Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 9 December 2008 (→User:Collect reported by Brendan19 (talk) (Result: no vio): Consider an RFC/U). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:55, 9 December 2008 by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (→User:Collect reported by Brendan19 (talk) (Result: no vio): Consider an RFC/U)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Reports

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


    Truthfulness acts reported by Shannon Rose (Result: Stale )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Truthfulness acts, who is most probably the same as this guy due to the self-evident nature of this blog entry is completely unstoppable. Just have a look at this mess which pretty much explains everything. Please help! – Shannon Rose (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    While the actual edit war appears to be a bit stale, the account does seem to be a SPA. Tiptoety 20:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    Stale Tiptoety 06:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    WhatamIdoing reported by Brattysoul (Result: no vio)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    It would seem this "editor" has me marked as "spam again" when all I did was exactly as the other editor did. I replaced the external link since I was not finished discussing the website in question. The editor decided that she would remove the external link while there was still discussion going on. I did have a problem when I was editing;hitting 'save' instead of 'preview'. It's obvious that was what happened and I find that my being marked as spamming the article as nothing more than vindictiveness on the part of WhatamIdoing. I was also not informed that I had been reported or marked as 'spam again' and only found out when I added another comment to the talk page without changing anything in the article. I did not always change the links every time I added discussion, but WhatamIdoing made it appear that was what I had done and that I was engaged in some kind of edit war, when all I did was flub my posting. I would like the spam template removed please. Brattysoul (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think you know what a revert is. Read WP:REVERT. All the "reverts" you link to are discussion on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    Furthermore:
    • None of the so-called "reverts" involve deletion of any material. (The links are just to comments being made on the talk page.)
    • The editor re-added the website despite uniform opposition by every commenter on the talk page, and now asserts here and on my user talk page that the repeated addition of this dreadful website was just an accident in the context of other minor edits (do click that link to verify for yourself that zero other changes were made in this edit) so it shouldn't be counted as actually "adding" the link to the article.
    • The discussion that was "still going on" has a three-month gap in it, from my last comment (at the beginning of September) to Brattysoul's new comment today. Having zero comments for three months straight hardly counts as an active, ongoing discussion.
    I think that Brattysoul might actually benefit from WP:Mentorship. A mentor would be able to explain things like "A talk page header of ==Spam again== does not label your user account as being anything." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    It is apparent you DO NOT READ everything! Those edits ARE MINOR EDITS. Not every one was my adding the website back to the article. Just because there is a "three month gap" in a discussion doesn't mean its over and done with. I have seen discussions pick up after a year. Sometimes people do other things besides spend every day on Wiki. The fact that at least one person was disputing the discussion doesn't mean it was over and done with. I added the website while it was being debated by me with anyone who wanted to debate its inclusion. I may have put in the incorrect links to WhatamIdoing's reverts, but they are there in that article's talk page. Each time I put the external link back during the debate, WhatamIdoing removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brattysoul (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    Chrisjnelson reported by User:Jwjkp (Result: 12h each)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    Clearly states on 2KSports website that there is no release date set besides "Early 2009". Reference this dude is using is basing its release date solely on past trends. Its very likely March indeed will be the month, but nothing has been released yet and his claim is pure speculation Jwjkp (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    I'm frequently surprised by the lack of introspection in some reporters; and this is one of those cases. You are *both* edit warring and have *both* broken 3RR and its over *trivia*. 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


    Pankration2008 reported by Cordless Larry (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Editor keeps reverting to a poorly referenced version of the article despite warnings. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    CautiousWalk reported by Dr.K. (Result: undecided)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    I really don't know whats for the best here. I could protect the current version if you like? There is no technical breach of 3RR, but clearly there is an ongoing dispute about whether it should be a redirect or not. More talk would be good William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you William. I saw this dispute from its infancy. The first time I saw it was through DYK. It was suggested for DYK but its candidacy was withdrawn after its status was disputed and its main author was accused of sockpuppetry, wp:or etc. Then it was downgraded to a redirect by a consensus of some users. I was just doing community service here by reporting this and only because of the amount of prior sockpuppetry, wp:spa, and because I was inclined to defend the present (past?) consensus. In no way I want to be involved actively in this dispute because it involves issues I am not familiar with or interested in. I actually agree with your decision which I find elegant and diplomatic for many reasons including asking my opinion and allowing more discussion. Allowing more discussion allows more democracy and displays wp:agf at its finest. It also serves Misplaced Pages well IMO because it may well be deleted and if so its history will not exist any longer and therefore future edit wars will be avoided. Conversely if it stays a new official consensus would have emerged. Well done William. Thank you very much. Nice meeting you again. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

    User:Collect reported by Brendan19 (talk) (Result: no vio)

    Joe the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 20:51, 4 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* See also */ no RS notable quotes on wikiquote. Link when it has a bunch of quotes [lease")
    2. 18:43, 5 December 2008 (edit summary: "licensing not in lede -- leave to separate section")
    3. 13:43, 6 December 2008 (edit summary: ""plumbing" is pipes, "plumber" is the common word for a plumber, honest!")
    4. 13:45, 6 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Plumbing career */ relevance tag improperly removed. Debate as to whether anything about the license is relevant at all")
    5. 13:45, 6 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Plumbing career */ ty")
    6. 19:15, 6 December 2008 (edit summary: "primary def of plumbing is pipes. occupation is "plumber", if a person is an editor, we do not say his occupation is editting etc.")
    7. 19:21, 6 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* Plumbing career */ replaced both irrel tags and fact of union endorsement - tags are discussable. Thanks.")
    8. 23:35, 6 December 2008 (edit summary: "aslk in BLP/N if you want -- just do not keep changing to a non-consensus term. Thanks!")
    9. 05:27, 7 December 2008 (edit summary: "plumber ref date 6 Dec 2008 "after Republican nominee John McCain made a Toledo plumber named Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher a theme"")
    10. 05:28, 7 December 2008 (edit summary: "curlies")
    • Diff of warning:

    not sure if i did this properly, but please take a look at the jtp article and discussion page. this guy is not working well with others and makes quite a lot of edits/reverts that seem to be hurting the page. i would say this is a pattern that is unlikely to change. i have tried reasoning with him and warning him about his excessive edits, but it doesnt seem to work. i am not the only one frustrated. all i want is help- not asking for a block, per se, but maybe we could convince him to let others have some say as well? —Brendan19 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    First -- most of these are not reverts but specific attempts to prevent problems by finding consensus (in some cases, consecutive edits). Alas, one editor repeatedly has inserted contentious material repeatedly discussed on that talk page and on BLP/N as well (in fact, I had just asked on BLP/N last night again). And I declined to use "turd-gurgler" or the like as an "occupation" <g> Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    Can't see a vio here. Contiguous edits count as one. Last edit in particular seems to just insert }} - are you really complaining about that? Please read WP:REVERT William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    no, i am not complaining about a }}. i am complainin about his pattern of abusive behavior which should be evident by viewing Joe the Plumber and its talk page, Sarah Palin and Political Machine. and no, he is not seeking consensus. he claims to already have consensus anytime others seek it. this has been pointed out to be false multiple times, but that doesnt seem to matter. he consistently makes executive decisions about pages as if he needs no input from others. it is not helping the many editors trying to work together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan19 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Well tell you what, guv. Strike out all the irrelevant non-reverts from your list above and I'll have another look William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    IPOF, Brendan19s reverts seem to be of anything I edit in any article ...
    Plumber
    6:10 7 Dec
    3:59 7 Dec
    22:20 6 Dec (actually 05 december 2008- brendan)
    Joe the Plumber
    20:08 6 Dec
    18:45 6 Dec
    04:16 6 Dec


    Making, if I read these right, a Daily Double of 3RR violations. I do not report folks for editwarring as a rule, but this particular case struck me as funny since he reverted any and all edits I made. He even reverted my edit of a Talk page where a troll entered in saying Joe was a "turd-gurgler" and I thought that was not aimed at improiving any article (an admin protected the talk page as a result). Many thanks! Collect (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • :mr connolley, ignore the above if you like and i will try to show you what i mean below (im no computer whiz). collect, i am not going to address your math errors. if we could reason w/ one another we wouldnt be here in the first place.
    19:21, 6 December 2008 - this was after saying this... @19:18, 6 december 2008
    which was same as... 1345 6 dec 2008 and 0314 15 nov 2008
    this was in response to a reasonable compromise request (read what mattnad had to say) 2333 6 dec 2008
    here is one of the most consistent edits he makes...
    @1915 6 dec 2008
    1343 06 dec 2008 again
    1208 20 nov 2008 again
    0153 20 nov 2008 again
    1806 18 nov 2008 along same lines
    1616 18 nov 2008 again
    0528 15 nov 2008 again
    0218 15 nov 2008 again
    2146 11 nov 2008 again
    2137 11 nov 2008 again
    1842 11 nov 2008 along same lines
    1903 09 nov 2008 again
    2327 08 nov 2008 again
    2317 08 nov 2008 again
    1607 02 nov 2008 along same lines
    basically my complaint is that collect dominates this article (and others) with his opinions. other people try to compromise and he refuses. he wants plumber and thats that. we have others (myself included) who disagree strongly. rather than push for our version (which we have found to be pointless against one who will never stop reverting) we have tried to come to a compromise. a look at the talk page would show many reasonable suggestions by several editors. unfortunately, collect wont budge and i think his tone towards other editors speaks for itself.
    we need to work together and its hard to accomplish that when one person refuses to cooperate. Brendan19 (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Let's see Brendan -- you did 3RR in 24 hours on each of two articles. I did nowhere the number of such edits as you did, yet you complain that I am dominating the articles? Where over fifteen other editors all say "plumber" you seem affronted? Gawrsh! Sorry to point out that contentious edits which go against a consensus tend, for some odd reason, not to remain. Meanwhile I am editing on well over a hundred different articles. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    please check your dates again and see above where i corrected you. also, the way i understand 3rr rule is that 4= violation and 3 does not usually= violation (although it sometimes can). i do not believe i broke any rule, but thats beside the point because this isnt about me. and you keep mentioning this consensus which was never really there. consensus= general agreement. this has never been the case no matter how many times you reiterate it (or iterate as you like to say). if there were such a consensus i would argue that you would not have needed to make the same edit over and over because there would be many others on your side to do that for you. anyway, no need for us to go through this. mr connolley agreed to give it a look, lets let him. and i welcome other eyes also. Brendan19 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    basically my complaint is that collect dominates this article (and others) with his opinions - indeed, which is why it doesn't belong on AN3. As pointed out, you have *more* reverts than C and yet you want *him* banned? You want WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    sorry william, but please explain how you see more reverts on my end. i just showed you at least 15 of his reverts while i havent even made 9 total edits to that article. i dont understand. also, i never said i wanted anyone banned. dispute resolution may help with joe the plumber (thanks), but my point in coming here was to have someone evaluate collects pattern of edit warring. i appreciate your input, but could we get some other admin eyes on this? i think it just got archived, but a day or two ago i saw that collect had another user nominate him for edit warring. maybe he is just pushing peoples buttons and we are wrong about him, but couldnt it also be that the guy has a tendency to edit war? Brendan19 (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    the following was originally posted to william connolleys talk page...
    You have 3R this month, C has 2. I'm not going back into prehistory. As I said: this isn't AN3 stuff, its DR. As an AN3 case, its closed William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    actually these are his december reverts so far... and i count five (now eleven)
    and keep in mind the page was protected from november 20 until december 04 (both days in which he was reverting). i see why you say this is DR for joetheplumber, but it seems that you havent looked into anything else ive said. a quick check of his talk page would show edit warring and bullying complaints from an editor (Factchecker atyourservice) about the sarah palin page, edit warring complaints from another editor (therefore) about the barbara west page, edit warring complaints from another editor (the red pen of doom) about the joe the plumber page, edit warring complaints from another editor (mattnad) about the helen jones-kelly page, a friendly 3rr warning from noroton about the political maching page and then there was my warning.

    thats 5 edit war complaints from five different editors about 4 different articles. and lets not forget one friendly 3rr warning about a fifth article from a sixth editor. and all of this has been within the past month (since nov 10th, i believe). wouldnt you agree that a pattern of edit warring is easily visible? sorry to bring this up on your talk page, but you didnt respond to my last post on the admin page. please look into this for me when you get a chance. Brendan19 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    My opinion is that as an AN3 issue, this is closed. If it recurs, it might be reportable as a new issue. A number of complaints about 3RR are not evidence of a problem. Trying to solve this with the bludgeon of AN3 isn't going to work William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    well, please dont take offense, but i would like some other opinions. how do i go about doing that? do i just repost the same stuff to the admin page as a separate report or can you reopen it or what? i realize that my first attempt at posting included irrelevant stuff so i could probably do a more accurate version the second time around. anyway, let me know. Brendan19 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    If I wanted to get it looked at again, I would (preferred) post a note saying so to the AN3 talk page or (less so) ask one of the regular admins there on their talk William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    end of quoted stuff from connolleys talk page.

    taking his advice i am now asking for other opinions here. and i realize that a number of complaints are not evidence of a problem. thats why i am here. if one were to look into each of those complaints i believe one would find the evidence. i do not feel that connolley adequately looked into my complaint. i realize it is time consuming. if you have the time, please take a look at his talk page and investigate for yourself. please note that today (as of this moment) collect has made 7 edits to jtp and i think 6 of them could be considered reverts (to his credit i think 2 of them were against a sock). Brendan19 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. Since WMC has marked this report as 'No vio' I'm considering it officially closed. I'm adding a comment just to record my agreement with WMC's verdict above. Though User:Collect's editing at Joe the Plumber has been aggressive, I don't find it has crossed the line yet. He's been joining Talk in good faith, but he'd be more credible if he would wait longer for consensus before doing his own reverts. Reverting while talking is not so admirable. Note that WP:Dispute resolution provides options like an article RfC or a user RfC. Highly-partisan changes are more likely to be flagged as an edit-warring issue, but plumbing->plumber seems rather low-key and is hard to get excited about. Collect is still pushing against the edit-war limits and may actually find them soon if he doesn't tone down the reverting a little. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    fair enough, but what about the other articles? my intention was to show a pattern- not to just focus on the jtp article. for an experienced editor to receive six warnings from six different editors in less than a month seems exorbitant, doesnt it? Brendan19 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    Brendan, open up an WP:RFC/U on Collect if you think there is a wider pattern. He has made only 5 of the last 100 changes to the Sarah Palin article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    User:TheSickBehemoth reported by User:Fair Deal (Result:72 hours)

    Comment User:TheSickBehemoth has been warned for edit warring here and has chosen to ignore the warning and reverted the article for the sixth time. Fair Deal (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Note User is also 6 and 7RR on four other articles , , , .

    Black Kite reported by 2008Olympian (Result: protected User:2008Olympian warned)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Each time he has reverted, I have attempted to address his concerns with this image. I think it meets WP:NFCC, and he does not. I added a discussion to the talk page of the article to get consensus, and he has simply reverted me each time without waiting for any other editors to weigh in. I took pains to explain that these characters solely exists due to their appearance and that I thought that they could not be adequately described by textual descriptions. He removed the images simply citing WP:NFCC. I removed four of the five images and kept only the main character. Again he simply removed it. Each time he raised a concern, I directly addressed it on the article's talk page or on his or my talk page. I made other edits to the article to address those concerns as well. For example, the last time he reverted, one of his criticisms was that the character was not mentioned enough in the plot summary. So I added material that showed that the had been in the show at another point then the one that was mentioned. Yet he blindly reverted that change as well.--2008Olympian 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Removing images in order to comply with the non-free policy is an exemption from the 3 revert rule. PhilKnight (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    What about removing images that are in compliance with the rule?--2008Olympian 03:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    Not sure. Anyway, I've protected the article for a week. I guess the image could be listed at IfD to establish whether it should be included. PhilKnight (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    The exemption is Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. If this is being done, they should probably be blocked for it. Page prot makes the 3RR moot William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    I wouldn't say moot. He got what he wanted, the page is protected without the image he didn't like, and now that image is orphaned and will be deleted before the protection is over. Pretty strong deterrent to violating 3RR: get the article exactly as you want it.--2008Olympian 09:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Removing copyrighted images that blatantly fail WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR and EW. This image clearly fails NFCC - it's not even close (and ironically the user has proved it by describing the appearance of the character perfectly in a single line of text, proving that it fails WP:NFCC#1). Protecting the page is pointless - the only thing that needs to be done is to block User:2008Olympian if he keeps re-inserting it, because he's clearly not capable of reading the policy which I've pointed him at numerous times. He can't "address the concerns" of the image, because it's simply an WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 failure. Reporting me to this board was simply trolling - and I've removed it from my talk page as such, because I pointed out the exemption to him. Black Kite 12:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    OK, I'm going for unprotect and warn O William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    • I addressed both of the NFCC criteria on Kite talk page. I think that a picture is necessary to adequately describe a character whose whole reason for being is his physical appearance, and that a textual description is insufficient. Kite disagreed. No matter how many times he can write that it "clearly" fails does not make him correct. The point of this reporting is that I took it to the talk page to get input from other editors on the image, whereas he refused to wait for consensus. From what I understand, it is bold, revert, discuss, correct? And I would thin that an admin would know this. Why should I be warned for following the rules?--2008Olympian 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Because you didn't. You assumed that your version of WP:NFCC was correct, and kept re-inserting the image on that basis. You were repeatedly told that you were wrong and were editing against policy, but you ignored this. You can't really blame anyone else for that. Black Kite 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes I did, just not under your interpretation. And the "rules" I am talking about is the rule to discuss contested changes. That means getting input from someone other than yourself and the party you disagree with in a dispute. You should know this rule, you are supposedly an admin. Just because Kite wanted to remove the image doesn't give her the right to have her way without getting input from other editors. I took it to the talk page to get input from other editors, she refused to do so.--2008Olympian 19:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Guys, this is over. Let it go and move on. EW board is not the place for discussions. Scarian 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    Nogrudges, Mrnhghts, & 208.120.89.198 reported by GateKeeperX (Result: 24h all round)

    Nogrudges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Mrnhghts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    208.120.89.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Previous version reverted to: I haven't reverted to any version, but this version from May is before all the edit warring took place.
    Reverts by Nogrudges & Mrnhghts
    Reverts by IP 208.120.89.198

    Users battling over the inclusion of

    "In 2000, NCSY came under fire for protecting Baruch Lanner, a senior staff member who had sexually and physically assaulted teens for decades."

    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    User_talk:Nogrudges
     :User_talk:Mrnhghts
    User_talk:208.120.89.198
    Comments
    • User_talk:Mrnhghts, previously warned for edit warring in May 2007 at the same article , in that particular case this kept being added/removed :
    "NCSY enabled and protected Rabbi Baruch Lanner, a child molester and abuser, ensuring his continuing to harm, and resisted teen calls for intervention, with staff at Yeshiva University even silencing those teens who protested in order to protect the high level rabbinic counselor. This went on for decades until the NY Jewish Week finally exposed NCSY. "
    • Also, I suspect that 208.120.89.198 is a sock puppet of one of the two user, probably Nogrudges, and has been involved in reverting.
    • The recent warring began on December 1st, but really took off after December 6th.

    -- GateKeeper @ 13:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    An impressive revert tally, don't think I've seen better. 24h all round William M. Connolley (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


    Dual Freq reported by User:12.76.153.27 (Result: 3h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I'm not sure I added the links correctly above, so I hope you can take a look at the Ashton Corners, Wisconsin article. Dual Freq has reverted the article 3 times. I've provided excellent documentation (4 sound references) that Ashton Corners is actually called Ashton (In fact, there is no Ashton Corners.), and he keeps vandalizing that. Each time he has reverted the edit, I've added more citations to the information I added. I've listed my evidence on the article's talk page and on Dual Freq's talk page, and he insists on reverting the page to totally inaccurate information.

    3h. I think he just needs reminding not to break 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    JAF1970 reported by Jwjkp (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    This issue the guy is/was debating was pretty much already agreed upon on the talk page for the article as the source passing the WP:Verify therefor being valid. Jwjkp (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    2008Olympian reported by Hammersoft (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I originally removed Image:Seattle Seahawks Tampa Bay Buccaneers helmets.png from the article because the image is not necessary to understanding the article; the teams in question are linked in the page, and anyone who _really_ needs to see their helmets can do to the team pages. We don't need to scatter helmet images all over every article in the project that deals with the NFL. Since then, User:2008Olympian has rigorously fought to include the image.

    I do not feel that the helmet images are necessary for the reader to understand the article. Even so, I've offered a compromise position in this edit summary which was rejected by User:2008Olympian with the statement that it looks better if the helmets face each other . I rejected this argument stating it's not a reason to upload more fair use content . He reverted this, and I've undone his reversion, this time putting the right facing helmets in the same position in the article. This will most likely be reverted.

    Also note that the image in question was deleted and restored today by admin East718 after User:2008Olympian pleaded with him to restore the image .

    I don't intend on editing the article further. The edit war is now pointless as User:2008Olympian is insistent his version is correct, and will revert anything I do, thus making the attempted progress in the article fruitless and destructive. Also note that User:2008Olympian was recently involved in another edit war at The List (South Park). More details above on this page, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Black_Kite_reported_by_2008Olympian_.28Result:_protected_User:2008Olympian_warned.29

    Help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    1. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00EFD9123AF931A25753C1A9649C8B63 Smothers, Ronald (October 12, 2002). "Rabbi Convicted of Sexual Abuse Is Freed on Bail Pending Appeal", The New York Times.
    Categories: