Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
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)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Shipofcool reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Not done)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

1st revert: [2]
2nd revert: [3]
3rd revert: [4] (bundled with some other edits)
4th revert: [5]
5th revert: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

This dispute spreads beyond this article. The bottom line is that User:Shipofcool has been replacing the historic charts on the "XXXX in film" articles with his own revisionist rankings. The problem though was that these revisionist charts aren't complete, since the box-office data is unavailable for many older films. Impartial comments at [9] were obtained where User:Grapple X commented that If it could be uniformly, and reliably, switched to gross, then I guess that would be alright. After Shipofcool dismissed my concerns (see [10]) I took the dispute to the Film project [11] where User:Gothicfilm commented Clearly the same figures - box-office grosses and theatrical rentals - should be used consistently. Shipofcool does not seem to have listed what his source for grosses on the pre-1990 films would be. If only rental figures are available on the older films, that's what you go with, right?. Shipofcool has continued with his disruptive editing despite the fact no editor has voiced support for his edits, and the two impartial editors only advocated replacing the lists if the data could be uniformly transformed. This has not been the case, with Shipofcool simply removing the films from the chart where he could not source a replacement figure. He clearly isn't acting in accordance with the approach as advocated by the two independent editors. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone to an RFC now and Ship has started toeing the line. I don't particularly want him blocked during discussions, so I think we can wrap this up and if it starts up again I'll re-file. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you wish. Not blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeremy112233 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: stale)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

1st revert: [13]
2nd revert: [14]
3rd revert: [15]
4th revert: [16]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:
Jeremy112233 is currently engaging in disruptive/contentious editing on the lead in Frank Vandersloot. The article was revised a few days ago (prior to Jermey's first appearance) to indicate that Vandesloot's company Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing (MLM) company. The change was supported by numerous references (more than 20[19]) and by loose editorial consensus after some weak objections had been raised -- the objections were addressed in 3 different forums including the Talk page,[20] and RSN.[21] After that, the article was stable until Jeremy started reverting today (obfuscating the designation as an MLM) and edit warring over the issue. He has removed the basic MLM description of Melaleuca and instead inserted the following statement in the lead -- "Melaleuca is described by some as being a multi-level marketing company[1][2] and described by others as being a direct marketing company.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]" This is problematic on many levels.

First and foremost, the edit is misleading and makes no sense because it describes the company using the vague top-level term "direct marketing company", when in reality, MLM is a sub-type of direct marketing (see multi-level marketing), so Jermey's edit is akin to nonsensically arguing that Bugs Bunny isn't a rabbit because he is a mammal. Obviously, MLM is a more specific and more appropriate term.

Second, Jeremy bypased the Talk page and did not attempt to gain consensus for the reversion, despite the fact that the issue had previously been under active discussion by many editors and a rough consensus in support of the MLM designation had been reached.

Third, the body text of the article doesn't refer to any such nomenclature controversy about "direct marketing" vs "MLM" (the notion has been manufactured by Jeremy and it smacks of WP:OR), nor do any of the sources added, so it has no place being in the lead (see WP:LEAD).

Lastly, the user appeared on the Vandersloot article shortly after having wikistalked me from another article (Protandim) on which we had a brief and minor locking of horns recently after he was blanking text in the article.[22][23]. I am requesting that the editor be blocked and the article reverted to the last stable version prior to Jeremy's edits.[24] Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OWN - and noting that RIR has clearly been more than a "willing participant" in any edit war at this point, including adding clear violations per WP:BLP (using opinion articles as sources to make charges of criminal wrongdoing, of "buying judges" etc.). WP:BOOMERANG obviously applies here. Collect (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, you've been forum shopping hoping to get the answer you wanted but it didn't happen. Every un-involved editor that weighed in on this question after you posted it to Talk[25] and RSN[26] disagreed with you. You have no grounds for that WP:OWN red herring. Your comment above has no bearing on this particular case of 3RR. I've been following protocol. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of that article is exceedingly clear. Your personal attack is, moreover, a tad unlikely to impress anyone. The noticeboard here is to try to prevent edit war, not to work in favour of one edit warrior who reports another - the goal is to have no such battleground mentality about articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, I might ask to clarify what you meant by personal attack ("forum shopping" was a simple statement of fact), but that question, like your comment above, would have no place in a 3RR report. Since you are an involved party,[27] your comment does not appear to be at all constructive but rather is carrying over warrior behavior onto the very page that is designed to prevent it. If you have nothing salient to add, saying nothing is never a bad idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has popped up on my radar several times recently, so I finally took a look at it. In addition to the very obvious 3RR violation, Jeremy's text is also WP:NPOV; it uses the word “accused” in reference to the MLM claim, which is very obviously not neutral—and as such, RIR is correct to remove it per WP:BLP. But in any case, Jeremy crossed what is widely said to be the bright line. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 22:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stale. It's been more than a day since either party made any edits to this article. Had I seen this report earlier I would have blocked both, or protected the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Final3211 reported by User:Semitransgenic (Result: 72h)

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

1st revert: [28]
2nd revert: [29]
3rd revert: [30]
4th revert: [31]

5th revert: [32]

6th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:
User in question added content that was not properly sourced or formatted, which I reverted [36], said user persisted in reverting, so I then attempted to appease the editor by wikifying the material - keeping some of the barely usable cites. Unfortunately the editor again reverted, preferring instead to ignore my advice concerning the consultation of WP:MOS & WP:RS guidelines. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are to be observed not blindly but with a sense of purpose, which you sadly lack. All of your attempts to edit or format the article render it illegible.—Final3211 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 72 hours. Final3211 seems to be an account that was created on 15 September to edit war on this article. I've also blocked God the Son one week as a probable sock and have put semiprotection on the article to slow the success rate of any new socks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Old-timer0 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Warned)

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

1st revert: [37] - clearly establishing his anti-science POV-pushing
2nd revert: [38] - dishonestly trying to hide the edit as a minor edit
3rd revert: [39] - his claims that the use of the word "evolutionary" is OR is bunkum
4th revert: [40] - Not even discussing things.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] - To which Old-timer0 responded by threatening to continue the edit war until he has his way.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42] and [43], with an attempt at discussion on his talk page.

Comments:
I am aware that the 4th revert is not within the same 24 hour period, but edit warring is not simply 3rr but continually making an edit against consensus without discussion. He is repeating an edit against consensus with a WP:FRINGE agenda, and refuses to discuss the matter except threatening to continue the edit war until he has his way. He is edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Warned. Report again if he continues to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is old-timer0 the claim by ian.thompson who is claiming I am edit warring is without basis as there is absolutely positively no proof that evolution is happening or has ever happened I dare ian.thompson to show the wikipedia community as well as the world a single undisputed fossil that evolved from another life form.In fact I will save him the trouble do not bother looking as you will not find a single undisputed evolving life form in the fossil record also numerous experiments with fruit flies further proves evolution does not happen and has never happened. Mathamatical calculations vaporize the whole idea of life evolving in any way shape or form so ian.thompson would do well to look in the mirror and ask who is the one who is pushing wp:fringe, wp:or and is violating wp:rs by insisting that evolution is a fact when neither he nor anyone else has ever been able to point to a reliable and verifiable source that shows evolution has happened or is happening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old-timer0 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay out of my mirrors, and keep your anti-science bias away from our articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Badud reported by User:Piotrus (Result: Indef)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

1st revert: [45]
2nd revert: [46]
3rd revert: [47]
4th revert: [48]

Update: Also, 5th and 6th: [49], [50]

7th revert: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this new editor has not been warned yet. A warning will be a sufficient outcome this time, no need for a block (it's a first time violation anyway).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle_of_Klushino#reverted_GD_edits_by_Badud, I used informative edit summaries and also tried engaging him on his talk (User talk:Badud) Comments:
This new editor is adding unreferenced information, and refuses to discuss his additions. In the past 24h he has readded the information four times at the Klushino page, he is also doing the same at the battle of Jordanow. I tried engaging him in conversation with no result. Others are just reverting him, he needs to stop and realize this is a collaborative project. I hope that a warning from an admin will make him realize that. PS. See also the report immediately below mine (same topic). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has just created his user page, not a good sign really. Welcome everybody , except Russians and their fanboys. I do not talk with commies,bolsheviks and leftists, sorry. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potentially_offensive_userpage_declaration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - Indef by User:Floquenbeam, per the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Badud reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: duplicate)

User ignores notices in article and user talk pages, just reverts non-stop. See article history. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note – user is already reported and being discussed in another section here. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joekiddlouischama reported by User:Malley10 (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

1st revert: [53]
2nd revert: [54]
3rd revert: [55]
4th revert: [56]

Warning posted on talk page: [57]

Attempted to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:
User has removed entire paragraphs of sourced content and replaced them with rubbish. This has happened five times. User has ignored request to stop.

Malley10 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any further disruption since Joekiddlouischama received the 3RR warning. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:122.163.195.135 reported by User:Titodutta (Result: Range blocked)

This user (his IP address changes every now and then) is adding this portion in the article Paoli Dam and Mushrooms (film) continuously, which is badly sourced, contains camel case, wrong formatting and most importantly this portion is written in hysterical tone and cheap gossip. Firstly I did not make any changes and posted in help desk and article's talk page for help. In article's talk page it was decided to summarize the portion with reliable sources and without hysterical tone. In between an admin User:Lectonar stepped in and protected the article twice. I tried to get help from the admin here and also here. In the second help request the admin has mentioned he (i/wa)s busy at that time so can not spend time here. I have talked with few more users like User:Maproom (who saw my request in help desk), User:Dwaipayanc (who is the creator of the article Mushrooms (film) and few more users. That's the situation for now. --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the range 122.163.192.0/21 (2048 addresses) for 24 hours. If the problem persists after the block expires, you may want to request semi-protection of the affected articles at WP:RFPP instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angkorangel reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: indeffed)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

1st revert: [60]
2nd revert: [61]
3rd revert: [62]
Plus seven more reverts, essentially their entire editing history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report, but a general edit-warring report. Angkorangel is a single-purpose account that has been continuously inserting an individual on the Maitreya article, even though there are no sources that would warrant a mention of this person in the article. Their only edits to Wikipedia have been to edit war in this way. - Sudo Ghost 06:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, link spam, and the only substantial mention of him is various Buddhist sites mocking him as a poser. Though, to be fair, everyone on that particular list is a poser. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 07:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of indefinite as a promotion-only account. De728631 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP:88.253.207.68 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

1st revert: [66]
2nd revert: [67]
3rd revert: [68]
4th revert: [69]
5th revert: [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Long talk there. Left comments and talk pointing editor to the talk page.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:SSZvH7N5n8 reported by User:Bilby (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

1st revert: [73]
2nd revert: [74]
3rd revert: [75]
4th revert: [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments: The problem is edit warring to insert a copyright violation, even though this has been explained to the user ([79], [80] and talk page discussion). The editor is aware of the problems with 3RR, having warned me about it. - Bilby (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and copyright infringements. I have suggested to quote the whole original sentence from the source which would resolve the issue. De728631 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:SajjadF reported by User:AlexJFox (Result: No block)

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

1st revert: 1
2nd revert: 2

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notification for 1RR violation

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Contacted editor on his talk page.

Comments:

Breach of 1RR rule under 2008 Arbitration case regarding Arab-Israeli conflict.

Contacted editor but on his page rather than article page, this is my mistake I apologise. ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 23:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say, I made a mistake by reverting the edit twice. But, It was done to resolve the biased view brought by User:AlexJFox. Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexJFox#Al-Aqsa_Mosque_edit Thanks. SajjadF (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How was it biased to restore the more widely used English name "Temple Mount"? Your edit also broke several Wikilinks—in your haste to undo AlexJFox's edit, you never looked to see what effect your edit was having. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about the other edits, but "temple mount" is what the jews call it as they believe Solomon's temple was there. Calling a mosque a temple is simply wrong. Just like calling a church a synagogue. Two different faiths. And the term "Al-Aqsa" refers to the whole area and since this article is about "Al - Aqsa" mosque, let us stick to that. Besides, There is an article about the temple mount. And an article about the excavations under the temple mount also mention that they were under Al-Aqsa. SajjadF (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is English-language Wikipedia and we use the common English names for things. That's why the article refers to "Al-Aqsa Mosque" and not "Masjid Al-Aqsa". The English name for the elevation on which Al-Aqsa is located is "Temple Mount", not "the Al-Aqsa". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SajjadF has violated the WP:1RR restriction on this article with his two reverts on 19 September. The first was at 14:55 and the second at 22:37. He might be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to stop reverting until he can get consensus. The existence of a 1RR is clearly marked on the article's talk page. It's true that nobody notified him on his own talk page before the second revert. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to the above terms, will not revert until i get a consensus on the talk page. SajjadF (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Closed with no block since SajjadF has agreed to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

193.233.212.18 reported by User:Chetvorno (Result: page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

1st revert: [82]
2nd revert: [83]
3rd revert: [84]
4th revert: [85]
5th revert: [86]
6th revert: [87]
7th revert: [88]
8th revert: [89]
9th revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92] Complete discussion is here.

Comments:

193.233.212.18 doesn't seem very familiar with WP, he says edit warring is OK as long as the issue is important. There's been consensus on the Talk page, with 4 editors opposed to his addition and trying to talk to him; complete discussion at Talk:Pendulum#Which formula for the true period should be used?. He doesn't engage in detailed debate of the issue, just says his version is the best so it must stay. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

193.233.212.18 has violated the WP:3RR with [93]

and has been warned accordingly. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - repeatedly on his talk page and the pendulum talk page. As explained to him many times, his formula gives the incorrect interpretation that the pendulum time period can be calculated using a closed formula when it can't, and is far less easy to physically interpret than a power series (the point of expanding in the first place). Everyone has been very reasonable with the IP. The formula is already included in WP in the appropriate place (pendulum (mathematics)), and is adding it unnecessarily to a section where readers will gain very little (if any) understanding. Maschen (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected The report is now somewhat stale so I've semi-protected the page. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's a big help. Maschen (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for your help. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snowded reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: Protected, both editors warned)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
There is currently a dispute resolution about whether or not to include the image. Snowded has asserted that the dispute resolution for removing the image has been solved in the previous one (diff) when it hasn't been.

I asked him to self-revert to which he refused (diff). As well he has accused me of "trapping" Widescreen who was blocked twice for the same thing (diff).

As far as I can tell this is a clear breach of WP:BRD since he is reverting when the issue is being discussed in DRN. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. Both editors warned and I will block for repetition. --John (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check a bit further John. CartoonDiablo has attempted to insert this table/image on three articles and its been to dispute resolution several times. The clear consensus there was that it was not an appropriate edition in that it gave a false impression and/or was original research. I've summarised that on his talk page. In effect he is insisting on inserting the material against that consensus. The DRN discussion was over, he has added a comment recently and got the same result. Now none of this is obvious as the discussion has been around the Family Therapy and CBT articles. The Psychoanalysis article is the third but there is no trace to the other discussions. So what we have here is a case of an editor refusing to accept the communities decision and insisting on inserting a table/image of his own creation; and edit warring on the grounds that he is still discussing the issue at DRP.

Now I was an uninvolved editor until a few days ago, I saw a dispute on ANI and as this as area in which I have expertise I looked into it. It took me some hours to track through the history to the DRP discussions and I don't expect an admin patrolling this page to have to do that. But you might want to check this link which shows that discussion. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the DR link. Everybody who edit wars thinks they are right; it isn't an excuse. I am happy to look at the content issue in more detail, but the is always a better solution than edit-warring. --John (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do and there are alternatives. The matter goes to an RfC for something like DR and its resolved. That had happened. If you check the history you will see my first reaction was to put a PoV tag on the paragraph, while I checked into the facts. Then I found the DR material so I removed it per that community consensus. Over several days (check his talk page and my edit summaries) I tried to explain he had no consensus for insertion of the material. I even warning him that I would raise his behaviour here or at ANI which is what triggered the report. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strike2216 reported by User:Zepppep (Result: 48h)

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

1st revert: [94]
2nd revert: [95]
3rd revert: [96]
4th revert: [97]
5th revert: [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments: The editor has been warned multiple times about their refusal to adhere to the edit notice. As recently as last month, they were also encouraged and warned about their edit warring behavior. In fact, an editor went as far to report them to this page. Unfortunately, the submitted last month was rejected as the admin thought a block to the editor (who does not visit WP daily) might not do much good. Unfortunately, however, the editor continues to a) not engage in conversation or ask questions pertaining to the edit notice (as instructed by the edit notice in big, red letters), 3RR policy, edit warring, etc., b) not adhere to warnings put on their talk page, and c) their behavior continues to be an issue because this is the type of editor who will only perhaps learn if more serious measures are taken. (Update: the user has attempted to remove mention of their behavior to this page with this edit, which was later reverted.)

Zepppep (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strike2216 blocked for 48 hours for continued disruptive editing and refusal to discuss, etc.. – Connormah (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: )

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

1st revert: [101]
2nd revert: [102]
3rd revert: [103]
4th revert: [104]
5th revert: [105]
6th revert: [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108] [109] [110]

Talk:Denis Avey/Archives/2011/November#Sunday Times article

Talk:Denis Avey#Ownership

Comments: Wikiwatcher1 has been deleting all material from the lead that mentions the problems with the authenticity of this biography page. He also is reverting all material that refers in any detail to the controversial aspects of the 'swap' story of the WW2 veteran and ex-POW, Denis Avey. His reasons for removing material do not appear to me to be valid, viz, he regards the New Statesman, The Daily Mail and The Sunday Times as not suitable sources as they somehow to his mind are original research. E.g. he argues that material detailing the controversy using citations from a source already cited is original research yet he refuses to explain this partiality for removing only some material in the article which uses the same source (The Daily Mail). Etc., (see diffs to the talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs)

User:Dsomeone reported by User:Eldamorie (Result: 24 hours for Dsomeone, Bkonrad warned)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

1st revert: [112]
2nd revert: [113]
3rd revert: [114]
4th revert: [115]
5th revert: [116]
6th revert: [117]
7th revert: [118]
8th revert: [119]
9th revert: [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

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

Comments:This user is insisting on adding repeated extended quotations from a self-published book, claiming that the fairly well-cited article is not the Truth and is refusing to engage in productive discussion - see Here. eldamorie (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I have also warned Bkonrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was involved in this edit war not to continue edit warring in this matter. De728631 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sean.hoyland reported by User:24.177.121.137 (Result: Both editors blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [122]

1st revert: [123]
2nd revert: [124]
3rd revert: [125]
4th revert: [126]
5th revert: [127] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned in edit summary, see article history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128]

Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR rule, but that apparently doesn't apply to reverting edits from IPs. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been edit-warring over an image caption, violating the 1RR several times. nableezy - 18:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me. If you can find diffs supporting that contention, they go in a different section. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so people can edit-war and if they are quick enough to report somebody first they get off? When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. As far as diffs, your reverts on that article, just from today, are: [129], [130], [131], [132]. Whereas Sean's reverts are exempt from the 1RR, your are not. nableezy - 18:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed out that 1RR doesn't apply when reverting edits from IPs. But Sean is not exempt from 3RR, and the rest of your comment isn't on-topic. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also, of note, Sean's first "revert" was reverting the CommonsDelinkerBot as the image in question had been restored on commons. As much as our relentless IP friend would like to find fault in others' reverts (but not his own of course), I dont think the first one counts as a revert. nableezy - 19:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused on what a revert is. Please stop trying to engage me in an argument that's not appropriate for this page/section. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giggle. If you want me to post what your reverts reverted I would be happy. But again, as written at the top of this page, When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. Your actions here are in fact on-topic. nableezy - 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll do it: Your first diff isn't a revert. Your second diff isn't a revert. Your third diff isn't a revert. Only the fourth is. Here's a hint for you: not every edit you dislike is a revert. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff is you blanking a section, which is always a revert. That revert, an obvious one, undid another editor's action. The third and fourth diff show you removing text added to the caption by another user, which are, once again, reverts. The second diff is you moving the picture to another section, as you did earlier here, which is again a revert. You reverted another editor reverting your disruptive edit, claiming that a well known instance of settlers using such charming phrases as gas the Arabs as being an example of staged vandalism. Try this with somebody who doesnt know what they are talking about, youll have much better results. nableezy - 19:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<- It's an SPA advocating for their cause and disrupting Wikipedia in the process. The guy is on a dynamic IP (Special:Contributions/24.177.125.104, Special:Contributions/24.177.122.56, Special:Contributions/24.177.121.137). The discretionary sanctions are meant to keep people like this away from the topic area so that editors don't need to deal with this kind of disruptive nonsense. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an SPA. The discretionary sanctions don't allow you to revert 5 times (and counting) within 24-hours. Please cut out the ad-hominem attacks. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discretionary sanctions are there to prevent disruption. I am not aware that they are designed to keep IP hoppers out. You're both edit warring, you should both be blocked. IP, don't claim that 1R doesn't apply to you--that's the lowest way out, and of course this is about you also. I don't know if there's anyone right in this unseemly war or not, but I do know that this should have been avoided by Sean, who, it seems to me, was successfully baited and let it happen. I'm awaiting input from another admin (nice to get consensus on something like this), but block both and keep an eye on the POV warrior without an account is my suggestion. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I kept one foot inside the line. Sean's at, like, seven reverts or something. He's repeatedly removed tags challenging the reliability of sources and the accuracy of citations without discussion. The only thing I can get out of him and that other dude on the talk page are personal attacks. In reverting, he's re-broken the citation markup in his own sources (which I fixed!) repeatedly. It's nonsense to say we're equally culpable.

You want to block me for baiting him, go ahead. But someone's got to reign in the demonstrable article ownership going on over there.24.177.121.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I agreed with Drmies even before he commented.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:31.47.12.40 reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Blocked)

I requested the semi-protection of the Farouk al-Sharaa article and I was advised to report the IP's edit warring by User:Drmies if any removal of the information occures for the second time, and it did. At first, user (the IP) removed the info which was unreferenced (the references only showed that he originates from the Sunni Muslim family, not himself bening a Sunni Muslim), but later I added the source and the IP's reverts continue anyway. It is the same IP that reverts this infromation for days. Drmies warned him not to make any edit-warring a day ago, but he continued to do so anyway. --Wüstenfuchs 20:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Note. There are two IP addresses involved in the slow edit war, the reported one and User:31.47.12.228.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one is blocked. I'll have a look at the other one. BTW, I've rolled back a couple more of their unexplained edits. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's more. That IP hasn't edited in a couple of days, but there isn't so much hopping that we can't make an effort to keep track of these two, which I will. I left the other one a 4im warning (after reverting a troublesome edit, in the Balkans of all places), just in case they do return to it. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appriciate the effort. --Wüstenfuchs 21:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Senor Cuete reported by User:Giggette (Result: nothing)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_the_Night

1st revert: [133]
2nd revert: [134]
3rd revert: [135]
4th revert: [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

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

Comments:

User in question remove content that was properly sourced or formatted with books and refuses to discuss without removing referenced information. --Giggette (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. The editor did not revert three times (you linked yourself as well in the diffs above). You should work this out on the talk page. The more courteous you both are the more chance you'll have of success. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fabyan17 reported by User:Quigley (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

1st revert: [139]
2nd revert: [140]
3rd revert: [141]
4th revert: [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:

Fabyan17 was here before on a straightforward violation of 3RR on the same article. The request was declined because there was a parallel thread on ANI, which became inactive and archived before any resolution. His nationalist edit-warring continues all over Wikipedia (ex. [145][146][147]), wasting the time and patience of the many editors who have tried to teach him the virtues of discussing controversial edits.

Fabyan17 replies:

It's not about edit warring, I am only deleting a direct harassment to me by Benlisquare, instead of writing a relevant 'SECTION NAME', he instead used my user name as the topic/section name w/c is already a personal attack to the user/editor. Let us pls. stop tolerating harassment/irrelevant naming of the sections in the South China Sea talk page. We know very clear that based on wikipedia guidelines, the Article's Talk Page (SECTION names) is reserved for ISSUES RELATED to the article, and NOT names of editors/users. The section name made by Benlisquare (entitled @fabyan17) is already a personal attack to the user and not the issue being debated. The proper venue should be in the user's talk page. There should be no double-standards here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are not allowed to edit this user's talk page comments was pointed out to you one (1) two (2) three (3) four (4) times in edit summaries, which the software displays before and after you undo the edits. In case you missed that, it was mentioned to you for a fifth (5) time on the article talk page. Or, if you weren't looking at that, you got the message hand-delivered to your own talk page for the sixth (6) time. Somehow missed that? You got told a seventh (7) time on someone else's talk page that what you did was not permissible. We're at an administrator's noticeboard where I just reported you for wrongdoing (8), and you're still defending your actions. This is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Shrigley (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to mainly be an edit war between Fabyan17 and Benlisquare about what the body of water is called in the Phillipines. It seems to me there are more productive routes (e.g. WP:DRN) for solving this problem than making long winded personal attacks against another editor on the article talk page. This discussion should be directed elsewhere. —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 22:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More like an edit war between Fabyan17 and half a dozen editors on multiple articles. The content issue shouldn't matter on this board, but it's worthwhile to note that the body of water is international, borders seven countries, and has had only one English name before last year.

Benlisquare's message was not a "long winded personal attack". The tone was addressed towards the origin of the disruptive recent edits, but this personalization could be changed with a simple copyedit. The bulk of the message focused on content, specifically Fabyan17's abuse of disambiguation pages, flouting of the Manual of Style, suppression of non-Filipino nationalist viewpoints, and refusal to discuss his edits.

The point is, the users who disagree with Fabyan are willing to use the talk page, but Fabyan not only won't use the talk page but he repeatedly removes all attempts at dialogue not only from his own talk page but also from the article's talk page. If he won't use talk pages, DRN is not going to help. Shrigley (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. This is unseemly to say the least. Fabyan's removal of the material from the talk page was appropriate. The material was an attack and inappropriate for an article talk page. Benlisquare copied warnings from Fabyan's talk page and pasted them into the article talk page. Nothing short of outrageous, in my view, regardless of what anyone thinks of Fabyan's conduct otherwise. I have removed the section from the talk page, and I wouldn't like to see anyone restoring it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, the meat of the message related to content issues, but when dealing with an unrepentant edit-warrior, the message also necessarily covers conduct issues, like Fabyan17's refusal to use the talk page. A plea to use the talk page is not a personal attack. Many Wikipedia pages encourage and assume that important discussions take place on the relatively open article talk space, rather than on personal user space, including ANEW. For an ANEW judgment to discourage article talk dialogue... well, that's beyond the pale.

The true outrage here is that the same administrator who found a frivolous reason to excuse Fabyan17's flat-out 3RR violation four days ago, is doing the same exact thing of ignoring his 3RR violation again by saying, "But the other guy was bad too!" So here's my bold prediction: we'll be back on this board again in a few days, because Fabyan17's past two experiences here tell him that he can get away with blatant, distributed edit-warring as long as he has some scapegoat editor from which to claim "Harassment!" Shrigley (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Camoka5 reported by User:Amadscientist (Result: )

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

1st revert: [148]
2nd revert: [149]
3rd revert: [150]
4th revert: [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]

Comments:

The editor seems reluctant to accept consensus to not include his personal drawing for inclusion on the article. He appears to misunderstand consensus and has accused this editor of vandalism by removing the map that goes against the current discussion. He appears to be attempting to claim a majority that does not exist and is not consensus and refuses stop edit warring. Attempts to respectfuly ask them to review policy has been ignored and edit warring to push his visual opinion has not ceased.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is "camoka" a common word in some other language or something? Because this account was created one day after Camoka4 (talk · contribs) had their block extended due to "attempted block evasion". - Sudo Ghost 05:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Camoka5 began editing 34 minutes after Camoka4 last edited their unblock request, which was denied. I've added it to an already open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camoka4. Camoka4 also has a thing for edit-warring over maps. - Sudo Ghost 05:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, at least Technoquat is clever! *facepalm* —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 05:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unnamed101 reported by User:Torchiest (Result: )

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

link
link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Large conversation before edit warring

Comments:
This draconian attempt at blocking legitimate edits is laughable, the edit was made to specifically reference what "reviews" the author was talking about to leave this out is tantamount to context fraud, the sources cited are reliable as they are first hand account of the authors opinion, even if they as themselves would not server as critical reception they deserve mention and sourcing.

Furthermore the talk itself shows a consensus of users requesting this information be added, and the same few who keep reverting it defending their position against including it, including the user torchiest who started this request.Unnamed101 (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards