, here, here, and here

    Many thanks for your help.

    - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Fitzgerald reported by DreamGuy (Result: 24 hours)

    This one is easy -- pull up the history of Casablanca (film) and you'll see a whole long list of edits by User:Ed Fitzgerald in the past day and a half. Every single edit of his excepting one (where he says "adding to alleviate "undue weight" concerns") has been a revert back to a previous version. He has summarily full reverted every edit of four separate editors (three of them have been working on three different parts of the article, and I have agreed with all of them). The reverts happen so quickly that people trying to undo his reverting get lost even trying to figure out which one should be reverted to. Now I can't restore User:Fifpasshix and/or User:Clarityfiend 's edits without undoing User:2005's edits -- would need to open them all up and take the various changed parts out by hand and merge them again.

    No official warning given until most recent edit comment by 2005, but Ed Fitzgerald has been around since 2005 (the year, not the editor) and surely must know about 3RR policy by now.

    I'd give separate diffs but his reverts aren't a simple one and one of the previous, but older ones skipping over intermediary edits (also reverts) are difficult to provide links for, as you can't just pick the last link. But his edit comments make it clear that they are reverts. I also don't know which 24 hour period to select, but he's got 'nine reverts in less than 48 hours, so it's pretty clear cut.

    DreamGuy (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    98.122.108.47 reported by Will Beback (Result:24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [42]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [50]

    Submitted by:   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Timeshifter reported by User:Ronz (Result: stale)



    • 1st revert: 06:01, 29 December 2008
    • 2nd revert: 06:23, 29 December 2008 At this point, two editors had removed the link. His edit summary is, "I read the linked article. It is thoughtful, and concerns Thunder, Perfect Mind. It is a relevant external link. If you remove this again, I may report you to WP:ANI)"
    • At this point, the three editors begin discussing the matter on the article talk page.
    • 3rd revert: 21:35, 31 December 2008 With the other two editors arguing against the link on the talk page, he reverts it again with the edit summary, "Revert personal vendetta against another user. See talk" This is what caught my attention in my watchlist, so I stepped in to try to deescalate the situation.


    • In response to my effort to deescalate the incivil edit-warring [51], Timeshifter has assumed bad faith on my part and threatens to continue edit warring writing, "I will return the link in a few days when you two have cooled off." [52]

    Ronz (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is some history between us. Please see this diff: [53]. I have not done 3RR, and have no intention of doing so. Please see also the discussion in context: Talk:The Thunder, Perfect Mind#Aestheteka. I have this problem once a year it seems with Ronz. See WP:Wikihounding. He acts alone, or sometimes tag teams with another spam-fighter, concerning some external link that he notices has been spammed by some newbie with a WP:COI. I then add the link myself and Ronz or another spam fighter gets mixed up about Wikipedia guidelines, and thinks I am spamming the link too. Neither of the spam fighters have usually done any editing of the article in question previously. So they mostly ignore or badmouth the merits of the link, or wikilawyer about guidelines until they wear out the regular editors of an article. Since they don't really care about the content of the article I can usually come back days, weeks, or months later, and add the link if it is a good external link. Some external links are bad, and I don't add them. If they continue to give me a hard time I don't add the link. Even if it is a good link. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to see that Timeshifter holds grudges, and uses them as excuses for his misbehavior. Looking at his talk page history, I see that my last discussion with him there was over a year and half ago, over his edit warring 21:31, 18 June 2007 . --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Aitias // discussion 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Striking out my decision above per this. I don't see edit warring here, but another admin opinion would be appreciated. — Aitias // discussion 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added comments to the second and third diff listed above, and indicated when the talk page discussion began and when I joined the dispute. [54] Apologies for any confusion it may cause. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronz left multiple messages on my talk page today. I kept removing them, but he kept adding more. See my talk page history: [55]. On an article talk page a long time ago I asked him to stop wikihounding me. I can hunt up the diff if necessary. I had to repeat the request today on his talk page. See the diff I left in my previous comment here: [56]. The "personal vendetta" I mentioned in the edit summary and on the article talk page concerned the seeming grudge against the newbie that originally added the link in conflict with WP:COI. As I said earlier I am not wedded to the link, "even if it is a good link", and I have not committed 3RR. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As noted in the definition at the top of this page, "Edit warring features a confrontational attitude." I got involved in this because of the accusations of a "personal vendetta" in an edit summary (noted above with the 3rd diff). I believe these edit summaries and the comments he's made on the article talk page demonstrate quite clearly a confrontational attitude that is at odds with WP:CON, WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wikilawyering. Here is the diff from October 2007 that I said I could hunt up: [57] In that article talk page comment I asked you to stop wikistalking me. Wikihounding is now the correct term. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. You assume bad faith of me over a year ago, and that justifies your bad faith today?
    Let's get this straight. I hadn't made a comment on Timeshifter's talk page in over a year and a half, and have interacted with him little if at all, as far as either of us can tell, in well over a year. But because of this, Timeshifter feels justified in responding to my attempt to deescalate his misbehavior [58] with personal attacks and threats to edit-war further. Note that I only commented on Timeshifter's talk page AFTER he made these comments. Yes, there does appear to be some personal vendetta's here, all held by Timeshifter to justify his continued problematic behavior. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not deescalate anything. As in the past you threw around a lot of misinterpreted guidelines. This time you piled on multiple messages in a row on my talk page. But getting back to this noticeboard, I am not edit warring. I am not wedded to the link. You jumped into the talk page saying that the link was a spam link AFTER I pointed out that I had added the link, and therefore it was no longer a spam link. See this diff of your first comment: [59]. it shows that you were piling on without understanding or acknowledging my point. How is that deescalation? There is no edit warring. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The immediate context for this noticeboard incident can be found at The Thunder, Perfect Mind. Timeshifter added an EL which myself and another editor consider spam, and the situation then escalated. Ronz then entered the fray, and Timeshifter seems quite defiant and obstinately unwilling to acknowledge that consensus mightn't go his way. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You again insulted my by saying that I am adding spam. You might say that an article is not worthy of being added as a link to a Wikipedia article. But an article is not spam. The act of adding an article by someone with a WP:COI is spamming. Then the article is spam. But since I am not spamming, therefore when I add the article the article is not spam. This is the fundamental problem here.
    New info: Talk:The Thunder, Perfect Mind#Edward O'Toole. The 3 spam fighters are indirectly insulting a published book author (more than one book, too) in their quest to punish this evildoer newbie for making the mistake of going against WP:COI. I bet User:Aestheteka is Edward O'Toole. But hey, I am not wedded to the link. I do think the 3 spam fighters owe Edward O'Toole and User:Aestheteka an apology, though. Maybe a better use of this noticeboard thread would be to copy the whole thing over to the Spam WikiProject as a lesson. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article violates WP:ELNO, I consider it spam. I am not calling you a spammer, I am calling the article itself spam. It is not my intention, I repeat, to insult you.
    Nor are we insulting O'Toole. He has repeatedly spammed WP, and his repetition in doing so is inexcusible. He was hastily indef-blocked today for his actions. The ice will melt in Dante's ninth circle before I apologize to him for defending WP against his shameless self-promotion and spamming, after he had already been warned against it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hastily" is the correct word. He has no user contributions since Dec 16, 2008 when he was warned about WP:COI. See his user contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aestheteka --Timeshifter (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see what you find objectionable about the haste nature of the block; the admin is to be commended for his action in blocking him so quickly. He is a spammer and used socks in an AfD debate. Nothing beneficial was going to come from him. This was a good move to pre-empt future vandalism from him. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His user talk page says he was blocked for his username. It doesn't say anything about sockpuppets in an AfD debate. If that is true, then of course he should be blocked after being warned. Was he warned about socks? Socks are allowed in some circumstances. And all of this has nothing to do with my addition of the link. You can call it spam when you think an article link I add violates WP:ELNO, but you would still be wrong. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned the socks to demonstrate the sort of user you uphold; help show others your judgement. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you are insulting my judgment through guilt by association. I don't uphold the user. I just pointed out Wikipedia guidelines about warning users first. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowingly adding a link that had been spammed is indicative of poor judgement. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not logical. One does not follow the other. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of supporting spammers is good? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a spammer. I do not support spammers. Adding a link is not spamming when there is no WP:COI. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding the link of a spammer (User:Aestheteka) is supporting spammers, even though you yourself are not a spammer. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not logical. There are lots of overenthusiastic fans of various people, topics, movies, you-name-it. We don't block articles and links about all those things just because of some crazed fans. You guys really don't get this, do you? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. There is no infallible method to decide whether a particular external link belongs in the article. There is only consensus. Timeshifter seems to be in the minority on the article's Talk page. If he doesn't want to accept this particular consensus, he could initiate dispute resolution. One possible step is an article RfC. He has actually suggested he might take it to the Spam WikiProject, a curious choice because that set of folks is unlikely to sympathize with a link to O'Toole, who has promoted his own work rather widely here. I think we need to hear from Timeshifter as to how he will pursue dispute resolution. If he won't do this, and won't accept the local Talk page consensus, he could indeed be edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am curious to know how another spam-fighter such as yourself happened to pop in here. I agree I am in the minority. I don't mind being in the minority. I might take this thread to the Spam WikiProject because I believe some spam-fighters are more reasonable than others. Therefore they might learn some lessons from this thread. You have pointed out the heart of the problem though: "that set of folks is unlikely to sympathize with a link to O'Toole, who has promoted his own work rather widely here." That is not a justifiable reason to block a link I add. Because you don't personally like the author of an article. By the way, there is no wikipedia requirement that I accept the article talk page consensus. I am not wedded to the link, though, and will not add it while there is significant opposition to it. People change their mind over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you haven't noticed, I'm an admin who often closes cases at this noticeboard. I'm unlikely to take any action in this case, since I know Ronz. I still don't see how you escape the charge of edit warring, since you are unwilling to accept the Talk page consensus, and you've made no commitment to follow dispute resolution. The modus operandi that you outlined above, whereby you reinsert a disputed link into an article later, apparently hoping that people will not notice, does not sound like a good-faith effort to find consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually it is just one spamfighter or 2 who oppose the link mainly because it was originally added by a spammer. Later, or even much later, one of the regular editors of the page decide to add the link back as an external link or reference. The other regular or newer editors of the page go along with it. This is not edit warring in any way. It is evolving consensus. And as I have repeatedly said I am not wedded to the link, and will not add it as long as there is significant opposition. One person opposing is not significant opposition, and can be overruled by multiple editors. As I am being overruled now. You don't go to dispute resolution just for a single external link. The only reason I am wasting time here is because Ronz went forum shopping rather than waiting to see if there really was a problem later. If I had added the link in a couple days after people cooled off (a common occurrence) and there was still opposition, then I probably wouldn't have wasted any more time. Spam-fighters are ruining Wikipedia for many regular editors of articles.
    Since you have threatened me with a block, then I flat out say that I will never add that link to any Wikipedia page. Happy? This intimidation by spam-fighters is totally insulting to the Wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I initiated discussion about all this here:
    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Intimidation by spam fighters --Timeshifter (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No one has broken 3RR, strictly interpreted. Both sides have edit warred. I can't care much whether the link is in or not. Stale William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And again, no one is claiming 3RR has been broken. If other editors are at fault for edit-warring, let's add them to the report. However, it seems we have some real problems here with actually dealing with edit-warring, or at least defining what it is. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR is clear, and not very subjective. Edit warring is not. You will find both kinds of reports here. We certainly have problems defining edit warring. Its not clear we have any great problems dealing with it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dismissing a edit-warring report because 3RR has not been broken is a real problem. I agree, though, it's not a great problem since this board has been 3RR only until recently.
    I'll take Timeshifter's edit-warring problems to a different venue the next time they occur. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dru79 reported by User:Smashville (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: Complex - multiple reverts over same page



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]

    User's comments on talk page show no intention of stopping. I would have blocked him myself, but I reverted his edit on the page. --Smashvilletalk 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gingerboy06 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Indefblocked)

    Dog fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gingerboy06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 13:27, 28 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */")
    2. 22:23, 29 December 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 260489481 by Bob98133 (talk)")
    3. 22:24, 29 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */")
    4. 01:11, 30 December 2008 (edit summary: "Edit was undone as no citations and only POVs were made. Worse some morons will use info such as bait animals to train their dogs to fight.")
    5. 01:13, 30 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */ cleaned up grammar and spelling")
    6. 03:47, 30 December 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 260797646 by Bob98133 (talk)")
    7. 03:48, 30 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */")
    8. 07:08, 31 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */ This should not be reverted unless someone can cite a conditioning programme or keep recommending the use of bait animals.")
    9. 01:16, 1 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 261062548 by Bidgee (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    — Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eight88 reported by User:LauraAndrade88 (Result: 24 hours, both for the reporter and the reported user)


    • Previous version reverted to: Complex - multiple reverts over same page


    information Administrator note 24 hours, both for the reporter and the reported user. — Aitias // discussion 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Down Home In Suntlay reported by Dr.K. (Result: warned)


    Not quite 4R; warned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you William. I agree with your estimate and your action. I reported at 3R because even though both the 24 hr period and the 4R limit were not quite satisfied, the momentum for more reverts was there, in my estimate. Hopefully now they will heed your warning better than they did mine and this will prevent further disruption or need for further action. Happy New Year and take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 23:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    User:Bayrak (result: semi)

    This user is on a lengthy break after receiving a short block for edit warring, then using two named socks. [[75]]. He now appears to be using an IP range to carry on the edit war - User:212.43.10.1 User:212.43.15.1 and User:212.43.4.1 so far. Here are two examples of "Bayrak" edits [[76]] and [[77]]. These are identical to the ones made by Bayrak, then his two socks. Happy new year.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    B is now very blocked (2009-01-01T05:30:58 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Bayrak (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation blocked) ‎ (Block evasion: user:Sovgin and user:Wandalis.) (unblock | change block); 2008-12-31T12:36:44 Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Bayrak (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (straight back to edit-warring off a block) (unblock | change block)) but there is little help in blocking dynamic IPs; will semi the articles for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Threeafterthree (Result: BLP removals are exempt from 3RR)

    This user is removing comments from the talk page of Joseph Farah rather than responding. He's reverted my posts three times now: [78] [79] [80]

    I can't revert or else I'd also be in vio of 3RR. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He also removed my warning to him from his talk page. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Being cited by a racist website does not make someone a racist. Your claims about this individual are incorrect and are to be immediately removed from any page on Wikipedia. If you continue to add them without valid evidence, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't presume to tell me that my claims are inaccurate. I expect more out a Wikipedia administrator. You're either agenda-pushing or incompetent, possibly both. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that must be it. Either that or your claim is utter nonsense. --B (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with B, especially on the latter assumption. Dayewalker (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You should reread BLP. There's a whole section about the talk pages of BLPs. You're applying a policy aimed at artices to a talk page, even though there's a whole section of WP:BLP that is much more germane to this discussion, and that my edit was in accordance with. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read further down on WP:BLP on "Talk pages": Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). --MASEM 06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) I was just posting that, good work. IP, please stop. If you want to discuss the issue, bring proper sources and discuss it on the talk page with NPOV language, otherwise, it will be reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC) (EC)[reply]

    I hold that the information I posted was both poorly sourced and contentious, but not especially problematic. It's neither a telephone number or libel. It is, at worst, a POV. As such, the policy does not provide for the blanking of my talk page comment. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is both contentious and libelous, and multiple editors have reverted you and discussed the matter with you here. Again, please stop. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously ... this has gotten silly and has wasted far too much otherwise useful time. --B (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CABlankenship Friedrich Nietzsche reverts, poss sock puppet (Result: Not blocked for now)

    CABlankenship reported by kjaer (Result: Not blocked for now)



    Also suspect below user:abrhm17 may be sockpuppet, refered to admin:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: user was warned on article talk and in summary as well as:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&oldid=261343260 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&oldid=261343765


    CABlankenship reported by Alcmaeonid (Result: Not blocked for now)


    • Previous version reverted to: [81]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [86]

    ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both sides have violated 3RR, but they seem to have stopped for now and are talking it out on the talk page. No need for a block for the moment unless they start reverting again. Of course, that all changes if the checkuser comes out positive. --B (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware of the 3rr rule until the warning was posted on my page. The logs will back me up on this. I immediately stopped reverting the page after I saw this rule. CABlankenship (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Middayexpress reported by User:Taivo (Result: Article protected; warned)

    • Previous version reverted from: [87]

    My edits (above under "Previous version") were a compromise to end an edit war over whether or not to include Malta in the list of countries. I took advantage of the Language Infobox option of using |region instead of |states to solve the problem. One of the participants in the edit war accepted this as a reasonable solution. The other did not have a chance to respond before the reverting by Middayexpress began. I suspect that Middayexpress' reverts are the result of a confrontation we had in Swahili language. His only arguments for his reverts on the Talk page have to do with what happened on the Swahili page and not on the merits of the Region designation on the Arabic language page. (Taivo (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Both sides violated 3RR, but the reverting has stopped and it is being discussed on the talk page. Work it out there. --B (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DonaldDuck reported by Piotrus (Result: seven days)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [97]

    71.178.193.134 (result: no vio)

    This IP has gone to 4rr today (i think) on the Open Voting Consortium article. I've tried to talk on talk, not getting anywhere. Full disclosure, did not warn before coming here. Latest diff is: [[98]] piors are [[99]] [[100]] [[101]] [[102]]

    The dispute appears to be that a name of a subsidiary of a company called Diebold referenced in a 2004 article was later changed, something the IP (which seems to be an elections-systems focused SPA -- go figure) knows; but that wasn't true in the time period refered to. At any rate, i think i'm at 3rr myself or so (i always get confused on what counts).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    An appallingly badly formatted report. Doesn't look like a vio to me, and since you are now both talking on talk I think thats the way forward William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. In future, what would be a better format (unless you've used "format" to mean i was wrong to come here on the substance, in which case i understand your meaning)?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=261522984"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy