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:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Jordgette (Result: 1 week)

Page: 7 World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since October 19, The Devil's Advocate, who has a history of being blocked for edit warring [1], has attempted numerous substantial edits to 7 World Trade Center, a Featured Article that had been stable for many months. In many of his edits, he has removed sourced material in a manner consistent with POV-pushing or whitewashing the article toward 9/11 conspiracy theories, and against talk-page consensus. Examples:

[2] Removal of sourced information about physical evidence used by firefighters to predict that the building would collapse due to fire
[3] Weakening of language to support the idea that NIST could not "rule out" the use of thermite to demolish 7WTC
[4] Removal of engineering and fire-safety organizations that collaborated with NIST, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (the mentions are injurious to CT claims that the investigation was secret, insular, and inadequate)
[5] and [6] Repeated removals of image of Fiterman Hall, a building across the street that was damaged by 7WTC's collapse (the image is injurious to the CT claim that 7WTC collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint)

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8][9] ... among numerous others. Most discussion on the talk page from the last two weeks has been various editors trying to explain process and consensus to the user, with his repeated resistance and disruption, for example: [10]

Comments: The user disingenuously hides behind a pretense of impartiality, for example when it was pointed out that his deletions would be applauded by conspiracy theorists [11].

Thank you for your attention.

-Jordgette [talk] 01:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank Jordgette for notifying me of the listing before doing so, a courtesy I was not afforded in the previous case mentioned, only finding out about the notice after I was blocked. I would also implore any admin looking at this notice to review my response to the blocking admin on my user talk page and pay attention to the edits (namely that several editors were engaging in tag team reverts thus skirting 3RR). I freely admit I was edit-warring in that case and was wrong to do so, however in this case I am not engaging in any sort of edit war.

While I have made a few reversions, this so-called "edit war" has really just been me pursuing the normal path of WP:BRD. Jordgette is putting forward the false notion that I was simply deleting important information on the collapse. However, my edits arose from a suggestion on splitting the article and all the information I removed from this article was moved to Collapse of the World Trade Center, specifically the sections concerning building 7. I also specifically changed the wikilink in the building 7 article's section on the collapse to go directly to one of those sections in the collapse article.

As for Fiterman Hall two of the edits were part of those efforts to shorten the section. Both of them were before Jordgette expressed any specific issue with removing the information concerning Fiterman Hall. An effort I made to shorten the section after Jordgette's objection left the Fiterman Hall information untouched. Though I did later remove the image again, I still left mentions of Fiterman Hall, including the wikilink to an article that has the exact same image. However I did err in the sense that I did not recall Jordgette specifically objecting to removal of the image, as opposed to removal of the information. Similar to the changes I previously made to the article after discussion I believed that retaining the mention of Fiterman Hall satisfied those previous objections.

Further I would like to note that, although three efforts I made to shorten the section were reverted, I made two later changes that also shortened the article taking consideration of the objections made to previous edits. Jordgette and Tom harrison, another editor who objected to the previous trims, both appear to have agreed with those changes. So my efforts led to exactly what the process is supposed to achieve, a consensus position.

Now, I should mention what Jordgette has excluded, which is a disagreement over the content of a sentence. That change took a sentence that was exactly copied from the source and put it in quotations. Jordgette reverted this change and I reverted that noting it was an exact quote. This was one of two instances over the duration of this period that I simply reverted another editor's changes and, in this case, Jordgette apparently agreed with my reasoning for the revert and rewrites the sentence in response. After that I added the words "According to NIST" and this was reverted by Tom harrison so I insert a similar remark with different wording to see if that would make it more acceptable. When this change was also reverted I started a section in the talk page to express my reasons for wanting the change, specifically focusing on the undue weight it gave to one comment in the source, without considering the greater uncertainty expressed in another part of the source. I also raised a point about the addition improving the flow of the paragraph. That latter argument was completely overlooked by all the other editors and their main response was to discuss issues other than the ones I raised. It should be noted that with Tom and Jordgette's reversions considered (with every single change they undid the insertion of "According to NIST" or similar wording) together they made four reverts over a 24-hour period, circumventing WP:3RR in a perfect example of relay reverting.

The last edit I made appears to be the reason for Jordgette bringing this action and it does involve the same sentence. I made a more substantial change to the sentence that I think had more authoritative wording than my previous changes, thus seeking to accommodate the concerns of Jordgette and other editors, while still avoiding the strict absolutism of the wording they were insisting on. Additionally, the sentence was moved to the intro, which I thought was a much more suitable place for it. I also shortened two paragraphs, including the Fiterman Hall one I mentioned already, with another discussing SEC files and moved this information further up in the section so that they would immediately follow the other paragraphs on the collapse, rather than interrupting talk of the NIST investigation. Jordgette reverted the entirety of the edit and mentioned the admin noticeboard in, what I thought, was a warning not to repeat some change Jordgette found objectionable. In response I once more started a section asking for clarification on what Jordgette specifically objected to about my edit. Two hours after I asked this good faith question is when Jordgette left the comment on my user talk page notifying me of this posting on the noticeboard and Jordgette seemingly indicates having seen my call for discussion only to toss it aside saying: "I'm really not interested in hearing you defend your actions again, so please spare us both the time and energy."

Earlier I mentioned that I had performed two reversions. Aside from the one mentioned above where my reasoning was apparently accepted as legitimate there was another revert that I made two weeks prior. So far the results of that reversion have gone almost completely unchallenged by any editor, with only one part being challenged in the past day. On the other hand, Jordgette and Tom harrison have performed several times more reverts over the same time period, in two cases undoing uncontroversial changes as well as the ones they disliked that I had to restore, with five of their reverts being in the past two days. In light of these facts I hope any admin evaluating this action by Jordgette will dismiss the accusations. I apologize for the length.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm inclined to declined this. It is too complicated for an edit warring case and should probably go through WP:ANI or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (whichever is more appropriate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - If User:The Devil's Advocate keeps trying to slant the article toward controlled demolition, it will have to be taken to Requests for Enforcement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Here are the diffs where I merged the information from the building 7 article to the collapse article: [12] [13]. If you look at the current version of that article you will see I have not made any significant changes to the material after moving it. To claim my efforts at summarizing the information on the collapse in the building 7 article are POV-pushing is just absurd. My edits in that respect were consistent with merging information from one article to another.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Enforcement is perhaps a more appropriate forum for this complaint, and that will be the next stop if the action continues. This includes any further attempts to remove sourced information in a manner consistent with whitewashing the 7 World Trade Center article, regardless of whether the information then appears elsewhere (such as in the middle of the much longer, poorly organized article primarily on the collapse of the Twin Towers). -Jordgette [talk] 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Four reverts by The Devil's Advocate since November 5 and a history of similar reverting in October. I think this should be closed with an edit-warring block and a warning about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911. The reverts can be observed just by looking at the edit history. A verdict on the necessity of admin action can be reached without doing an analysis of the content. It is enough to observe that the editor is consistently pushing one point of view over a period of time and that there is no supporting consensus for his changes on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While I admit it is long, I implore you to read my explanation thoroughly if you have not. What you are talking about in October can hardly be called edit-warring on my part as each edit involved numerous uncontroversial edits, good faith changes that could not even remotely be construed as POV (removing the material SEC files being destroyed would seem to favor those opposing conspiracy theories don't you think), and each new change removed less and less material in response to discussion on the talk page. It was WP:BRD in action and ultimately resulted in a consensus that still stands.

As for me supposedly making "four reverts" I think you are being excessive in describing them all as reverts. In one case, as I noted, the reasoning for the revert was acknowledged as legitimate and the editor made an effort to accommodate that. I reinserted part of the wording because that change did not satisfy all my concerns. Another editor reverted this, and I inserted new wording to see if that would be more acceptable. When it was clear that would not satisfy the concerns of those editors I initiated a discussion in the talk page. All of this would be consistent with WP:BRD again. The next edit, which I presume you are calling a fourth revert, was anything but a revert. It was a substantial rewrite covering several issues that did not restore any previous edit in fact or in spirit. To suggest I was simply restoring some old POV version each time is disingenuous. On the other hand, those two editors pushing hard for a block did exactly that acting as if WP:V overrides WP:NPOV.

For you to even seriously consider a push for a block from someone who makes the push while accusing me of elaborate deceit, demonstrating a woeful inability to assume good faith is incredible. On the other hand, Jordgette clearly expresses a bizarre idea that all information I removed, again in order to shorten the section per WP:SUMMARY, after moving the information to another article was essential for the article so as to counter the claims of conspiracy theorists and that my good faith efforts to shorten the article were solely motivated by POV. It is as absurd in its hypocrisy as it is in its presumptuousness.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I do not want to seem too pushy in making repeated comments, though I think, since Jordgette is accusing me of pushing a specific point of view that it would be apt for me to explain my opinions on this issue. Generally I do not consider the idea of collapse as a result of fires to be a serious point of contention. While I have not closed my mind to the prospect of a controlled demolition explanation it is not, for me, a matter that I seriously consider or one that I find particularly important to focus on. For me the scientific investigations in this regard present compelling reasons for accepting the official version of events, thought NIST's apparent uncertainty about thermite does not allow me to objectively consider the matter to have been reasonably settled. At the same time I do not consider controlled demolition by any means to be necessary in any way to explain the collapse of building 7 or the twin towers.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week for edit warring. It is common to hold off admin sanctions when we feel that an editor is basically well-intentioned but just went over the line inadvertently. My own review of the article talk page suggests that was not the case. The editor was previously blocked for edit warring on another article unrelated to 9/11 but where the word 'conspiracy' occurs in the discussion. The previous issue is detailed in Talk:North American Union/Archive 7. The editor is articulate and can follow a thread of argument but seems oblivious to the fact that his suggestions for article improvement are motivated by his own POV. In this case he wants to take out of a featured article the elements which would make it most useful to the reader, since it tends to reduce the plausibility of the conspiracy theory. I'm also notifying him of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911. What a surprise that someone interested in improving this article would mention 'thermite' and want to modify what it says in that area. You probably won't get the full flavor of his reasoning unless you read Talk:7 World Trade Center#Trimmed 9-11 section and the sections below it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DMSBel reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:18, 9 November 2011

• 1st revert: 05:07, 9 November 2011
• 2nd revert: 05:25, 9 November 2011
• 3rd revert: n/a, as abortion-related articles are under 1RR
• 4th revert: n/a

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a in this instance, user is well aware of the restrictions as he has been warned and subsequently blocked in the past for the same behavior on the same article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Abortion#Maternal_mortality, dispute ongoing, no consensus for DMSBel's edit

Comments:
User has a long history of tendentious problematic editing both on articles and on talkpages with regard both to this subject and to others.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he was attempting to fix a typo and intervening edits tripped him up, akin to an edit conflict. Lots of discussion on talk shows he's attempting to edit in good faith. I think we should just warn him to use {{inuse}} next time. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on talk shows that no one agrees with him, but he keeps reinserting the same material anyway. It's not about a typo. If it were, other editors would have fixed the typo for him. MastCell ^Talk 06:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Both of DMSBel's reverts look like partial reverts but a partial revert counts as 1 revert per this statement "The 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The phrase "a study by David A. Grimes of maternal mortality from 1990 - 1999 estimated" was re-inserted by DMSBel twice via edit-warring. I'm sure now that a block is on the cards. Minima© (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like DMSBel does not like the result of the Grimes study which found abortion to be 12.5 times safer than childbirth, by some mortality measure. (I have no opinion on whether it belongs in the article or how it should be described, but whether it leaves or goes should depend on consensus). He is trying to change the article to minimize the significance of the Grimes study, ever since he reverted out that reference entirely on 7 November. His edit summary complained that it's more than 10 years old, even though it was published in 2006. He opened a discussion thread at Talk:Abortion#Maternal mortality to argue for the change, but he has found no support there. Three other editors joined that thread to defend the validity of the Grimes results. His persistence in making Grimes-related reverts on 9 November suggests he is planning to ignore the lack of any consensus in his favor. EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have left the page substantially as it was. I re-edited part of the safety section to correct an error with dates in it (it stated 1999 when it should have stated 1990-1999 this was an oversight on another editors part), and to specify author of a report which was already mentioned, that with a couple of other minor changes. I have not made any further edits on other matters under discussion on the talk page. I was cut and pasting some material from Wordpad, and cut more than I intended hence mention of another report I imediately took out, pending discussion. The three or four editors there with the same POV might like to wait for others to enter the discussion who could offer a fresh perspective from time to time, and also to allow editors time who are in the process of tidying up edits. I was not aware of the {inuse} template, or how it functions. But thankyou for explaining that. DMSBel (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I took out the Grimes study when I was told by MastCell that research from the last 5 years normally prefered.DMSBel (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so a) I never said anything like that, and b) even if I had, the study is from the last 5 years (it was published in 2006). I'm starting to feel like we're outside the realm of objective reality here. MastCell ^Talk 07:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have argued not for its removal since then but for contextualisation of it with suggestion a more recent study that would serve that purpose. DMSBel (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week T. Canens (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Block logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log. NW (Talk) 15:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Wayiran (Result: block 60hr)

Page: Abdullah ibn Saba' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiqi55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]
• 5th revert: [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] [21] and many other times

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments: The user has already violated the 3rr three times before on the same article ([23] [24] [25]) and each time was reported here. This time he has reverted 5 times in last 24 hours, without paying any attention to discussions. --Wayiran (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is related to tags, not content. My understanding is that users can't tag an article and never bother to start a discussion or explain why. Here is what the template documentation say: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." Just a cursory look at the contributions of Wayiran (talk · contribs), kurdo777 (talk · contribs), Penom (talk · contribs) will show that these editors have been doing nothing but adding tags using vague edit summaries then come here complaining when their tag is removed. I've asked these editors to be more specific about their concerns many times, even started a discussion on their behalf [26], but none of theme actually substantiated any of their claims. Tags cannot stay forever and without reason. I would say this is just an example of trying to game the system and get me blocked without ever explaining why these tags are needed. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 11:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Night of the Big Wind reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h)

Page: Bank Transfer Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 07:07 (more or less; the last added paragraph is re-added essentially intact in all revisions)

• 1st revert: 08:33 (edit summary = undid censorship)
• 2nd revert: 08:40 (edit summary = bowed for censorship)
• 3rd revert: 09:15 (edit summary = hope this one comes through the censorship)
• 4th revert: 11:24 (edit summary = undid vandalistic edit. Text is correct in the Australian, American, British and Irish variations of English.) Added by NotBW

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:50

I'm afraid I haven't. But, then, again, he hasn't attempted to justify the addition's relevance to the article, although he did rail against "censorship" at 09:00. I see he responded to my comment about relevance at 14:18. I'll check to see what the response was. <returning> not on point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

There was no attempt to communicate between Mr. Rubin and me. I got a 3RR warning already after two reverts and then complained at the talkpage about the censorship on the article (see: Talk:Bank Transfer Day#Censorship. Please notice that the complaint comes only minutes after a highly critical reply on his actions! Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]

Nope, no fourth revert yet, or the anonymous must be identical what I don't believe. This is clearly a case of a black kettle. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be balanced, but the addition requires sensible context, which doesn't seem to be present in the article. I've edited the sentence he wanted to balance down to what was actually said, and note that it requires context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And that is why you support a vandal? See: User talk:70.170.112.174. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 48 hours for edit warring. Editor seems to think he has no duty to negotiate with anyone to get agreement on the wording. His edit summaries complain about censorship. Previous edit warring block was in July. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

68.115.188.230: reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 48h)

Isle of Wight Academy: Isle of Wight Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
68.115.188.230: 68.115.188.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: from the end of october

Since then User:Onorem and I have both tried to engage the IP in conversation through edit summaries, but xe won't talk.

Comments:
The article history shows a long-running slow revert war on the part of this IP address, although this seems to be the first time xe's crossed the 3RR line. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Swarm ^X11|11|11 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:OCIDLE reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 48 hrs)

Page: Bosnian pyramids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 19:53, 9 November 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 20:08, 9 November 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 21:21, 9 November 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 22:05, 9 November 2011 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

I've also raised the issues of copyvio of some images at Commons. —Dougweller (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was writing a report at the same time as Dougweller. This is simple sock/meatpuppetry. Note that each numbered diff listed above is a revert plus the addition of new material, just continuing the edit-warring of 198.188.96.4 (talk · contribs) after this ip was blocked. When the protection from the article was been removed, the edit-warring immediately continueed, first by 198.188.96.4, then by OCIDLE. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with above reports, straightforward POV/edit-warring, although the edits by the IP are different in character than OCIDLE's efforts. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

5: 22:33, 9 November 2011‎ --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs - disruptive editing. Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ramcrk reported by User:Vamsisv (result:reporter blocked)

Page: Telangana Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User is pushing POVs into the article even after 4 levels of explanation given in the discussion page. [36]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reporter blocked for 24 hours for violation of 3 revert rule, which reportee did not break. Please take a hard look at WP:DV (my pet essay) and WP:BOOMERANG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Kristoferb reported by User:129.234.252.67 (Result: declined )

Page: Nokia 3510 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kristoferb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

I'm perfectly willing to accept that his photo deserves to be on the page, if he can prove that it is actually a photo of that phone. He's not said a word in reply on the talk page, or provided any evidence. --129.234.252.67 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Three reverts over 16 months, and none within the past 45 days, nor any since receiving a warning and an attempt was made on the talk page. Slow moving edit wars are bad, but a full discussion is essential. Please consider further use of dispute resolution (and if necessary, you can let the user know about the talk page with the {{talkback}} template). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll try that if he changes it again. (The last change was since the warning and note on talk page, btw; otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up here) --129.234.252.67 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:208.110.220.133 reported by User:Taylornate (Result: 2 months)

Page: Talk:Suicide methods (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.110.220.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

Made another revert after warnings and after acknowledging that he is already in violation of 3RR. Does not seem to be cooperating with discussion.--Taylornate (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked two months as an open proxy, per the result of [50]. This IP address was previously blocked in February for hosting an open proxy service. The current behavior is nonsensical and represents an abuse of the talk page per WP:FORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:204.248.119.140 reported by User:Taylornate (Result: 1 week)

Page: Talk:Suicide methods (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.248.119.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

Same nonsense as my previous report. This IP has not made any comment at all in the discussion.

Blocked - 1 week. Evidently this is the same person who was reported above for warring at Talk:Suicide methods. Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer reported by Mtking (Result: declined)

Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 00:49, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "I think it goes without saying that food, shelter, etc., are concerns and not worth mention in the lede")
2. 01:06, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "is this better?")
3. 01:10, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "this does not seem to be needed in the lede...to me...")
4. 01:14, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "removed sentence that pretty much just repeats what's in the first paragraph")
5. 04:19, 11 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Unions */ removed broken ref and combine some repeated information for brevity")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Did post to Gandydancer's talk page he replied that he did not see how he had broken the WP:3RR and then went on to make the last revert on the list. Mtking ^(edits) 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mtking, you are not editing the article currently and I do not see your name on the talk page. Do you disagree with anything that Gandydancer has done? These edits seem to be minor rewording in most cases. Has he undone anything more than once? The edit summaries sound diplomatic. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have edited it the past, and the page has been subject to edit-warring in the past, I asked the user to consider stopping his edits, he carried on. Is my reading of WP:3RR wrong in that he has not broken the rule ? Mtking ^(edits) 05:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to see an actual dispute here. 3RR is used to measure the extent of a dispute, when there is one. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A little background. Yesterday editor Amadscientist made sweeping changes to the lede without prior discussion. In my opinion his bold edits were justified because the OWS discussion page is so bogged down in petty, poorly referenced demands to "un-bias" the article, and related long discussions that never go anywhere. I believe that I have a good working relationship with Amadscientist and the other major editors to the page and that they welcome disagreement and are reasonable in their efforts to work out differences. My lede edits were related to information I considered to be repeated twice and removing the examples of "crime" and adding copy to balance the issue. My Union edits merely combined a couple of sentences for brevity and deleting some info that seemed not so important since I wanted to add recent info without letting that section get too long. As always, I welcome different points of view and at times other editors have helped me to see that their ideas are more appropriate than mine. But if the rule restricts me to less than three edits a day that include deleting any copy written by another editor, that will certainly make editing more difficult. BTW, just for the record, I am not a "he", I'm a "she". Gandydancer (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Technical reverts only, if that, while editor was following the spirit of WP:BRD. The point of our rules is to avoid edit warring, not punish someone for making cosmetic changes. See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, 3rd definition. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:61.14.143.119 reported by User:27.33.183.136 (Result: warned)

Page: Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 61.14.143.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]

Comments:
Pretty sure I'm in for a block as well, but this guy is obviously not going to stop reverting without reading the reliable source added that contradicts his information. 27.33.183.136 (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea; somebody lock the page, and then you two can fight over this on the talkpage. That'd be a novel concept... since neither one of you has done that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
None. I am purposely limiting my interactions with Wtshymanski because of his long history of sarcasm and lack of civility towards anyone who disagrees with him. See Administrators noticeboard: Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively.

Comments:

Wtshymanski's previous block for edit warring: [67]

There has also been what appears to be edit warring in opposition to Wtshymanski by some IP addresses, but I am not sure whether I am seeing one editor using multiple IPs or multiple editors. Should I warn the IPs as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Page semi-protected. It is very difficult to engage in conversation with someone who is hopping IPs and not using a talk page (all the IPs resolve to Columbus, Ohio). If edit warring persists after the person registers an account, please report again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Chuckfreyconsultant reported by User:Snowded (Result: Blocked indef)

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

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

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:

I received an email (copy available to any admin who wants to see it) threatening various attacks on the Cynefin article and myself by the editor referenced above. Sure enough next day we get that editors commentary on Cynefin which is a clear case of original research. The material has now been reverted by three different editors (I am one) as OR. The principles of WP:OR have been explained to the user but they have persisted in inserting the material. The user's talk page also contains some wild stuff about contacting Government Agencies who have used the model, and what can only be described as polemic covering my religious preferences amount other things.

I should say that I don't think this editor is a sock of Irvine22 who has been vandalizing the article recently. Whatever a skim of the users comments on their talk page is slightly disturbing. --Snowded ^TALK 11:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above we have this somewhat sad set of threats. --Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs). NW (Talk) 18:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:86.24.46.135 reported by User:David Eppstein (Result: )

Page: Square pyramidal number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.24.46.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=459984802&oldid=425636097

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460027538&oldid=459984971
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460032528&oldid=460032290
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460042709&oldid=460038616
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460050715&oldid=460045367
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460063638&oldid=460062446
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460135456&oldid=460117685
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_pyramidal_number&action=historysubmit&diff=460184539&oldid=460177042

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.24.46.135&oldid=460064660 (somewhere around revert#5, I think)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See WT:WPM#Square pyramidal number

Comments:

—David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)