Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

v · d · eNoticeboards and related pages
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Click here to add a new report

If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

Shortcuts:
WP:AN3
WP:AN/EW
WP:ANEW

Use this noticeboard to report active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule.

Listing instructions

  • Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution. Also consider whether a request for page protection may be appropriate. (Uninvolved users may wish to move disputes to a more appropriate place.)
  • Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption.
  • Please be sure you understand WP:REVERT.
  • If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and warnings.
  • When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the {{uw-3RR}} warning template.
  • Note that a 3RR report helper tool is available, which assists in diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected. For how to make diffs, see this guide.
Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than 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

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 the 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 below for exemptions.

Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Contents


[edit] User:SISPCM reported by User:Nmate (Result: No Violation)

Page: Ignaz Semmelweis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: SISPCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1] with a minor edit here: [2]

  1. 21:24, 12 May 2011 (edit summary: Undid revision 428774392 by Apuldram (talk)") But there is no evidence that he was Hungarian, except that he was born in what today constitutes Hungary")
  2. 22:50, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432553744 by Paxfax (talk)")
  3. 20:22, 5 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432635362 by Paxfax (talk)")



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [3] Familiarity with 3RR :[4]

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

Comments:
User SISPCM is edit warring with two users over the nationality of Ignaz Semmelweis without having started any discussion on the talk page of the moot article , nor is there any attempt to contact each other on their own talk pages. SISPCM has made 3 reverts on the article while his opponents per capita have made only one there. Technically, there is no violation of 3RR ,however, in my opinion SISPCM may be indictable, even so , basing on the fact that last time I reported SISPCM for a non technically violation of 3RR on the basis that he was also unwilling to discuss edits then [5], he received an Arbitration enforcement warning for that by admin Sandstein. [6]--Nmate (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since then one of his opponents Paxfax also made a newer revert on the article because of which I left a notification about the 3RR rule on his/her talk page as well[7]--Nmate (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:S-i-m-o-n reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31h)

User:S-i-m-o-n is essentially a new user (only 16 edits since 2006), who has stayed clear of 3RR but continued to edit-war at X-Men: First Class, here, at 20:50, 6 June 2011, after I'd asked him nearly 10 minutes earlier, here, at 20:42, to please discuss rather than edit-war.

He insists on a change to his POV, changing an objective statement that does not have a POV one way or the other.

While this is not 3RR, the fact that he edit-warred after a request for discussion displays edit-warrior behavior. I hope you can help.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae, apparently more interested in fellow users' date of registration than accuracy, is using his own frequency of editing as a foundation to place, ironically, his own spin on what actually happened in the closing scenes. At what point do details not matter? I'm sure the scene could have been summed up a lot more cursorily than it has been, as that would appear to be his main concern. What is being described as my "POV" is in fact both visually and literally evident in the film—he has yet to refute any of the components which constitute evidence.
He now states he considers the matter worthy of discussion but would not start one until reverting to his preferred edit a number of times.
Tenebrae has constructed an alternative take on the scene whilst ignoring (A) pertinent dialogue and (B) the only visual cue used consistently throughout the film which signals the character's otherwise invisible powers.
However, more attention ought to rest with Tenebrae's opinion of myself and my edit summaries, given the reasoning and course of action that is being mistakenly attributed to me. Not one for having words put in my mouth, it would be appreciated if this was looked at by someone who doesn't throw Edit War warnings around at the first sign of being wrong but instead believes in actually having a discussion.
I have been reasonable with them up to now but I cannot understand this display of bravado. Many thanks in advance.
S-i-m-o-n (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm honestly not following what he's trying to say in that convoluted post.
I do know that he's now on his third revert, having reverted a second editor. User: J Greb made this edit and S-i-m-o-n reverted him here.
S-i-m-o-n still refuses to discuss on the article's talk page, and treats his POV edit as objective fact. For instance, "visual cues", as he mentions above, are by nature open to interpretation.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If User:Tenebrae fails to understand follow-up posts does that automatically mean the post is unreadable or that possibly Tenebrae is failing to recognise the situation? I believe I have been succinct and that this is now verging off-topic whilst becoming more reliant on who has the most friends and who has the most posts etc. It is sad if that is how discussion gets reduced and can only be seen as an indictment on Wikipedia contributors in general if allowed to prevail. An independent voice on the matter would be appreciated. I'm still at a loss to understanding Tenebrae's aversion to interpreting a subject through facts as opposed to misinterpreting it, surely it is the latter that needs avoiding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S-i-m-o-n (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you two had spent this much time discussing things on the article talk page as you have here you might have resolved this by now. GB fan (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
A few things:
  • Date of joining and editing history can be irrelevant and it can also point out an editor that may not be aware of or up on editing guidlines and common practices. Would others looking at this thread look at the contribution history of those involved? Maybe. Is it fair to under line some thing that will have bearing on the discussion? Most often. Opting for a verbal route rather than a link can be seen a erring on caution to make sure the info is there and seen.
  • WP:Synth tends to get bandied about with story summaries. The long and the short is that any editor plunking in info to a summary needs to take care that they are not adding "based on X, Y, and Z it is blatantly obvious that A happened even though A is never explicitly stated." Interpreting the narrative is not the function of a Wikipedia article. If the narrative is explicit, fine. If there is a reliable secondary source for the conclusion, fine as long as it's cited. Otherwise it is going to need to be discussed.
  • "Bold, Revert, Discuss" is common practice. If a bold edit is reverted, the desired change should be discussed on the article's talk page. This is a way to avoid disrupting the article with material constantly being changed.
  • Edit warring can, and often is defined as disruptive editing over changing a section of an article. This often includes reversions to add a desired point of information or interpretation, using the edit summaries to debate the point, and an unwillingness to use the article's talk page among other things. the situation here meets a number of those criteria.
  • WP:3RR is considered a benchmark in how bad an edit war is. While the spirit of it is that editing by constant reversion in lieu of actual discussion applies in cases with as few a 1 reversion, hitting a 3rd is almost always considered a warning point - any more and blocks for disruption will be handed out.
  • X-Men: First Class is suffering from more or less the norm for an article on a newly released film. Maybe a little more since it has attracted problems with the talk page. I am unsure if this has colored the characterization of those involved, but there has been a share of single minded edits hitting the page.
(added)
@GB fan - Yes, it would have been nice if this has gone to the talk page after the first round. Sometimes the long roue is needed though.
- J Greb (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hoops gza reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: Declined)

Page: Treblinka extermination camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User being reported: Hoops gza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:53, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432424788 by Ajh1492 (talk) this really is a stand alone article that is not addressed in the Holocaust in Poland")
  2. 18:54, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432423405 by Ajh1492 (talk) sorry, but i do not think that parts of the timeline belong in this article; suggests that this is the complete timeline")
  3. 18:55, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432423244 by Ajh1492 (talk)")
  4. 18:56, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432419991 by Ajh1492 (talk)")

—Ajh1492 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For interested administrators, please see my proposal here. This user has been having some trouble understanding the policies here. -OberRanks (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You copy-edited a bunch of material from another article (Timeline of Treblinka) into this article (Treblinka extermination camp). The main reason for having a separate article for the timeline is because the timeline is too long to incorporate into the Treblinka camp article. In addition, you added only parts of the timeline dicriminately to the camp article, thereby misrepresenting the information from the actual timeline, and therefore misrepresenting the record of time itself at this place. That is why I reverted the edits. The only reason that multiple reverts were made was because you made multiple edits. I don't think that even fits the definition of "edit warring".Hoops gza (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits were reverted because they did not improve the article and misrepresented the information that is known about the subject.Hoops gza (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As the nominator of this 3RR request, I agree with OberRanks comment. I think it is a case of misunderstanding of WP policies (and how WP software operates at a user level). I cite the passage left by Hoops gza above - The only reason that multiple reverts were made was because you made multiple edits.. I think it speaks for itself.
I just want to shepard the article back to FA status, the topic is too important to let it languish at C-class - but the article isn't going to improve by itself. Hoops gsa needs to be mentored to understand that an article doesn't magically improve itself, but it edited constructively by many hands. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-listed at ANI. Recommend we keep all the discussions in one place. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Declined)

Page: Yugoslav Front (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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: Talk:Yugoslav_Front#Chetniks.2C_constantly_followed_by_people_adding_negative_labeling

Comments:

I am adressing here to report the situation that occured in Yugoslav Front article. User DIREKTOR has been edit warring while discussions were still opened. In meantime he has made a complain at WP:AN about my 4 reverts and I was sanctioned by a 6 months revert restriction. However, I am counting to DIREKTOR in that same edit war 5 reverts in less than 24 hours, including 6 in 27 hours. I posted all seven reverts up here. DIREKTOR claims his reverts 3 and 5 are edits, but they aren´t because his edits, beside being about a sensitive issue currently under mediation, are a change in a relatively neutral version that was agreed in meantime to not be changed until the mediation gets over. Beside that, the changes were still being discussed on the talk page, however DIREKTOR ignored the discussion (knowing he was oposed) and inserted the text anyway. He calls it "sourced information" and missinforms in the edit summary about the situation, because he is perfectly aware his edit is disputed by other sorces, and all that is the reason of the mediation under way already for more than a year. Now, even if we consider his edit nº3 an edit, it was reverted by my and by BRD it should have been discussed, so his insistence on it in the edit 5 without finishing the discussion, is basically the same revert, just that this time he expects to game the system by changing the source and a few words. Similar gaming of the system he tryied at his revert 5, which is a double revert because in that same edit he reverts the image, and insists in his lead edit. As much good faith he can receve, he has at least 4 reverts in less than 4 hours there, and gaming the system by joining 2 reverts in one, or changing a few words (or a source) just to not consider it a revert, should not be awarded. Since then, he has been edit warring in other articles as well, exemple [8] including a prejuditial offensive edit summary. A real pattern in the past. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and I apreciate very much your time spent over this. But, something really strange happend. I was punished with reverting restriction (6 months 1 rv 48 hours) before I even had a chance to defend myself, and I didn´t even got the notification about the report, only a day after. I thought I had made 3 reverts, but seems that I indeed made 4, because I divided 1 revert into 3 edits (I´m actually still not 100% sure if I really breaked the 3RR, or not). Anyway, User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise took the decition to punish me without listening to my reasons, and when I actually explained to him that he was manipulated by that user at the report (because those edits were under mediation, and it was not a question of sources, but rather about WP:UNDUE), Fut.Per apologised about the lack of notification but has refused to provide me any further details (which I asked several times) either about my conduct, either about DIREKTORS. I obviously presented this reverts 3 days ago, as you can see here: User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#.3F, but again he declined to comment. I actually hoped he was going to respond, but seems I only lost time waiting, which is quite an unfair situation for me. Beside, I am acused of being "disruptive" and having a "battleground mentality" when actually the situation was much different. Beside sparing the other user of eventual sanctions, he has indeed punished me and further refused to have a discussion about it. I can live with the sanction because I actually don´t usually edit war, but the unfair remarks done under the influence of the other user version and that stay at ARBMAC, and the refusal of discussion by Fut.Per. has really left me quite disapointed. I plan to challenge the decition, but I was hoping that the situation can be rectified by easier means. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a bit of double standards, both editors should be punished, or none. That is only logical reaction to this situation. By this, it looks that more damage to wiki guideline was created by DIREKTOR, then sanctioned FkpCascais. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:Darkcat1 reported by User:TheFarix (Result: 24h)

Page: List of Suite PreCure episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Darkcat1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [9]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:
Darkcat1 has repeatedly attempted to added in unverifiable episode titles to List of Suite PreCure episodes. His "source" is the Live Journal of an illegal fansub group which distributes copyrighted material without the creator's authorization. Either Darkcat1 or a member of this fansub group added the information to ANN's Encyclopedia, which has already been judge unreliable by WP:ANIME, (see WP:ANIME/RS). While a reliable source for the next four episode titles will not be available at the end of the week (when the titles are formally announced), Darkcat1 has refused to wait until then and insists on adding the unverified, and potentially incorrect, episode titles. Darkcat1 has also declared that they will revert any edit that removes the disputed titles.[17] On top of that, Darkcat1 has twice engaged in personal attacks, first by calling me an "idotodic wiki nazi"[18] and second by again calling me an idiot.[19] —Farix (t | c) 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:PublicAdvocate reported by Rhode Island Red (Result: 31h)

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


Previous version reverted to: [20]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25][26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27][28][29]

Comments:
The editor in question is an SPA who recently showed up on the article (about a multilevel marketed dietary supplement product) and began modifying text about the side effects of the product. While the manufacturer directly acknowledges that the product can cause side effects, the text in the article was modified by PublicAdvocate to state that "there are no side effects", in contradiction to what the cited source indicated. I reverted the edits and pointed this out to the user repeatedly on the talk page but to no avail; the discussion degenerated into an I didn't hear that situation. The repeated reverts by PublicAdvocate actually began a couple of days prior to today, but I assumed good faith, backed off on the reverts, and tried to cut the new user some slack -- I didn't bother counting up their reverts or consider reporting for 3RR violation until today, whe it became clear that discussion wouldn't put an end to the reverts. I warned the user that they were in danger of violating 3RR, and they went ahead and reverted again after the orignal version had been previously restored by another editor. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.205.240.85 reported by User:Yobol (Result: 31h)

Page: Aspartame (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: 71.205.240.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Comments:

Yobol (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:Virtualerian reported by User:Mtking (Result: 24h)

Page: Template:Emerging technologies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Time reported: 04:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:47, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "More articles")
    00:28, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "Brain–computer interface added")
    00:30, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "fix")
  2. 01:41, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "Cyberethics, Ethics of artificial intelligence and minor changes")
  3. 03:07, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "Brain implant and Exocortex into Neuroprosthetics")
    03:14, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "See: Hovertrain#Newer efforts")
  4. 03:43, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "Fluidics into flexible wings")

—Mtking (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
Yes, I passed the law. Sorry. Ban me if If i supposed to (?) Virtualerian (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:Drrll reported by User:DavesPlanet (Result: Declined)

Page: Template:Pagelinks:Frist
User being reported: Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Drrll has a history of beligerant edits, edits without collaberating, has engaged in edit wars in the past, has required moderation in the past. Currently he is arbitrarily deleting content on several political pages on the assertion that www.citizensforethics.org (CREW) is not a reliable source for BLP. I reverted his edits to the Bill Frist article and asked on the talk page for him to justify his deletions of well sourced material. He did post to the discussion but again removed well sourced content rather than discuss the merrits of the source or attempt to find additional sources (would have been a third revert if I had found his original reverts sooner). He has also removed CREW edits from other political pages. I believe Drr11 is pursuing a political agenda to delete anti-GOP references. I have refrained from an edit war by leaving the well sourced information deleted at present, I will find additional references shortly.

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:


DavesPlanet (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see this dispute got listed as an edit war but it did not go that far. I was only intending to highlight Drrll's unwillingness to come to consensus and work with others, he carries the BLP standards too far by making arbitrary decisions about the credibility of referencing well respected national watchdog group CREW. He carried this to the extreme by arbitrarily deleting content that was currently in dispute based solely on his dislike for the CREW web site instead of doing a quick search to find additional references to the same material by the New York Times and Huffington Post in the top few results from Google. I found this activity offensive enough to want to make an official notice. DavesPlanet (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I try to observe WP:BRD, but WP:BLP calls for a higher standard for BLPs:
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources...Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis in original)
Although I was not required to, I did discuss this in the article's Discussion page. CREW, a partisan source, is not "high-quality" enough for BLPs, as I discussed on the Discussion page.
I might add that while some material was supported by the already-included Washington Post reference, the thrust of the sentence was that CREW declared him a corrupt politician (rather extreme thing to say, but it is a partisan organization). The rest of the material was sourced solely to CREW. It is also important to note that FEC violations by high-profile politicians is hardly a rare occurrence.

[edit] User:Lgmagone and User:130.76.32.99 reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Greg Mortenson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: 130.76.32.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Lgmagone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [37]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No diff, sorry. I did let him know in the edit summary that he was editing disruptively, I also let an administrator know what was happening as this was a repeat of a few months ago from the same user. [46]; [47] Comments:

NOTE: This user is actually User:Lgmagone who has been editing as an IP (130.76.32.99)

I did make one error in this where I did not check one of his reverts for an added reference and reverted back to the version before the reverting started. This was mostly becaue I looked at the edit summary alone and saw nothing in it, believing that Lgmagone was behaving as he did a couple of months ago in a disruptive, edit warring fashion. I reverted only based on references being needed for BLPs and made my reasons for the reverts clear in the edit summary. After that, with the reference added, the text could certainly stay but needed to be moved to a different place for purposes of visability. I moved it to what I thought was a more appropriate section, the user then reverted my move stating that it wasn't moved but removed. This was definitely not the case (as the diffs above will show). I moved it back once more, and the user continued edit warring by reverting my changes. He has gone way past 3RR on this AND he insists on continuing to edit as an IP after being warned not to do so tonight, but also when he edited previously. During that time period, he was also notified that he was behaving disruptively by Administrator Will Beback. The user decided to leave Wikipedia and asked that his talk page be scrubbed at that time. From what I have seen tonight, I believe this user is here just to make a point and win. I have let the user know about this noticeboard entry here [48] Thanks for considering this. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is my response: I added a one line contribution tonight to Wikipedia because there was a recent news article that had some relevant information about Greg Mortenson. It was promptly removed by LHB1239. Then, I readded it including a source that he wanted to see. It was removed again. And again. And again. The he removed the contribution saying it was moved - but it wasn't, it was gone. He added it back in a subsequent edit.
LHB1239 has been at least equally engaged in the edit war as I have. It was not my intent to start an edit war, it was my intent to contribute. LHB1239 quickly turned it into an edit war by continually removing or moving what I had contributed to the article. It doesn't matter what I contribute - he removes everything that I write and contribute.
Further, he reports that he does not disagree with the content on the talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greg_Mortenson. IF there is no disagreement, then why did he revert what I contributed multiple times? He has no good explanation for this - as he was not reading the article and just automatically reverting what I put in because he did not want it there. When pressed on this point, he clams up and refuses to discuss what was wrong with the subsequent edits that he continually removed. I think he was simply mad and didn't want me contributing to the article.
That leads to a difficult question: When you have an editor that refuses to allow another person to contribute,how do you handle it? My contribution was refused by LHB1239 tonight and there was nothing I could do to have him leave it in the article, even for a shrot while like 24 hours. He simply removed it, even though it was sourced and relevant information. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The statement "my contribution was refused" is a complete misrepresentation. Looking at the last couple of diffs, it is obvious that I not only was fine with the addition of the material, but I tried to move it to a better location for enhanced visibility. It was not "removed" but moved. I explained in the edit summary two times that I was moving it and the user still reverted my edit (and without an edit summary). Lhb1239 (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think many editors would agree that moving it in the criticism section is "enhancing visibility". 98.203.237.77 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is a content dispute, I think it is an editor dispute. Anything I write will get revereted multiple times by LHB1239, even when it is a neutral, sourced information. I'm not sure I see the point of trying to contribute to wikipedia when everything I write gets taken out of the article by one other editors and then I get reported to the user board. LHB1239 is a {WP:FANATIC} on this article and is overzealous about trying to protect Greg Mortenson. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lgmagone's charge here that my reverts and edits at the article reflect an editor dispute and that I am trying to "protect Greg Mortenson" are patently untrue. His continued use of personal attacks against me here, in his edit summaries, at Will Beback's talk page and the article talk page are unwarranted. I would like them to stop.
Back to the issue of the article: With my first revert, I didn't even know it was Lgmagone because he was editing was an IP rather than with his user name. After he reverted my revert with the edit summary, "rather than reverting my change, please either add a ref needed citation or add a citation", I then checked the Geolocate on the IP and saw that it was coming from Boeing in Renton. This is where Lgmagone had edited from previously before creating a user account, and I deduced it was the same user. Because of what he wrote in his edit summary I believed he had still not provided a reference. I reverted his change back and added the edit summary, "reverting back in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE do not change back w/o a ref and please do not edit war". My concern was in regard to the article being a BLP, nothing more. He then changed it back without an edit summary (I still didn't realize he had put in a reference at this point) and it was at this point that I placed an edit warring template on his talk page. My concerns were that he was returning with the same edit warring behavior as he demonstrated in April (or May) and that he refused to edit with his established user account (isn't that classified as using a sockpuppet?) When I saw that the text he provided had merit and a citation, I was merely placing it in a better location for visability (as I stated above). In the beginning, it wasn't the text or the editor I was concerned about, it was the lack of a reference because the Mortenson article is a BLP. That's where my problem(s) with what was happening at the article stood as well as the edit warring. This was never a content dispute for me. Lhb1239 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Enough! If you do not disagree with my content and are not disputing what I added, then you have no argument with me. Leave it alone at this point, and in the future, please read the article before reverting what I contribute. Also, I do not have access to my prior account and will not be using it in the future, please let it go away without continually referencing me by my old username. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Never, ever change what someone has written on a talk page. If you want something changed, ask the person who originally wrote it or ask an administrator to help you out with it. Your account is still active as far as I can see, therefore, you can access and use it. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:Altitude2010 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 1 week)

Page: Cowboys & Aliens (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Altitude2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:
Altitude2010 appears to have ownership issues with this article, and has just come off a previous block for edit-warring over this exact same issue. See ANI discussions here and here for more. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike... below is a more detailed report showing how Altitude2010 has been reverting in the past week or so. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:Altitude2010 reported by User:Erik (Result: duplicate report)

Page: Cowboys & Aliens (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Altitude2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: May 28, 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cowboys & Aliens (film)#Marketing

Comments:

Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) is the primary contributor of Cowboys & Aliens (film) with over 330 edits. The "Marketing" section was considered inadequate, and a new writeup was provided to revise the section. Altitude2010 disputed the writeup in its entirety, and despite consensus garnered for the replacement writeup, Altitude2010 continued to revert the "Marketing" section back to his draft. He has never commented at Talk:Cowboys & Aliens (film), denies a consensus for the replacement writeup, and has already been blocked once for edit warring. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:AllanEdwards999 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Blocked)

Page: Efficient-market hypothesis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: AllanEdwards999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [56]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (None on actual article talk page)

Comments:


[edit] User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:BelloWello (Result: Declined)

Page: Weimar Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well aware of 3RR, having come off a one week block for it.


Comments:
I have been working on trying to edit the Weimar page along with several other editors. The reporting editor and I have engaged in a little back and forth, though we've both been trying to positively make improvements to the article. I must first say however that the reporting editor never provided any warning of 3RR, something that is normally customarily given as at least a courtesy if not a policy. There are several other editors who have been working on this article as well and we're been making positive compromises. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But you violated 3RR, nobody else has. There is no reason to warn you, you are well aware of 3RR. bW 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
If I violated 3 RR then so did you as you reverted my reverts. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You did this BW.

--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The last one is not a revert. It is an entirely novel edit that split it into two paragraphs and entered novel wording. But you made your case, let the responding admin figure it out. bW 03:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It was a revert because it modified wording and changed what other editors has previously done, especially in a way that was at least somewhat controversial. It was more than splitting into 2 paragraphs as you added wording that had potential "weasel words". Also I would remind you, you are also coming off a 1 week block. I would prefer we work out our differences on the Talk page of the article, but you want to drag this back to ANI so here we are. Hopefully this will be resolved fairly. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I would also add that with Revert 2 I was simply re-adding a section of text and modifying the wording (novel content) which BW then later modified into an acceptable compromise. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also this

  • Oh yes, 13 hours away from the closest revert is certainly "just" outside. bW 05:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You have since this discussion also made this revert [72] which purportedly is to be in line with the Talk page discussion, but changes the compromise wording of "college degrees". I personally see this edit as debatable and somewhat controversial, as well as certainly a revert.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The sole purpose of that edit was to clarify that the "high school" is also unaccredited. To my knowledge, that information was never included in the article previously, also making that a novel edit. bW 05:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You did it in a way that reverted a portion of the wording that had been worked on through consensus. To say the college is "unaccredited" is technically true, but doesn't tell the whole story. That's why saying "degrees" which are unaccredited was better as it was more accurate. Technically you weren't wrong in what you did, but it's still a revert from an accepted format that I believe is more truthful and verifiable. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Controversial≠revert. Please reference where Weimar is accredited, otherwise, they are an unaccredited degree mill. bW 06:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
They have credits and classes that are accredited through Griggs. See the discussion on the Talk page. Even ElKevbo a scholar in higher education has noted the difference. Degree/Diploma Mills are often illegitimate or even counterfeit. Weimar by contrast is working on finishing it's accreditation and currently has some available through Griggs. It's more honest to say degrees from Weimar are unaccredited some those who transfer from there often receive at least some credit from doing so and don't have to be stuck in remedial classes.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that there was never much of an attempt to engage in discussion of resolving conflict before this 3RR/edit war began. 4 of us were making significant edits, back and forth working to improve the article. Yes there was "some" conflict but it was mostly being handled through compromise for example these 2 edits [73] and [74]. I seriously do not want to engage in an edit war, and would like to work constructively on the article under question, which seems to be somewhat of a content dispute. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment As noticeboards fill up with disputes over minor Seventh Day Adventist educational institutions, a solution that is beginning to look increasingy likely is that one or more editors are indefinitely topic-banned by the community from articles related to Seventh Day Adventism. Both editors here have recently received one week blocks for edit warring in a similar way. Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be topic-banned though. This is my area of expertise and I want to positively contribute to it. I've been trying, though I admit there have been some failures. Is there a way we can just agree to not edit the same article and have another editor look into any questions we have? For example I've stayed from the the PUC based articles which I know are BW's favorites. Yes I stupidly made an edit there a while back, but I quickly left that behind. I believe both of us an contribute positively if we stay away and have an editor who can deal with our concerns to the other editor. Thoughts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Both of you are a little too close to the subject; but this is not the appropriate place for a discussion on that. Perhaps if you both agreed to be mentored by a user like ElKevbo (talk · contribs) (if he is agreeable), that might be a way forward. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Mathsci, I don't know if you're referring to Adventism in general or Weimar when you say subject. I hope you mean the former. If you are accusing me of being "close" to Weimar, I would definitely consider that a personal attack. I have no association whatsoever with that unaccredited diploma mill. bW 05:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack? Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, Weimar is not a diploma mill. It has some credits which are accredited and which can be transfered to other colleges, especially using Griggs accreditation. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, well I'm not sure being close to the subject is our inherent problem. Simba and others are just as close, but they know how to handle themselves. Sure I'd be happy to be mentored. It's been suggested for me, but to confess I've been too lazy to search for such a mentor. I'm not sure if ElKevbo is willing, but if you find someone (hopefully not someone I have a ton of disagreements with) I'm game. Having the same mentor would sure be interesting but I'm willing. Contrary to some assertions I do not live my life to edit war on SDA institution articles. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments BW. Perhaps you mentor suggest ways for us to edit peacefully? Sure you've done some good articles, but you also have a record that's certainly not any more glorious as mine. And actually I don't have the same history if we look at all the Usernames. I've been making constructive edits as ElKevbo and Donald can attest. Personally mentoring by either would be fine with me. Also Kenatipo, Lionel, and Simba would be able to note some of my positive contributions. I believe I have added through finding reliable sources and adding them in appropriate places. I admit I'm still learning... but I'm trying.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't deny that you've made a substantial number of edits. I've written or am in the process of writing four major articles (two of which are in mainspace, one of which is all but ready and another that should be very soon), I have many more planned. If you are interested, I would be happy to collaborate with you on an article on Lee Grismer for his amazing contributions to science that should be quite easy to take to good article status. bW 05:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I would call them more than "edits". Many of them were positive contributions relating to sources and such. For example at Fountainview Academy, where you tried to stop me by pulling a COI attack but that's beside the point. As for Grismer, I'm going to stay away from him. He's a good scientist but has interesting relationship with the church, as you know. I'm not into creating a ton of articles as I am to finding sources and making small adjustments. Hopefully we can still contribute positively on here. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think in Bello's case we're beyond mentoring. He already has a mentor: Kubigula. And another admin, Will Beback, has been regularly advising Bello on how to work collaboratively. And Will is the first to admit that Bello doesn't take his advice. In the particular case, Bello is edit warring over an accredidation issue, and yes, he definitely did violate 3RR on the 4th edit as Fountain pointed out. Bello hasn't even been back 48 hours!!! Fountain hasn't had the benefit of mentoring, so for him it is an option. We can see how Fountain responds. However, nothing has worked with Bello. It's long past due for a topic ban. The previous proposal at ANI to topic ban him had considerable support before Bello was indef blocked. When was that--10 days ago?!?!?!? Lionel (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever happens here (and what is about to happen is a pair of 1 week blocks) Fountain should be placed on probation and mandatory mentoring and Bello should be topic banned from SDA. This should go to ANI sooner than later. Lionel (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Who's judging what is "unnecessary information"? Whatever BW doesn't like? That information was very necessary and has been modified through compromise and consensus. See the page history. ElKevbo, Donald, Kenatipo, and myself have worked on those modifications using sources and getting the right wording. This has nothing to do with "giving credibility" to a certain location. And Weimar is not an "unaccredited diploma mill". It's a small religous college working on it's accreditation issues. The fact it has applied for WASC and a nursing school shows it's trying to go beyond whatever negative reputation it has had. Yes I'll be happy to refrain from editing that article for a while. I'll only use the Talk page and let other editors handle it better. Editors who I was working collaboratively with. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you admins for the mercy. Yes I am willing to work on article development. I apologize for the wrongs.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rc Cola Girl reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Removed disputed passage as the citation is a blog entry and no reliable citation can be found.)

Page: RC Cola (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Rc Cola Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [75]

User is continuing to insert material not supported by the given citation by replacing the cited mention of Sharon Stone with the uncited mention of Kelly Moran.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

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

Comments:

  • The source for the Sharon Stone appearance is a blog. I've done some searching on this and there does not appear to be a definitive or reliable source for either Kelly Moran or Sharon Stone appearing in the commercial. As the information is contentious and poorly sourced, my suggestion is to remove the material altogether and discussion can take place on the talk page with regard to the quality and availability of sources. In the grand scheme of things, it is a relatively minor bit of trivia in the history of the product, and it's absence won't reflect on the quality of the article whatsoever.Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Then the disputed edit should be entirely removed. I think I'll do that. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages