| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assassination Games article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Edit war
editWill all editors please stop edit warring about these minor issues. This talkpage is here to discuss things, and whoever does not do that, will be reported. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to make note of the dates on those edits, and do a little checking on the IP; there's more going on than just a simple edit war which suspends WP:3RR in this instance. --Drmargi (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know. It is still an edit war. Just a protracted one with several IP's and possibly socks. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just a drive-by comment: Well then, it's not edit warring, by definition. "Reverting edits by banned users is not edit warring." - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- The edit was a perfectly normal edit. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's editing by a banned user / sock puppet. It is, therefore, not edit warring, by definition. the edit may have been normal, but the editor wasn't. - See WP:EW for what edit warring is and isn't. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- The edit was a perfectly normal edit. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just a drive-by comment: Well then, it's not edit warring, by definition. "Reverting edits by banned users is not edit warring." - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know. It is still an edit war. Just a protracted one with several IP's and possibly socks. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/90.200.85.232/Archive where it is shown that this problem editor has been around since, at least, last October. This may well have been going on longer though and I so many different IPs have been used that I have started this User:MarnetteD/Burton-on-Trent Vandal to try and help in keeping track of them all. Please feel free to make additions there as needed. MarnetteD | Talk 20:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- As to the specifics of the edits anyone is perfectly free to make changes based on what the IPs have done but be aware that, in general per the MoS for films, we only use the term "Cast" not "Cast and characters" for that section. Per the MoS for infoboxes bolding such like this '''[[Cinema of the United States|United States]]''' is not needed. Most of the others are innocuous but that is one of the hallmarks of this editor. A few negligible edits on one article to offset messy ones to another. MarnetteD | Talk 20:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I will add here that if you look at some of the edits that the sock makes, some may well turn out ok; however, there are numerous others that are not: addition of unsourced content, genre changes, MOS violates, EGG links etc. Carte blanche reversion of sock edits is permitted because if editors are allowed to evade their blocks in that manner then there is no point in blocking them in the first place! I used to go through them filtering the poor edits, but he makes them at such a rate it's too big a mess to sort through, so it's easier just to roll him back from his contribution history. If you wish to restore the edits then that is fine, because by definition they become your edits, but please note an edit war is only an edit war if policy says it is one, and there are several exemptions where multiple reverts are acceptable: vandalism, unsourced BLP edits, socks to name a few. But in regards to your involvement you are trying to enforce a rule that doesn't apply. Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I see what you mean. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)