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:Knispel reported by User:Binksternet (Result: already semiprotected)

Page: Erich von Manstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Knispel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 109.129.105.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Knispel logged out)
• 109.129.99.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Knispel logged out)
• 109.129.184.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Knispel logged out)
• 109.129.206.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Knispel logged out)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2] 17:51, November 15, 2011
• 2nd revert: [3] 18:10, November 15, 2011
• 3rd revert: [4] 12:54, November 16, 2011
• 4th revert: [5] 13:14, November 18, 2011
• 5th revert: [6] 18:31, November 18, 2011
• 6th revert: [7] 06:57, November 19, 2011
• 7th revert: [8] 07:14, November 19, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Erich_von_Manstein#Some_troubling_claims

Comments:

• I've warned the user. Let's see how the editor reacts. I'm not closing this report yet. Wifione ^Message 09:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Knispel said on the article talk page that he "will be relentless in deleting the stuff", referring to what I see as well-cited text added by User:A.S. Brown. It looks like Knispel made a statement of intent to edit war. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Page protected Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Worstcook reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31h)

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

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

• 1st revert: [10] -20:27, 18 November 2011
• 2nd revert: [11] - 20:42, 18 November 2011
• 3rd revert: [12] - 15:28, 19 November 2011
• 4th revert: [13] - 19 November 2011

• In addition, an apparent IP sockpuppet: [14] 06:23, 19 November 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Project Accessory#The Elimination Table, Talk:Project Accessory#Improvements to the Article.

Note: The discussion above is my attempt to build the narrative portion of the article, and is not related to the 3RR case at all; the discussion took place several days before the dispute above. I stepped away from the article for a few days to take a breather, and to give Worstcook and her friends the opportunity to (hopefully) write the narrative I recommended. Instead, I came back to find a series of inflammatory and selective reverts of content that is easily sourced to the episode, as is done with numerous elimination-style reality show articles all over Wikipedia. Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
The editor has a history of edit-warring, and rather than engage in substantive discussion on the article talk page, he gives minimal and defensive responses. Multiple editors have reverted him and have tried discussion. His latest volley of reverts have occurred with no discussion by him, despite requests in edit summaries for him to discuss his edits.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• While I have had my issues with Worstcook, who I believe treats Wikipedia as a fan page, and a pace to keep elimination tables, rather than being a serious editor, I have real issues with the selective nature of this 3RR claim. Yes, it's clear Worstcook violated 3RR on this article; with that I have no dispute. However, there are two problems that are being overlooked, I believe. Worstcook has consistently IP edited with one IP: 205.209.83.211, geolocated in Rockland, ME. Here, she is being accused of editing with another one, 155.47.192.82, which geolocates to Wheaton College in Massachusetts. While I suppose it's possible it's the same person, I have my doubts, and the evidence backs me up. Worstcook has been completely consistent about the use of an IP in the past, the original IP has been silent since the sockpuppet case against Worstcook, and most importantly, the new IP editor's edit history and Worstcook's are extensive, show concurrent editing and are far more different than alike, and that's apparently solely on cursory examination. Moreover, Worstcook demonstrates very poor command of basic English spelling and grammar, inconsistent with someone who would be attending a small selective religious college like Wheaton. I don't think there's any substantiation to believe Worstcook is socking using IP 155.47.192.82. Having been once been falsely accused of IP editing from Oklahoma while I was on the west coast by an admin who took no time to conduct even the most rudimentary investigation, I'm sensitive to the ease with which such accusations may be made and accepted.

• Even more troubling is the selective nature of this accusation. Again, I recognize Worstcook's offense, but it takes two to edit war, and Worstcook didn't start this one. User:Sparthorse made five reverts between 04:11 and 23:45 on November 18. His was the original revert, and he exchanged most of the reverts cited above with Worstcook, before Tenebrae stepped in. Yet, I see no 3RR complaint against him, and no good reason why he was not reported for 3RR when Worstcook was. There isn't even a 3RR warning on his talk page. It defies understanding why only Worstcook was cited, not both editors. I believe this case demands some careful scrutiny. Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Worstcook did technically violate WP:3RR and that's the main reason for this noticeboard to exist. I've semiprotected the article to shut down any possible socking, and invited Worstcook to respond here. Worstcook does seem to be editing like a single-minded fan, and it is understandable that this might set off the instincts of regular editors to feel as though abuse was occurring. You are correct that Sparthorse has made four reverts also, and his actions should be considered by the closer. I will notify Sparthorse that his edits are being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to EdJohnston for notifying me about the discussion. Yes, I did violate WP:3RR (making four reverts on the article), so I will accept any sanctions arising from this. 3RR is an important policy and I violated it. I will note that my intention was to remove unsourced material from the article, but accept without qualification that I should not have continued to revert the article to that state. Sparthorse (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No question that Worstcook violated 3RR, which I acknowledge twice above. But in all fairness, so did Sparthorse, who I applaud for recognizing as much and taking his/her lumps, should there be any. My big concern was that this report was one-sided with no apparent reason why, and as such, unfair, which I felt should be pointed out. I do believe Worstcook is a long-term problem editor who loves, loves, loves those elimination tables, but with rare exceptions, doesn't give a hoot about the rules, procedures or the best interests of the articles in which the tables appear, and demonstrates a complete lack of willingness to abide by policy, improve her editing or do anything but keep up those tables. But in this case, as goes Worstcook, so goes Sparthorse, and the end result should reflect that. Drmargi (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, admire Sparthorse's forthrightness, and perhaps I should have included both. However, it had seemed to me he was trying to revert a habitual edit-warrior who was not responding to requests for substantive discussion and for proper documentation, and stubbornly insisting on reinserting an uncited table.

Of course elimination tables are an important, perhaps even critically necessary, part of competition reality-show articles. The issue isn't tables per se — it's having tables that are supported by the primary-source plot descriptions. That is what Worstcook refused to provide, and all that Sparthouse was asking for. And reverts for blatant vandalism or, in the case, blatant policy violation can be exceptions to 3RR.

I respect Drmargi, a responsible and meticulous editor, and clearly one with great empathy and caring for other editors. I do understand why he she might feel this, but I don't believe it's unfair to look at the larger nature and the habitual behavior of problematic editors. Worstcook could have brought a 3RR case against Sparthorse herself; no one was preventing her from doing so. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Tenabrae, thank you for the clarification. Absent what you've just told me, this appeared to be quite arbitrary. With an explanation, your choice makes far more sense. However, while I agree that vandalism allows us to revert without being accountable for 3RR, I don't believe blatant policy violations do as well; Wikipedia has other remedies in those instances. Rather, while I do agree, and have said in very emphatic terms, that the article needs a fully developed narrative describing the show and the judging procedures, I don't think using the assertion that the content is unsourced is the way to get that accomplished, particularly given, as I said on the talk page, that there is too well established a precedent for sourcing with the episodes to not have it apply in this case. All that did was inflame the situation, and create an edit war that didn't need to have happened. Instead, we need to think in terms of all or nothing: either the article is brought up to standard, or it's recommended for deletion. Reverting it to a stub will accomplish nothing, just galvanize Worstcook and other IP editors who see the inconsistency from one article to another. (Oh, and for the sake of the permanent record, I'm a she-type, not a he-type.) Drmargi (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 31 hours to Worstcook for long-term edit warring. Worstcook's refusal to discuss is noted. Drmargi's large revert while the 3RR report was open is also noted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 1 week)

Page: Maafa 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: N/A -- Abortion 1RR
• 4th revert: N/A -- Abortion 1RR

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

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

Comments:

High edit account user very active in Abortion area. Knows the drill. Long block log. Clear edit warring in violation of Abortion 1RR. Their previous block was for 3 months, reduced to 1 month.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He is edit warring against two other editors (myself included).– Lionel ^(talk) 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the 1RR notice on the article's talk page, so of course I am aware of restrictions. The above diffs do not show a violation of 1RR as they are 24:01 apart rather than within 24 hours. I have been involved in improving the article with more scholarly opinions and I have been actively working toward consensus on the talk page. Right before making the second edit shown above, I submitted this detailed argument on the talk page. I am not revert warring, I am working toward improving the article and gaining consensus. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1 minute past the cutoff is gaming the system. A person whose last block was for 3 months in duration and who just came off a 6 month 1RR restriction should do more talking and less edit warring. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you were truly "working toward consensus" you would've waited for someone, anyone to respond to your "detailed argument" before imposing your will and POV on the article. This "detailed argument" is nothing more than a cover to hide behind to avoid a block for 1RR. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

One post on the talk page without any input from anyone else, and then proceeding to revert against 2 other editors is not consensus. It is the out of control behavior of a POV edit warrior.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

With all the past friction between you and me, Lionelt, you are perhaps not the most neutral observer here. You would celebrate me being blocked, I'm sure. The article Maafa 21 is a tiny blip of a thing, orphaned and terribly faulty. I'm helping improve it, as you can see. Maybe you can help, too. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing a big problem here. Not a 1RR violation, and talk page discussion of the disagreement is ongoing. If he wasn't discussing it, I'd say block him, but with discussion no. Calling 2 reverts in >24 hours "out of control behavior of a POV edit warrior" is just a wee bit hyperbolic. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Falcon don't be taken in. I'm sorry: 1 minute past 24 hrs is gaming the system and qualifies as 1RR. The so-called "discussion" is token at best. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I would be inclined to agree. However, combined with discussion and the hyperbole here, I don't think he should be blocked for it. "Token" discussion or not, discussion is occuring. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "not the most neutral observer"? How neutral were you when you reported Knispel in the above thread? How many neutral editors make reports here? 1 percent? Give me a break. This is about you reverting an editor, making a token post at talk, and immediately going back to the article and reverting a second editor. How can anyone possibly improve the article with your disruption? Stop edit warring. Stop disrupting. Than we'll see improvement. Your POV is not the right POV.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week This is this user's sixth block in a year and a half, and they clearly have a long history of edit warring (apparently with their most recent 1RR restriction expiring in July). They are familiar with the article's sanctions, and presumably what 1RR entails, having agreed to self-imposed 1RR restrictions multiple times in the past. What's arguably worst of all, though, is the blatant WP:GAMING to avoid 1RR by waiting one minute past the 24-hour time slot, which they've actually tried to defend (in addition to snidely acknowledging it here). WP:3RR clearly states that any appearance of gaming the system like that is likely to be treated as a violation. I'm taking into account that their last block was nearly a year ago (which I'll assume is a result of good behavior overall rather than successfully gaming the system), but future edit warring and/or gaming will probably result in longer blocks again. Swarm ^X 01:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:187.56.44.155 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: semi)

Page: Bon Jovi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.56.44.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [19]
• 2nd revert: [20]
• 3rd revert: [21]
• 4th revert: [22]
• 5th revert: [23]
• 6th revert: [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25], [26] and as this near identical IP less than 24 hr ago User talk:187.56.45.152

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

Comments:

IP has edit warred with at least 2 IPs in the l;ast 24 hrs to insert uncited information into several articles, with numerous warnings to stop thieir disruptive behavior.Heiro 07:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Now continuing the same edits as this IP 187.101.19.219. Maybe a range block would be more effect than block, as this user seems to IP hop alot.Heiro 07:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think blocking will have much use. I requested semi-protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I also started this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP hopper:Edit warring and refusal to cite edits after they once again changed IPs, but no action as of yet. Heiro 09:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a period of 1 year by AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:76.118.227.161 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48h)

Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.118.227.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#Civilian Atrocities

Comments:

Fifth revert: [33].Faustian (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this editor. HAving made a large number of edits to the article Polish Armed Forces, adding about 8kb of new and referenced text, this editor arrived out of the blue, claimed he had earlier edited the page, and reverted to an earlier version which halved the coverage on the page. His complaints can be see at Talk:Polish Armed Forces, but the only one he's insisted on changing is removing a Communist-era Polish army picture and substituting a whole bunch of pictures previous and since 1990. Looking at the page history of Blue Army, I've reverted him here as he seemed to remove any mention of the atrocities the Blue Army committed. From the evidence I have seen, I am worried that this editor is determined to present only one, positive, view of the history of the Polish military, omitting mention of any periods that might seem less honourable. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours T. Canens (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

He's switched IPs: [34].Faustian (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Page semiprotected three days by T. Canens. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:86.24.46.135 & others reported by User:Ozob (Result: 1 week/semi)

Page: Square pyramidal number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: This is an IP user who has used several IPs, primarily the first one:

• 86.24.46.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.247.128.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.50.199.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version before the current dispute: [35]

The user is continuing an edit war he was already blocked once for. See [36] for the first seven reverts.

• 8th revert: [37]
• 9th revert: [38]
• 10th revert: [39]
• 11th revert: [40]
• 12th revert: [41]
• 13th revert: [42]
• 14th revert: [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The original discussion occurred at the mathematics WikiProject. See [45]. But there hasn't been any discussion since the first block. All "discussion" has taken place in edit summaries.

Comments:

He responded to my edit war notice with the following: [46]. To be completely honest, I should include the diffs of my own contributions to this war:

• From before this user's first block: [47] [48] [49]
• Since then: [50] [51]

Ozob (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also Blocked – for a period of 1 week T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian.thomson reported by Wheres Dan (Result: No vio )

Tribe of Dan Tribe of Dan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ian.thomson Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tribe of Dan additions Talk:Tribe of Dan reliable sources

Comments:
The editor in question professed a devout religion historically at odds with this tribe and its history, indicating a bias in the edits. A neutral editor is needed to approve the edits attempting to be made.

Wheres Dan (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• No violation In addition, you would be far better off actually amending your own editing, understanding reliable sources, and apparently responding at WP:ANI - this also looks like a tit-for-tat filing, which never goes well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have reverted no more than you have, I have yet to violate 3rr, and you are using unreliable sources, spreading outdated fringe material, failing to assume good faith, and have made various personal attacks (which lead to your last block). Since when are Baptists historically at odds with the tribe of Dan? The Baptist church is only a few centuries old, and the Tribe of Dan has been lost for how many thousand years? What's more, most Christians (except Marcion) historically saw the Israelites as their forebearers. I'm no longer going to be nice about it: Wheres Dan, you are completely useless to this site and should be blocked. Multiple editors over at WP:ANI agree, and think you should be banned or are close to another ban. The main thing we're waiting on is an uninvolved editor, who you thankfully will be attracting with this report. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wheres Dan reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 1 week)

Page: Tribe of Dan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wheres Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• (4th indirect revert by recopying in the material)
• 5th revert, 4th undeniable

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Pretty the bottom half of Talk:Tribe of Dan, especially Talk:Tribe of Dan#Recent edits.

Comments:
User has a history of using bad sources and has had this explained in various ways in various talk pages and edit summaries. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 7d. Black Kite (t) 19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:JaMikePA reported by User:CRRaysHead90 (Result: Declined)

Page: Toronto Blue Jays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JaMikePA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 18:31, 18 November 2011 (edit summary: "blogs are not reliable sources per WP")
2. 18:41, 18 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Baseball Hall of Famers */")
3. 02:06, 19 November 2011 (edit summary: "fixing colors to accurate use. WP makes no exception about types of blogs; blogs are not reliable sources, period.")
4. 16:37, 19 November 2011 (edit summary: "Try learning WP's rules before editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources")
5. 19:53, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "What we have here is a failure to follow the rules. WP has "no blog" policy in most cases.")

I don't think I'm putting this at the right place, AN confuses me. Anyway, JaMikePA, refuses to build consensus and would rather revert repeatedly. Recently, the Miami Marlins and and Toronto Blue Jays had a makeover of their logos and uniforms. As such the article for the two was updated. I updated the the colors using a graphic design industry trusted blog. Determined he was right he's revert me at least 20 times of the past 6 days saying blogs cannot be reliable sources and citing this failed proposal. As the blog is reliable, I and other have reverted him every time and asked him a couple times to stop and if disputes the reliability to start a discussion on the talk page. He hasn't, instead he's continued to revert and redo the colors. And just today he warned me on my talk page using that same failed proposal. I would like someone to either tell him to stop or block him for disruptive edit warring. Thanks.

I have issued sever informal warnings and requests via edit summary.

I've tried to get him to talk it out, but he refuses and continues to revert without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRRaysHead90 (talk • contribs)

Comments:

CCRays is just as guilty for undoing my edits, especially when his don't conform to WP's general prohibition of blogs as sources. He uses his own interpretation of the policy to edit-war. Yet, the blog in question is not associated with Major League Baseball.JaMikePA (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the list of diffs provided by the submitter with the complete set as generated by the 3RR helper tool, including the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the blog needs to be associated with MLB to be reliable to cite. Reputation should suffice. And please get my name right, it's "CRRays" not "CCRays". CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's possible, I'd just like to withdraw this report and just move on. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am declining this report. Both pages have been fully protected, and blocking would only be punitive - the sooner consensus is established, the better. Blocking will only delay it. WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:27.122.16.74 reported by User:Geo Swan (Result: 2 months)

Page: Guantanamo Review Task Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 27.122.16.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: prior to repeated blanking

• 1st revert: [54] 14:33, 2011 November 18
• 2nd revert: [55] 02:00, 2011 November 20
• 3rd revert: [56] 08:20, 2011 November 20
• 4th revert: [57] 08:48, 2011 November 20

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

This is not an instance of the official 3RR warning. I have used that tag so infrequently I couldn't recall it, so I voiced my concern without using the template, but I think I did an OK job, without the template.

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

I haven't tried to further address the IP's article blankings, as, after they made two more page blankings, another contributor addressed the blankings quite competently.

Comments:

User:Iqinn was placed under a permanent block on 2011-08-24. The style of User:27.122.16.74's reply to my warning is remarkably similar to the typical response User:Iqinn would offer to good faith expressions of concern. Specifically, Iqinn, rather than offer a meaningful response, would turn the expression of concern on its head -- without regard to whether it made any sense at all to do so.

Here are some instances [59], [60], [61]

I am concerned that this may not be a coincidence, and that 27.122.16.74 is User:Iqinn trying to evade their block.

It seems to me that the style of the comments 27.122.16.74 left on Talk:Guantanamo Review Task Force are also typical of Iqinn's style:

1. [62] -- an immediate accusation another contributor is "disruptive" merely for voicing concerns over 27's edits;
2. [63] -- evasive;
3. [64] -- evasive;
4. [65] -- repetitious and evasive;

I think there is a three month window for using the underlying IP address to determine if an IP contribution comes from a contributor who has gone inactive, or who has been blocked. If this is correct there are only a few days during which sockpuppetry can be determined. Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for recent edits made by the IP 27.122.16.74 at Guantanamo Review Task Force as generated by the 3RR helper tool, including edit summaries:

1. 19:33, 18 November 2011 (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect because the sources have been misinterpreted and mischaracterized, just have a look at the Washington post article")
2. 07:00, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect because the sources have been misinterpreted and mischaracterized, just have a look at the Washington post article")
3. 13:20, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect ~ misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources [[66]]")
4. 13:48, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect ~ misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources [User_talk:Geo_Swan#misinterpretation_and_mischaracterization_of_sources] please do reply there")
5. 13:56, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources please do reply here [User_talk:Geo_Swan#misinterpretation_and_mischaracterization_of_sources] please do discuss instead of reverting")

All the times in my list are given in UTC. The fifth edit by the IP, the one at 13:56 UTC, is new since this report was filed by Geo Swan. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a proxy for 2 months, not by me. Swarm ^X 22:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:AgentPolkaDot reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [67]

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]
• 5th revert: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (created new page, cannot be a diff)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:

I am uninvolved in this edit war. BLP needs to be considered here, but there are civility problems. Worthy of note is that all of these reverts occured within the same 40 minutes.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, BLP can be a factor in this, but since reliable sources have already named the officer believed to be involved, I don't think that can apply here. Also, incivility and 5 reverts in an hour is pretty much always going to end up one way. Blocked for 31h. Black Kite (t) 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) The user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. See ANI thread.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Lhb1239(Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: Juli Inkster

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]
• 4th revert: [77]
• 5th revert: [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments:

• Comment: All of the above edit warring was done during and after the same editor had placed the following personal attacks on the talk page of editor he had the dispute with:

• Diff 1: [81]
• Diff 2: [82]

He has also been reported to the Wikikette board here.

Two editors, crunch and the above one, keep editing out the following

LPGA Tour playoff record (6-4)

No.	Year	Tournament	Opponent(s)	Result
1	1984	Nabisco Dinah Shore	Pat Bradley	Won with par on first extra hole
2	1986	Lady Keystone Open	Cindy Hill, Debbie Massey	Won with par on first extra hole
3	1988	Crestar Classic	Rosie Jones, Betsy King Nancy Lopez,	Won with eagle on first extra hole
4	1988	Atlantic City Classic	Beth Daniel	Won with par on first extra hole
5	1992	Nabisco Dinah Shore	Dottie Mochrie	Lost to par on first extra hole
6	1992	U.S. Women's Open	Patty Sheehan	Lost 18-hole playoff (Sheehan:72, Inkster:74)
7	1997	Samsung World Championship of Women's Golf	Helen Alfredsson, Kelly Robbins	Won with birdie on first extra hole
8	2000	LPGA Championship	Stefania Croce	Won with par on second extra hole
9	2007	SemGroup Championship	Mi-Hyun Kim	Lost to par on first extra hole
10	2008	SemGroup Championship	Paula Creamer	Lost to birdie on second extra hole

That wasn't in the player's article Until the last day[83] and for the citations, they aren't done in win boxes. Crunch knows that, why isn't a citation added here when he edited a win box here[84] when that box was just added[85] today? That edit he did was done before the Inkster reverts.[86] I'm being consistent, putting in legit material, and people are reverting without looking at what they're doing and or at the same time conveniently forgetting their own edit histories.- William 02:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Aprock (Result: Stale)

Page: List of Pan Am episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lhb1239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Below is a list of four sets of edits over the span of four hours where Lhb1239 reverts content just added by three different editors.

• 0th revert: 01:23, 19 November 2011 [87] 4 edits, "returning...", "rewording...", "returning...", "return..."
• 1st revert: 01:42, 19 November 2011 [88] "Reverted good faith edits by Television fan (talk)..."
• 2nd revert: 03:56, 19 November 2011 [89] "Reverted 1 edit by 99.19.56.28 (talk)..."
• 3rd revert: 05:36, 19 November 2011 [90] "Reverted good faith edits by Gujuguy (talk)..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:16, 19 November 2011 [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [92], [93]

Comments:

I am an entirely uninvolved editor here, and wouldn't normally bring such a report, especially since it's a couple day old. But this user was blocked less than a week ago for edit warring in the same topic area [94], so it's clear that the 48 hour block was not effective in managing the disruptive behavior.

aprock (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The list of diffs above is a successive grouping of edits that was marked mainly by a group of us trying to pare down a TV show episode summary to an allowable number of words. At least one of the edits was a reversion due to a copy vio from an IP editor who has been persistent in adding verbatim episode summaries plagiarized from online sources. There was an editor edit warring at the above article, but it wasn't me and I asked the other editor to please stop edit warring on their talk page. Frankly, I am stunned by this report. I don't think I've ever even heard of the editor making this report until earlier tonight when I reverted his additions to the following article because it was too close to the original wording in the source given and a WP:COPYVIO. (See this diff) This report, in my opinion, is retaliation for reverting his edit. For what it's worth, I think the number of days having passed between above listed edits occurring and this filing is a bit of a clue to the witch-hunt nature behind this report. Lhb1239 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your poorly thought out revert prompted my looking into your editing behavior. As noted above, I'm generally disinclined to make these sort of reports. Had it not been for the fact that you were continuing to serially revert other users in the face of a warning less than a week after your previous block in the same topic area, I would not have made the report. Instead of thinking of this as a witch hunt, think of it as an attempt to reign in your disruptive behavior. aprock (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stale Edits were nearly three days ago. Swarm ^X 21:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Yworo reported by User:Sheodred (Result: No violation )

Page: Peter O'Toole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: CS Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st edit: [95]
• 2nd edit: [96]
• 3rd edit: [97]
• 4th edit: [98]
• 5th edit: [http://[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Yworo]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[[99]]

Comments:
He has been continously been warned on his talk page and article pages for his editing and personal attacks, but he continues with the behaviour and editing without consequence, and deleted the discussions from his talk pages he even tried to delete the discussion on the CS Lewis talk pages. Editors are becoming convinced that it is blatant POV pushing. Sheodred (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC) -->

WP:BOOMERANG, anyone? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• No violation These edits aren't even on the same page (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)