Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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:Off2riorob reported by User:Bob drobbs (Result: Page protected )

Page: Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version: [1]

• 00:03, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Bob drobbs (talk): Consensus is against you. using TW")
• 00:16, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Bob drobbs (talk): No clear consensus. using TW")
• 00:20, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Bob drobbs (talk): Discussion is ongoing. using TW")
• 01:22, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Bob drobbs (talk): Remove - insulting allegation. using TW")

User warned here: [2]

I tried to resolve the problem here, here, and through mediation here.

Comments:

The issue is related to including a libel case in article, but _censoring_ key facts about the lawsuit. The net-effect is a POV problem where the inclusion of the libel case only serves to promote a POV, making the housekeeper look more of a victim. Adding the facts of the case would at least allow readers to discernible judgment about the merits of the lawsuit.

There is no violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, or WP:NPOV in including the facts of a lawsuit citing from the New York Times. Yet, the user continues to revert the text.

As for his edit summaries speaking about consensus. The first one was a lie. The second one is correct; There is no clear consensus, though things may be tilting against him. But the important point is that there can be no consensus as this user has rejected and/or reverted all attempts at compromise. [3]

Most recently, the user has refused to try mediation. [4]

Thanks for your time and input here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. There has been a great deal of discord over this article, with several editors insistent on turning the article into a courtroom, so readers can supposedly 'decide for themselves' who is guilty (not our job), and generally pushing for unencyclopaedic content. As for whether Rob has been guilty of edit-warring, I'll not say, as I'm an involved party, though I would suggest that any admin looking at this complaint also looks at the broader context where some contributors are trying to 'negotiate' content as if they are parties to the legal case. This adversarial attitude is totally at odds with Wikipedia's objectives, and in my opinion is a damn sight more harmful than making four reverts (or whatever) in 24 hours... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert #4 may fall into the BLP 3rr exemption, but edit warring, even short of 3rr, using a rollback substitute (Twinkle) is certainly not permissible. Bob drobbs has also edit warred and should have their conduct reviewed. Monty₈₄₅ 03:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - In agreement with AndyTheGrump on this. Suggest that if the editors can't agree on a NPOV approach, then maybe the article can be removed from Mainspace OR massively trimmed until such time as the parties can agree that it represents a NPOV. -- Avanu (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure the etiquette of the reporter commenting here. But I have to respond to Avanu. This edit-war is primarily over one line which is only tangentially related to the main article. I don't think there is any need at all to remove or heavily trim the article. I think we can just delete the one line in question, until there is agreement on it's content. I actually already did that, but Off2riorob felt a need to repeatedly revert it, and then go on to revert another compromise option too. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This is about a clear a case of WP:BLP problems as we are likely to see. The material is required to be deleted per that policy, and punishing anyone for enforcing the policy in good faith is a "no go" in my opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• The rapid succession of reverts. for whatever reason, suggests that more discussion is necessary. In these circumstances possibly the article should be fully protected for a period of a week or more. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Page protected for a week. When content is removed as an alleged BLP vio it is not permitted to restore it until there is a consensus that the content is not a BLP vio. If I had more time to research the history I would see myself blocking Bob drobbs for reinserting a BLP vio. Instead, lets be clear, edit warring over this is a goo way to lose your editing priviledged. Wait and discuss on the talk page. As it is I locked the page for a week to force everyone to discuss this. I'm going out now so complaints will have to wait a few hours to get answered. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:24.125.59.155 reported by User:Edgarde (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Stewie Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.125.59.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

• 1st revert: 2011-07-14T03:25:46
• 2nd revert: 2011-07-14T14:34:25
• 3rd revert: 2011-07-14T18:10:33
• 4th revert: 2011-07-15T13:28:40

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2011-07-14T15:14:28

Comments:

Spamming a Google+ page. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --B (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Adamrce (Result: Not blocked for now)

Page: War crime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged with HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

The editor first removed a see-also link here

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A slight warning to remind him that his edit summaries and reasoning are incorrect again, here, because both editors are involved in the same argument in multiple article. However, he replied on my talkpage as if he never did anything wrong, here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've told the other editor involved here that an invitation to open a discussion is not enough, as he reverted 5 times and was just blocked last week for the same mistake.

Comments:

The reason I'm reporting this is based on the ongoing warring on the same topic in multiple articles. I'm still trying to work with both editors with a very little response. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not blocked Cossde (talk · contribs) has not reverted in over 24 hours and he has edited since HudsonBreeze's most recent reverts. HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs) has not edited in 21 hours. If the revert war resumes, please reopen this request - revert warring across articles is inherently disruptive. --B (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have stated to user AdvertAdam 24 hrs back, that I shall refrain from editing War crime. Cossde (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lorifredrics reported by Mtking (talk) (Result: Declined)

Page: Peter Scott (educationalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 22:10, 14 July 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted --Previously removed name referred to in articles. The notoriety of case is in its inclusion in Hansards/Parliamentary Debate.")

   22:19, 14 July 2011 (edit summary: "added refs")

2. 17:36, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Corrected harassment case outcome, added primary reference for WIPO decision.")

   17:38, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "tidying up link")

3. 19:45, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 439650767 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) Added additional reference.")
4. 21:09, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "restore reference minus link to alleged copyright violation.")

   21:14, 15 July 2011 (edit summary: "Correct ref. article byline and add pg.number.")

—Mtking (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Note: I do not wish even the appearance of forum shopping so please be aware that this editors edits to Peter Scott (educationalist) and to Kingston University are also subject to thread on WP:ANI here, I am submitting this here as a formality.. Mtking (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no editing war going on. There may be editing harassment/bullying by some editors, as I have adhered to the recommended policy that users with an alleged COI propose edits via Talk page. I did this, and did not make reverts to edits that were opposed by consensus, but did make reverts of edits that were not opposed and/or not addressed by other editors following my having proposed them. I waited about 24 hrs before making the proposed edit following lack of opposition/response to specific elements added. It appears that the reporting here was done out of spite rather than out of any genuine concern for any content issues. The edits I made were of a purely factual nature or of the addition of a non-controversial reference in a mainstream publication. I encourage an admin to review the exact content of what I did edit/revert for its reasonableness.--Lorifredrics (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note While I don't believe it was wholly inappropriate to bring this edit war to the attention of this board, I do think it's a bit redundant. Lori appears to be on the edge of receiving a topic ban from this article and related articles, which I think would do a lot more to curb future edit war behavior than a temporary block. The current discussion can be seen above, in Mtking's link to ANI. -- Atama頭 00:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Declined per above, and per ongoing events at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kingston_University_and_WP:COI_SPA -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Phanuruch8555 reported by User:GameLegend (Result:no action (yet))

Page: Sebastian Vettel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:
User started to remove the image from the article's infobox without any reason. When asked on his talk-page to stop this behaviour, rather than comment on his actions, he started mocking the request to stop on his user-page and announced his intention to continue this disprutive behaviour.

To quote his user-page: "I deleted his picture everytime when someone gonna puts it back, here is something appears on my talk page." GameLegend (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This editor is behavingly slightly oddly, but when I placed the 3RR warning on his page, he replied on my talk page, asking what 3RR is [14]. Given that he was not aware of 3RR, and so far he has not reverted again since I explained 3RR to him, maybe we should wait to see if he offends again before taking any action against him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I don't see any mocking, or an intention to continue the disruptive behaviour. I think his English is poor and while it looks odd that he's copied the warnings to his user page, at the moment there does not seem to be any further problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree that, for the time being, this is not quite ripe for a block, as the user has not reverted since being warned. Another revert would probably be grounds for blocking, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In hindsight (beautiful thing isn't it) you're correct and I might have jumped to conclusions a little early. But at least the case is on record now. GameLegend (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Santista1982 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Declined)

Page: Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Santista1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

• 1st revert: [16] 14:34, July 16, 2011
• 2nd revert: [17] 15:05, July 16, 2011
• 3rd revert: [18] 15:09, July 16, 2011
• 4th revert: [19] 15:12, July 16, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

User is removing cited text which blames Hitler for 40 million deaths. User blames WWII, Stalin and the Jews for many of these deaths, and calls for an "impartial" article. However, the cite fully supports blaming Hitler for the deaths. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• The WWII was responsable for these deaths, or the allies did not killed nobody in this war? If they not killed nobody how they manage to win the war? I think is no sense saying that Hitler killed 40 million people. And this edit war was started by you and not by me. --Santista1982 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All you had to do was take some time tlak this out over 'reverting only 3 times I would like to add. That said I think we can all agree that if " Hitler" did not start the war this lives would have not been lost in this way. Hitler's orders/action/rule resulted in this deaths as stated by the refs.Moxy (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Santista hasn't reverted since being warned, so I'd be inclined to let this one go for now, but would block if he/she continues reverting. Who "started it" is hardly the point here, as it's Santista who's warring against every other participant in the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I did use the talk page. Hitler did not start the war and mostly of these deaths were caused by communist army of Stalin. Is the same to saying that Hitler now caused 500.000 japanese deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. England, France, URSS, USA have the same guilt of these deaths as the Nazi Germany have. --Santista1982 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Although this view is way off in my opinion - this type of talk is what we like to see - Please come back to the articles talk page so others (over time) can comment. I would suggest that you backup your statement with references as the current wording (that you are refuting) has references that would need to be rebutted by other references. Moxy (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Santista1982 has not edited the page since they received a 3RR warning. Re-report if edit warring resumes. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:$1LENCE D00600D reported by User:Karanacs (Result: No Violation)

Page: Template:Campaignbox Texas Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: $1LENCE D00600D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This was the version before this user began making changes: [22]

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• my request to follow procedures and discuss
• 2nd request to please discuss and not unilaterally make changes

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• There was already a section on the template talk page addressing this issue from 2010: [26] This user had originally made the same change then [27]

• I attempted to engage on template talk again on 16 Jul [28]

Comments:

User:$1LENCE D00600D is also move-warring on this page:

Battle of Matamoros

• Moved by another user per old AfD Discussion in May 2011 to a more accepted name: [29]
• July 12, this user moved it back to the original name [30]
• July 12 I reverted the move: [31] with edit summary about AfD
• July 15, this user moved the article again to an almost identical made-up name [32]
• Jul 16, I reverted the move and left a note on user's talk page, thinking he didn't see the edit summary [33]
• Jul 16, he made the change again [34]

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lightpositive reported by User:Dave1185 (Result: No Violation)

Page: Ayman al-Zawahiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lightpositive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 14:01, 16 July 2011
• 2nd revert: 16:49, 16 July 2011
• 3rd revert: 17:07, 16 July 2011

Note: The said user did almost the same thing yesterday on the article page of 2011 Egyptian revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: 19:52, 13 July 2011
• 2nd revert: 19:18, 15 July 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 & 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] (he didn't discuss this but chose instead to ask for help on his talk page and was helped/explained by two other uninvolved editors (including an Admin!)

Comments:

• FWIW, I've warned the editor about his potential 3RR problem twice including today's, his reaction to my comment was "nonsense" and his contribution history clearly shows that he is not a newbie. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you stalking me evrywhere in wikipedia all the time ?! i have done nothing , the first edits were no reverts they were all additions and it feels like Dave1185 is doing some kind of bulling on me, just look how he nearly reverted most of the things ive contributed and accusations Lightpositive ^talk 16:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:JorgePeixoto reported by User:Binksternet (Result: blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37] Changing the word "advocacy"
• 2nd revert: [38] Changing the word "advocacy"

• 1st revert: [39] Adding the paragraph "Critics of Catholics for Choice argue..."
• 2nd revert: [40] Adding the paragraph "Critics of Catholics for Choice argue..."

• 1st revert: [41] Adding hidden comment, "I ARGUE THE TEXT BELOW..."
• 2nd revert: [42] Adding hidden comment, "I ARGUE THE TEXT BELOW..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

* This is very bogus. Changing "advocacy" to "militancy" is not a revert, since the article was not changed to a previous state. After this change, another user reverted the word "militancy" (which I feel honestly describes the situation and I was also searching secondary sources to confirm, but the user edited before me) back to advocacy; I then changed "advocacy" to "activism", as a second proposal and clearly not a revert.

That was an honest attempt to reach a word people agreed on, and it seems to have worked; no one challenged "activism". This is dialectics, not "edit warring". What, in fact, do you suggest I should have done here? Counting this change as part of "edit warring" is not only bogus, but downright frivolous. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

* Second, when I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholics_for_Choice&diff=next&oldid=439785913, I added a good edit summary and comments to explain my action. But most importantly, I immediately followed by partially reinstating Roscelese's edits - I reinstated the one which was easiest to on (the one which we would most likely keep after reaching agreement in the talk page) but kept my partial revert of the portion of the text she deleted on the bogus reason of "we must delete 'far-right' sources from wikipedia". I don't think partial revert counts as revert anyway. And see that this wasn't done in an edit-warring mood, but with explanations and trying to reach a compromise.

* Third, I am honestly not aware that reverting a comment, which does not affect readers and is an honest attempt to keep information organized in the wiki text until we resolve issues in the talk page, would count as one revert towards this policy. Of course, I wouldn't revert the comment 5 times; I reverted it once (AFAIK), but the problem is that you are counting this one supposed "revert" (of a comment) with the following one, which was one actual revert.

* Fourth, please read the talk page, and tell if I am the one with the worse attitude. In particular, see the section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholics_for_Choice&action=historysubmit&diff=439819650&oldid=439788924#Recent_edits_by_JP . That edit summary (in which I duly called bogus the idea that merely because a source is pro-life, it is therefore "far-right" and must be deleted from wikipedia) is not nearly as "combative" as the attitude the other user demonstrated in the talk page. And in fact, if someone deletes your source because she says pro-life is judged to be "far-right" than saying "it is not your job to judge sources as far-right" is very appropriate, yes?Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:

JorgePeixoto is well aware of the 1RR nature of this abortion-topic article, yet he continually reverts others' edits, multiple times per day. Though there are vigorous talk page discussions, he restores commented-out warnings that he places within the article body. He engages other editors of the article with a battleground attitude. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• The 1RR restriction imposed by the community is clear, bright line. The commentary I see in the diffs is what I'd call downright belligerent. 1RR and 0RR restrictions aren't placed arbitrarily or lightly, and when they are, editors do well to heed them. This isn't happening here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Concerning the paragraph starting Critics of Catholics for Choice argue that, revert was to the text originally removed here [45], and reinstated in revert 1 and revert 2. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Abhijeet3 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24h)

Page: Kshatriya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abhijeet3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51] (user blanked)

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

Comments:
No attempt to resolve on article talk page because it is uncited addition of a primary source. Several warnings were issued with explanations, and at least one of the edit summaries included sufficient detail & ought to have been seen when the user undid.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User:PTJoshua reported by User:Verb4i roby (Result: both blocked 12 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: Page: Owling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Verb4i roby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 00:51, 17 July 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

—Verb4i roby (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Magnagr reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert: 04:20, 17 July 2011)
• 2nd revert: 04:47, 17 July 2011
• 3rd revert: 05:03, 17 July 2011
• 4th revert: 07:54, 17 July 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Comments:

Aronoel and Fistoffoucault refuse to accept consensus.

Malformed – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fistoffoucault and User:Aronoel reported by User:Dave3457 (Result: )

Page: Femininity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: [[User:Aronoel]|Aronoel]]] ([[User talk:Aronoel]|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Aronoel]|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/Aronoel]|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/Aronoel]|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/Aronoel]|block user]] · block log)

and

User being reported: [[User:Fistoffoucault]|Fistoffoucault]]] ([[User talk:Fistoffoucault]|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Fistoffoucault]|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/Fistoffoucault]|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/Fistoffoucault]|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/Fistoffoucault]|block user]] · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aronoel#I_am_accusing_you_of_edit_warring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fistoffoucault#I_am_accusing_you_of_edit_warring

I’m user Dave3457 we have an editor at the femininity article that is making changes to the page against clear consensus. This article is in serious turmoil. The latest dispute has been among three images that are below and the history section. Besides Aronoel, the only other person that seems to support the Shaman image and deletion of the history section is an individual Fistoffoucault who’s account only came into existence recently and has edited the femininity page almost exclusively.
While Fistoffoucault and Aronoel seem to work in tandem Fristoffocault does not seem to be a sockpuppet of Aronoel’s

With regards to the history section (which is a lesser issue for me) and the false claim that consensus was met for its deletion, below is a summary of a section I created to discuss its removal. Note: I later changed my mind. USchick created the history section.

Suggest removal of History section.

....Any support? Dave3457
.... Aronoel, you don't think it's important to explain how the concept of femininity came about in history? USchick
Yes, I think it's important. ...--Aronoel
I think we need to find more sources for this section, and we need to make sure those sources are talking specifically about femininity and not just women. --Aronoel
Unless someone can rewrite this section into ... then we should delete it. Fistoffoucault
I have to be honest, since creating this section, my view has changed some what. ....Dave3457
Dave, what do you recommend? USchick
To be honest I’m not sure I want to invest much time on this section, I can easily see this debate about the difference between being female and being feminine going on forever. I will say, for the reasons I’ve stated above, I object to the statement “females were defined simply by their biological attributes.”Dave3457
xxxxxxxxxx

In summary, Aronoel , in spite of seeming to be prepared to work out the problems with the section, saying "Yes, I think it's important" deleted it. She deleted it after after Fistoffoucault deleted it and it was restored. The diffs are below.

Against talk consensus, Fistoffoucault changed the image to the Shaman one and deleted the history section.diff diff] I reverted the changes with the edit summary "Fistoffoucault, There was nothing in the talk, you're going to get yourself banned", Two day later Aronoel, did the same thing as Fistoffoucault. diff Again claiming consensus in the edit summary with "There is plenty of discussion and support for both these changes on talk.
Both Fistoffoucault and Aronoel claimed consensus, but again, there clearly was none. USchick, had put serious time into this section, their out of hand deletion of it without consensus is very discouraging to the other editors. Myself included. Unfortunately Uschick seems to have submitted to their bulling tactics and wrote "This discussion is to remove the ancient history section. The modern history section talks about where the notion came from, I reinstated it."

Concerning the changing of the images without consensus which is really the bigger problem.

Below is what I believe to be a fair summary of the discussion about who supported which lede image. The discussion was 4700 words long. The below does not begin to reflect how many times the lede image of this article has changed.

The three images are to the right and are the Venus, the Shaman, and the Young Woman Drawing.

Venus

Shaman

Young Woman Drawing,

The Venus was posted by USchick and remained untouched for several months before Aronoel took interest in the article and changed it to the Shaman. The below shows how Uschick and myself gave into consensus for the Young Woman Drawing” image.

Main picture

Aronoel (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC) What is so important about the Venus picture? From my understanding, there are 3 advantages to the shaman picture over the Venus. ....
Dave3457 (talk) Below are your three points and my response to them....
Death by fugue (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)I would agree that the shaman picture is probably not the best picture to depict femininity since....I would like to propose that a collage....
Nick Levinson (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC) A collage sounds good.
Death by fugue (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC) I don't really understand what you mean by Venus being a positive portrayal of femininity.
Roger6r (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)...and is one example of why the Venus picture is a poor lead for the article's subject.
USchick (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Using an image with a caption like ... shamanism ... I'm removing it.
Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC) In summary, I'm reverting to the Altai shaman picture.
Avanu (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC) How's the painting from Marie-Denise Villers (Young woman drawing) strike you as a choice?
Aronoel (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I think it is really smart to use a woman's self-portrait, and I like where you're going with this. However, I think this picture might be somewhat problematic.
Fistoffoucault (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I also think Avanu's idea of a self-portrait (young woman drawing) is inspired.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx end

Not seen in the talk, through reverts and so forth which change the image from the Shaman to the Young Woman drawing picture Dave3457 and USchick who initially supported the Venus picture displayed that they were willing to live with the Young Woman Drawing picture.

When all is said and done, Dave3457, USchick, and Avanu, all very active editors, definitively supported the Young Women Drawing picture and Aronoel and Fistoffoucault supported the Shaman picture.

Also...

In this extremely long discussion (21,000 words) in an attempt to get consensus for the lede, while the Young Woman Drawing was up, several people chimed in and made no comment concerning the lede image.
Avanu Very active editor
Aronoel Very active editor
Dave3457 Very active editor
USchick Very active editor
(50.16.132.13 talk)
Kaldari Very active editor
(70.26.24.50 talk)
Noleander
(209.226.31.161 talk) Very active editor
(Darkfrog24 talk)
Septentrionalis
Darkfrog24
(70.26.24.50 talk)

While the discussion was about one sentence in particular the lede image never changed in that time and it was felt the after all the turmoil over the lede, we finally we had a lede that was going to stick. In fact the following section with this title was in created by me. Ideas on how to give stability to the new lede which was reached through consensus.

No one objected to the idea that we had a consensus except Aronoel. Avanu had second thoughts about the sentence but then changed her mind. The following people commented in this section.
Dave3457
USchick
(209.226.31.161 talk)
Kaldari
Avanu
Also a new editor chimed in with “I bow to the decision of the editors that have been discussing the matter, Diego Moya The discussion about the lede has not continued expect for Aronoel who wrote the following in this section.

I've been away for a few days, so coming back here I'm surprised that people are saying there is consensus for the lead. I'm pretty sure a lot of editors here do not agree with the lead. Maybe we can do an informal poll or something, so that it will be easier to keep track of which person takes which position? --Aronoel (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No pole was taken and Aronoel and Fistoffoucault began reverting the Young Woman Drawing image to the Shaman one.

In spite of my repeated requests, Fistoffoucault often refuses to use edit summaries.

[[54]] Fistoffoucault, When you make changes to a wiki page you need to include an edit summary along with your edit. That way the other editors can follow what is going on without having to go to the page. This is Wiki policy. I noticed that you deleted the above comment with no response when I put it on your talk page . Do you disagree that it is Wiki policy? Please tell me your position on the matter. I have to be honest, I find it odd that you are "Looking forward to more productive discussion!" but then you change the lede image without so much as an edit summary. We had come to a consensus as to what that image would be.

The article’s subject matter is very emotional for many people making things very difficult at times. However when people edit the page contrary to clear consensus the task grows much more difficult. I am personally on the verge of giving up trying to create balance on this page, I know of others that share my views and already have given up.

In the interests of full discloser I must mention a past incident between Aronoel and myself as we got “off to a rocky start” due to poor Wikiquette on my part. While Aronoel lodged a Wikiquette complain against me and the ruling was “in my favour”

: I'm not seeing any obvious Wikiquette issues here. It's clearly a content dispute, and Dave3457 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I believed and expressed the view that the ruling was wrong, at least when it came to my conduct and wrote.

In short, while you ruled in my favor in a big way, I suspect that I may have been in the wrong when I publicly accused her of having an agenda even though she did.

I latter apologized

For what it is worth I apologize to Aronoel for getting personal on this talk page, but I don't apologize for trying to counter act .... I will go about it within the rules of Wikipedia in the future.

Here is the latest edit of Fistoffoucault, in which she removed a paragraph from a section without even an edit summary | diff.

Below are some more questionable edits of Fistoffoucault.

[55] Removed “inborn or socialized” from lede without an edit summary. This is a very provocative edit. In my opinion, when Fistoffoucault want to “sneak” a change, she is careful not to leave an edit summary. Aronoel, then pulls up the rear, [56]

diff Fistoffoucault, removes dispute tag. With no comment.

diff USchick, removes image with full explanation. Then Fistoffoucault, reverts it with no comment. diff

diff Fistoffoucault changed image from Young Women Drawing to Shaman with no comment. USchick then reverted it with an explanation and Fistoffoucault reverted with no explanation. I changed it back referring her to the talk page. She then again changes it back with no comment and deletes the history section while she is at it.

It has taken me several hours to write up this complain. Among other things could someone with authority please provide me with a statement I can refer to that says something along the following lines...

Do to the emotional nature of this article, it is insisted the editors of this article provide Edit summaries describing the changes that have been made and the reasons for doing so.

This would at least force people to be a little more honest and cut down on the volatility. It would also make it a lot easier to make a case against a future Fistoffoucault.

Dave3457 (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)