Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2over0 (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 11 July 2011 (→‎User:Miradre reported by User:Aprock (Result: 3 month topic ban): closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:84.83.32.101 reported by User:JetBlast (Result: Warned Blocked 31 hours)

    Page: Cathay Pacific Flight 780 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 84.83.32.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

    Comments:

    I have reverted only 1 edit, i didn't notice at first how long this had been going on for. I warned the user and they posted this on my talk page. Many Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • WarnedWarning the user about our no original research policy is more conducive than biting a newbie. I will leave a message on her talk page and remove the claim from the article. If she reverts again after my message, feel free to open this back up --B (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The warning didn't take. Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Indian born reported by User:MikeLynch (Result: Declined)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [10]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comment: Discussions have taken place on talk pages, with them being kinda fragmented: [18] for one. I had also left a personalized message on the violator's talk page (in Kannada, something I believe he is proficient in, due to the nature of his edits) here. Lynch7 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Declined User was only warned once for edit warring, and they have not edited the page since. If they make another revert, re-report them here, or leave a message on my talk page and I'll block them. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Justlaugh reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24h)

    Page: Bon Iver, Bon Iver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Justlaugh (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: See talkpage discussions and RFPP.

    Comments:
    Five reverts in a day, enough for a block. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I used talk on the said album article and also the Bon Iver talk page several times. Consensus is that the album title is indeed Bon Iver and the page as is most definitely incorrect as it is now. People have been arguing this for weeks, and i am just trying to correct the inconsistencies and anomalies in the said article. Thank you. Justlaugh (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A) There are no consensus (yet), and b) even if it were one, you must not edit-war over it even when you believe it is correct. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:محمد البكور reported by User:Absconded Northerner (Result: 24h)

    Page: Rafael Nadal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: محمد البكور (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: [24]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25] - this is a diff of the user's response to the ongoing discussion.

    Comments:

    The user simply refuses to consider that other people might have a view about the article. Talking is doing no good, so admin intervention is requested. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth noting also that the user's edit summaries and other responses have been personal attacks - the diffs are above. I don't know if that is taken into account here or if it's a separate issue. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.227.61.147 reported by User:Erikeltic (Result: Declined)

    Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:75.227.61.147 / 75.227.61.174 75.227.61.147 (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: [30]

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

    Comments:
    User 75.227.61.147 and 75.227.61.174 are clearly the same person, using a different IP in the same subnet. The anonymous editor's IP only changed after I warned him after his 2nd revert.

    • Comment - the first comment by an IP appears to be legitmate complaint about content. I see no reason whatsoever to edit war to remove it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined I read that post and it does not seem that any harm is being done it. Just let it be. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How about now? [31] Erikeltic (Talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RBI (without the B, because it's not technically possible given the IP range). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DoctorHver reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: The Yankee Doodle Mouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DoctorHver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [32]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

    Comments:
    DoctorHver has been trying to add original research about a supposed lost scene into this article, using a series of unreliable sources, which he has been warned about repeatedly. This user (as well as 98.254.83.35, possible sock?) have been trying to force this into the article for months, always with the same poor sourcing, based on forum posts and blogs. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I do not recommend the way that you've gone about it, MikeWazowski. You also made three reverts in a day, and the templates you used against the user were entirely ineffective about warning for the 3RR rule (see WP:TEMPLAR for using vandalism templates). Nevertheless, he broke the 3RR rule. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.90.111.117 reported by Mtking (talk) (Result:Blocked)

    Page: William R. Moses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 76.90.111.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 02:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 03:40, 10 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
    2. 03:47, 10 July 2011 (edit summary: "←Replaced content with 'William Remington Moses (born November 17, 1959) is an American actor.'")
    3. 03:47, 10 July 2011 (edit summary: "←Replaced content with '{{db-person}}'")
    4. 09:43, 10 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
    5. 01:30, 11 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
      01:31, 11 July 2011 (edit summary: "")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 3 days for disruption, given the past history. Next block could be longer. Materialscientist (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catherine Huebscher reported by User:Legolas2186 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Who's That Girl (1987 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Catherine Huebscher (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, warned by User:(CK)Lakeshade and by Admin Fastily.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Basically I will point the admins to the talk page of the above article and to comments like this, which makes me conclude that this is a case of WP:BIAS. And also started sockpuppetry. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    I've attempted numerous times to improve and decrease the length of this article as well as remove the POV editing which so obviously tries to make the madonna's acting attempt look like less of a failure. An editors who are obvious madonna apologists won't change a thing and this is aganist wikipedia policy. So is the editor lakeshade reverting my work and then telling me "Please stop and wait until the author of the article has replied..." There are no authors on wikipedia.

    My edit were 100% fair and in keeping with policy. We do not need the time of day madonna arrived at the film or her workout and so many useless bits of (Personal attack removed) worship. I'm concerned that the madonna fans on wikipedia are running vanity pieces in place of articles. I want to the article tagged and I want to go over the excessive sections which are reading more like a full length biographies than a concise piece on a film that was a flop. I want to discuss this on the discussion page. If I'm blocked I'm still going to come back politely, discussing it as will fellow editors of mine. madonna has been indulged within the media as sacred cow[citation needed] and wikipedia should not follow. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

    There is a decency in the way you should address your comments and controversial edits are supposed to be discussed, not removed and then edit war. Also, the case is that you are biased, in your views of teh said artist, in your language, and your behavior is absolutely unacceptable. Your personal insults directed at User:(CK)Lakeshade and in general to the said artist is not tolerated here. You have been previously blocked also for personal insults and harrassment, learn from your mistakes. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And your comment "If I'm blocked I'm still going to come back politely, discussing it as will fellow editors of mine." excessively disturb me seeing that you will continue to edit in the said manner? — Legolas (talk2me) 04:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miradre reported by User:Aprock (Result: 3 month topic ban)

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

    Miradre has waged an extensive edit war across many pages over the last three days.

    Miradre is a single purpose WP:CPUSH sock account [41] created an experienced user for the purpose of making controversial edits. Miradre acknowledges as much himself in this edit: "Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous."

    He has previously had two AE cases opened against him, which resulted in him being notified and warned about his behavior: [42], [43]. (diff of warning: "If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban.")

    After an extended hiatus, Miradre returned on July 7, 2011 and proceeded to challenge changes made to various articles where he had been pushing his POV. Because he is an experienced user, many of his edits avoid the bright line of the "24 hour, 3RR" rule. A repeated tactic of his is to use tags instead of reverts to continue the edit war. Likewise, the the tactic of producing of massive walls of talk page text is also used.

    Below is a presentation of the most contentious of the edit wars he has been waging.


    Page: Guns, Germs, and Steel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    • 1st revert: 2011-07-07 18:45:49 [44] restores deleted section
    • 2nd revert: 2011-07-08 09:34:02 [45] restores deleted section
    • added tag: 2011-07-08 11:28:36 [46]
    • 3rd revert: 2011-07-08 23:46:41 [47] restores tag
    • 4th revert: 2011-07-09 14:51:14 [48] added different version of content
    • wall of text on talk page generated by Miradre as one advocating against a consensus of eight: [49]

    Page: Explained variation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    • 1st revert: 2011-07-07 19:49:09 [50] restores deleted content
    • 2nd revert: 2011-07-08 07:52:57 [51] restores deleted content
    • 3rd revert: 2011-07-09 16:30:38 [52] different version of the same content
    • 4th revert: 2011-07-10 08:48:18 [53] restores deleted content
    • talk page: [54]

    Page: List of international rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    • 1st revert: 2011-07-07 18:41:51 [55] restores deleted entry
    • 2nd revert: 2011-07-08 07:46:26 [56] restores deleted entry
    • 3rd revert: 2011-07-09 07:03:29 [57] restores deleted entry, adds a dozen refs
    • wall of text on talk page, Miradre against a consensus of four: [58]

    Page: History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    • 1st revert: 2011-07-07 19:07:12 [59] restores deleted content
    • 2nd revert: 2011-07-11 01:58:57 [60] restores deleted content
    • 3rd revert: 2011-07-11 03:33:39 [61] restores deleted content
    • added tag: [62]
    • talk page: [63]

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

    • 1st revert: 2011-07-08 07:42:21 [64] massive revert
    • 2nd revert: 2011-07-09 06:15:07 [65] different version
    • talk page wall of text, [66]

    This case is unusual in that Miradre was the one repeatedly posting conduct warnings:

    Naturally, someone warned him that the same conduct policies applied to him as well: [71]

    Note: I am an involved editor on three of the five pages.

    • Comment:Sorry but I cant see a single case where WP:3RR has been breached. If you think the editor is a WP:SOCK then maybe a WP:SPI would be a better route, however you should be aware that WP:ILLEGIT does allow a second account for privacy reasons in controversial topic areas. Mtking (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that of edit warring and going against consensus across multiple articles at once. Miradre is too smart to blatantly trespass on the 3RR policy on any single article. But three reverts are not a privilege, but rather a bright line one shouldn't cross. And the evidence above does establish that s/he is edit warring (against quite a large number of established users) in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The wikipedia bureaucratise is a pain and a labyrinth but I think the most appropriate venue would be WP:AE. The whole mess that led to the arbitration has been a giant time sink start to finish - unfortunately, Miradre's efforts seem eerily calculated to expand this time sink even further. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let it be noted that the above editors except Mtking are involved in content disputes with me and are by no means uninvolved.Miradre (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrug...at what point have I tried to capitalize by labeling myself "uninvolved"? I was pulled into this morass via one of wikipedia's recommended dispute resolution notice boards, the WP:NORN. As such I, like I'm sure innumerable volunteers here, intervened which automatically makes me party to the disputes at issue whenever the ICANTHEARYOU arguments kick in. I think it's a ridiculous waste of time here to argue about who is or who isn't "involved" when it's your distractionary and polemical misuse of sourced material I'm concerned about. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aprock makes numerous misleading and false accusations (many quite unrelated to 3RR)
      • Aprock takes up as offenses adding disputed tags to the articles and having talk page discussions.
      • I am not a sockpuppet. I have not edited under another name for years. That I did once have another name does not make me a sockpuppet.
      • I am no single purpose account but edit a rather wide array of articles, mainly within psychology. I have received praise by an expert in the field for my edits to IQ article.[72][73]
      • I have not been warned but notified regarding the sanctions in the first AE. Also the second attempt AE to get me banned from the topic area failed. This is yet another attempt by Aprock after his earlier attempts have failed.
      • I edit an controversial area so those interested, please see my motivation for doing so, as stated in the second AE. In the section Discussion concerning Miradre -> Statement by Miradre -> My motivation for editing these controversial topics [74]
      • I will also note the numerous cases of incivility by Aprock against me when he accuses me of vandalism for what are content disputes and with clear explanations in edit summaries and on talk for all edits: [75][76][77][78][79]
      • Aprock seems to be Wikipedia:Canvassing editors who supports his views to come here and comment: [80][81]
      • One of the claimed reverts is false: "4th revert: 2011-07-09 14:51:14 [48] added different version of content" for the Guns, Germs, and Steel article. That is completely new material.
      • Several of the edits Aprock lists as reverts consist of well-sourced material that had not been in the article for months. They had been removed while I was taking a wikibreak (usually by Aprock) without any "consensus" for this removal. Note that he has not listed what version of the article is first (very partially) reverted to ("Previous version reverted to:") likely because this would show that the added back old material, while beings partial reverts, were not of currently disputed material.
      • His other descriptions of the edits are also misleading. If I have been reverted I have in every case and asked on the talk page for clarification why this occurred. If I have received feedback I have tried to modify the material according to this before adding it back. If there has been no feedback on the talk I have added back the material. That can hardly be described as edit warring. Like when was I reverted for the stated reason of the material only having a primary source and added back the material, now with a secondary source.Miradre (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This editor is clearly being disruptive and editing contrary to multiple wikipedia policies. (On Malaria, for example, I had to point out a copy-vio where a whole sentence with only minor changes had been copy-pasted from an abstract. This was immediately identifiable because their talk page contributions indicate that English is not Miradre's first language.) Almost all their edits are being reverted at the moment by multiple editors. They have been reminded of policy by at least two administrators, although with little or no effect. Their editing has been tendentious. Although technically they might not yet have broken 3RR, they have clearly been edit warring against consensus. It's hard to know where to report problems with their editing: here, on WP:ANI or WP:AE? There is circumstantial evidence pointing to them being yet another identifiable meatpuppet of two users under ArbCom sanctions, this time editing from Sweden. In that case a direct appeal to ArbCom might be necessary. Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Matsci is also obviously involved in content disputes with me and have unsuccessfully tried to get me banned using AE. He himself has earlier been topic banned from the area by the ArbCom. If he accuses me sockpuppetry, then this is the wrong forum.Miradre (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good illustration of Miradre's disruptive and tendentious editing. Miradre uses the word "disputes" when in this case Miradre revert-warred content to List of international rankings under the heading "demographics": the content was unrelated to demographics in any way at all. It was removed as irrelevant spamming in the single edit I made.
    Miradre's statements depart markedly from what is on record: it was ResidentAnthropologist who reported Mirardre at AE and it was Aprock who requested clarification from ArbCom. Issues of meatpuppetry in this case would be taken up directly with checkusers on ArbCom and not at WP:SPI. Much the same thing has happened during disruption by Mikemikev: recently one offensive image he created through the sock Comiciana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was removed from commons directly by a staff member of WMF. The aggressive tone and distortion in Miradre's comments at this public noticeboard are not very different from those of already confirmed meatpuppets connected with WP:ARBR&I and their operators. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition an ipsock of Mikemikev has given Miradre this advice [82] on their talk page. (This IP range was blocked for 3 months by a checkuser because of persistent socking by Mikemikev.) Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On a more general point, several of the articles Miradre has been involved with recently come under of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence prescriptions, which state the following:

    Single purpose accounts
    7.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
    Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

    I think Miradre would be hard-put to argue that his isn't a 'single purpose account', and his 'own agenda' seems self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You yourself certainly have an "agenda" in your edits on this topic as well as in your participation in the previous failed AE attempts to get me banned. My own POV is to present what reliable sources state in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Currently some views are underrepresented in Wikipedia compared to the scientific literature. If the same views were overrepresented in Wikipedia I would work to correct that. Furthermore, I have improved a rather broad range of articles in areas which I have some knowledge of, mainly psychology, many of which are not in the intersection of topics covered by the ArbCom case.Miradre (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide diffs to demonstrate my supposed 'agenda'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This 3RR report shows 16 reverts by Miradre in the last four days on a variety of articles but all concerning material related to race and intelligence. He has multiple reverts on each article, and he seems to be restoring his material after it is removed by other editors. Miradre has no exemption from the rule that consensus is needed for controversial changes. I recommend a 3-day block for edit warring which would be logged in the Arbcom case at WP:ARBR&I. As an alternative to a block, Miradre could accept a voluntary restriction for three months from adding any R&I-related material to any articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the incivility displayed towards me by Aprock? Regarding reverts so has Aprock also done a large number over this time period so should not the same apply to him? I also fail to see how Explained variation or Dysgenics are under the ArbCom sanctions as you claim.Miradre (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide diffs showing Aprock repeatedly reverting to restore content against consensus? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going to count every revert he has made over that last few days I can certainly add a list. Just give me a little time.Miradre (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need 'every revert' - just the ones against consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102] A total of 20 reverts. Clearly also wikistalking of me.Miradre (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And which of those do you suggest demonstrate reverting against consensus? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see an exception in WP:3RR for "consensus" reverts (which sounds like a contradiction). I imagine such an exception rule would immensely increase the amount of discussions here with everyone claiming to be restoring the "consensus" version.Miradre (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And which of those do you suggest demonstrate a violation of WP:3RR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Aprock and I have not violated WP:3RR. But the number of reverts for all articles for all the last days was mentioned above regarding me so it is appropriate to mention the same for Aprock.Miradre (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not the number of reverts per se that is necessarily the problem (or at least, it isn't if one applies WP:3RR to the letter). Rather it is that you have repeatedly reverted against consensus - Aprock hasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the first so called "reverts" were adding back some well-sourced material that had been removed many months ago by those disliking the views. So there was no current "consensus" against this sourced material. After this was removed by those disliking the sourced views I tried to discuss the reason for this on the talk page. In some cases I received no answer, in some cases some feedback I tried to incorporate before adding back the material, or a modified version, in order to resolve the issue. I never added back material so long as there were ongoing talk page discussions. If someone else, who had never before participated in the discussion then appear and revert the material I add back, then that I something I cannot predict. That is not editing against a "consensus". Let me ask you this. Exactly which of my reverts, at the time I did time them and not later, had a strong "consensus" regarding the issue on the talk page? Miradre (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also again point to the incivility and wikistalking by Aprock I have described earlier.Miradre (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the first so called "reverts" were adding back some well-sourced material that had been removed many months ago by those disliking the views. - no, what happened is that couple months ago you tried adding stuff in against consensus and got reverted. So you decided to wait a month and try again. Now, I guess this could be just barely justifiable under the "consensus can change" scenario IF you had stopped with the reverts immediately after you you got reverted and it was made plain to you that the consensus HAD NOT in fact changed. Instead what we have here is you trying to achieve your POV by force once, and then when that didn't work, trying again a little bit later (perhaps with the hope that this time around no one would notice).
    As to the accusations of incivility and wikistalking they're bunk. Obviously Aprock has been active in this topic area for a very long time so this is nothing more than your mass reverts showing up on his watchlist. Likewise, I see no incivility but just frustration with your IDIDN'THEARTHAT attitude and stubborn persistence to try and force your POV into these articles, despite unanimous disagreement from a large number of other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Miradre, than you for making your position clear. You are suggesting that 'consensus' somehow disappears ater a few weeks for no apparent reason, and you can then revert content previously deleted by (then) consensus, and continue to reinsert it if it is then removed on the basis that there is no consensus for inclusion? Can I suggest that at this point, an admin steps in and enacts sanctions against Miradre, as he/she has now made plain that he/she does not accept Wikipedia policy regarding the way disputes regarding article content are settled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The material was removed while I is was taking a wikibreak, not before, by Aprock in four cases and another user in the other case. In none of the cases was there a "consensus" for removing the well-sourced material at that time.Miradre (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, exactly which of the reverts had a "consensus" against them on the talk page at the time of the revert? In every case I started talk page discussions if I was reverted and tried to modify the material if there was feedback. if you accuse me of reverting against a consensus, it is you who should demonstrate it.Miradre (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Miradre, you seem to be suggesting that if your content is reverted, you can come back a few weeks later, reinsert it, and then expect contributors to go through the whole talk-page debate again before you will accept that your contributions are against consensus. This is tendentious at best - you are assuming that consensus has changed (for no obvious reason), and expect others to have to endlessly provide proof that it hasn't. As I pointed out previously, this behaviour is precisely that addressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence: "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral...". Assuming you have the right to endlessly dispute consensus isn't 'neutral' by any stretch of the imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement is false as I have already pointed out. Desist from further repetitions. Again, the material was removed while I is was taking a wikibreak, not before, by Aprock in four cases and another user in the other case. In none of the cases was there a "consensus" for removing the well-sourced material at that time.Miradre (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which statement is false? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained it above.Miradre (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, this is getting us nowhere. It seems to me that a clear violation of Wikipedia rules against edit warring, and a probable violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence is evident from your recent editing history at Guns, Germs, and Steel alone, where you have attempted to coatrack a section on 'Race and intelligence' into the article against an overwhelming talk-page consensus (and while you are at it, inserting a fair degree of OR/Synthesis). In my opinion it is unnecessary to discuss your edits elsewhere. You are a single-purpose editor, pushing a POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange that you take up the discussion at Guns, Germs, and Steel since I never attempted to reinsert material for which there was stated consensus against this on talk. (Ignore the false 4th revert claim). Again, exactly which of the reverts had a "consensus" against them on the talk page at the time of the revert? In every case I started talk page discussions if I was reverted and tried to modify the material if there was feedback. if you accuse me of reverting against a consensus, it is you who should demonstrate it.Miradre (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that an uninvolved admin looks at the Guns, Germs, and Steel edit history, and at the talk page, and then decides for him/herself. It seems self-evident that you were attempting to insert material against consensus, and in support of your POV, into an article which was only marginally related. Again, not neutral. AndyTheGrump (talk)
    If you have any evidence, present it. Again, when there was a stated consensus against this on talk I never attempted to revert any material. (Ignore the false 4th revert claim). Anyhow, after a long debate is seems that we have agreed to include something from another source, so it seems to have been a productive discussion.Miradre (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hudavendigar reported by User:Fastily (Result: blocked 1 week)

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's past history should be more than sufficient.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tevfik Fikret#Category, Talk:Tevfik Fikret#Copyright, Talk:Tevfik Fikret#POV pushing edit

    Comments:

    • This has to be one of the more lame edit wars I've encountered IMO. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • An attempt was made to explain and warn Takabeg in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and searched for a resolution in vain. I am the one who started and continued discussion on the talk page. Takabeg is the editor which repeatedly deleted edits without discussion or looking for concensus. All edits have been made by myself with added explanations and references. Takabeg reverts in this article alone:

    1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tevfik_Fikret&diff=438871130&oldid=438866497\ 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tevfik_Fikret 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tevfik_Fikret&diff=438699368&oldid=438698603 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tevfik_Fikret&diff=438871203&oldid=437662486 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tevfik_Fikret&diff=437655092&oldid=437425515 The discussion page indicates the effort made to convince this editor that one of the most famous Turkish witers, Tevfik Fikret belongs in the "Turkish poets" category, while the disruptive editor in question engaged in multiple and back to back reverts to remove this category.Murat (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roscelese reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 72h)

    Page: Catholics for Choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [108]

    • 1st revert: [109]
    • 2nd revert: [110]
    • 3rd revert: N/A article under 1RR General Sanctions -- Abortion
    • 4th revert: N/A article under 1RR General Sanctions -- Abortion


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

    Comments:


    [113] appears to be on point as to name of priest and reason for dismissal from the Jesuits. No crime is alleged or charged, which would be a legitimate BLP issue. Collect (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That was what the article originally had (that he was dismissed for this baptism), but JorgePeixoto and Mamalujo insisted on adding unsupported text which said he was dismissed for other reasons. I had originally tried to restore the original explanation, ie. the one you're saying is correct, but then JorgePeixoto and I compromised and decided to remove discussion of the background, since we couldn't agree on what to say about it. The first supposed "revert" above is the implementation of that decision. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Roscelese is edit warring with Mamalugo and JorgePeixoto at article claiming exemption under WP:NOT3RR for BLP. I am uninvolved. However the source supports the content she is reverting. Note that the policy states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial" and recommends "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Her assertion that the content is libelious is far from conclusive: she should have erred on the side of caution and taken this to BLPN. – Lionel (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The first wasn't a revert - rather, it was the result of a discussion with JorgePeixoto where we agreed that rather than dispute over what we should say the reason for the defrocking was, we should provide a minimum of information and let the article on O'Rourke explain it, since he has his own article. BLP [ed. Verifiability!] is an issue, since the source doesn't support the claim JorgePeixoto and Mamalujo are making about O'Rourke (that he was defrocked for a long series of events, rather than for this baptism - the source explicitly states in several places that he was defrocked because of the baptism - yes, it was "after" a long series of events, but it was also "after" becoming a Jesuit and "after" performing a lot of other baptisms, and the phrasing implies and is meant to imply causality), but I'm not claiming any exemption, since the first was not a revert and was a compromise solution after a discussion with the other user. You know, the sort of thing one is meant to do. You're really determined to get me blocked, aren't you, Lionelt? Why is that? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Beg pardon, I took a look at O'Rourke's article and he died in 2008. And I know I knew this a while ago, so I apologize for forgetting. Luckily, I hadn't claimed an exemption on the grounds of BLP. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obhave reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [114]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

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

    Comments:
    In addition to edit warring, editor is deleting huge chunks of the article, and was also warned for vandalism. (I am uninvolved in the edit war.) – Lionel (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lionel is the one that accused me of vandalism, which is a false accusation. All I have done is to draw attention to the fact that the term "militant atheist" does NOT have a fixed meaning, in fact it is a highly contested and controversial term. It's most frequent use today is as a cheap slur thrown on anyone who expresses atheism or criticizes religion in public. This political cartoon nicely demonstrates the abhorrent double standards in the current use of the terms "militant christianity", "militant islam" and "militant atheism".

    However, I will own up to the fact that I am rather new on Wikipedia... and that I have now realized that I should modify the wording around the polemic anti-atheist references, and instead provide side-by-side examples to illustrate why their use is unfair and biased. Obhave (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    WP:BRD is interesting - but it is clear that it specifies "do not rinse and repeat" (not a quote) <g>. Making gnormous changes to articles without getting some feedback is exceedingly ill-advised. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=438967259"