Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 752: Line 752:
===Comments===
===Comments===
You are both advised to take a minute away from the keyboard and cool down to avoid escalating the dispute. Use the article's talk page to hash out the issue and come to a consensus. Please review Wikipedia's [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process and keep in mind that continuing to edit war '''will''' result in blocks. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 10:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You are both advised to take a minute away from the keyboard and cool down to avoid escalating the dispute. Use the article's talk page to hash out the issue and come to a consensus. Please review Wikipedia's [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process and keep in mind that continuing to edit war '''will''' result in blocks. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 10:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

== [[User:Blueshirts|Blueshirts]] reported by [[User:Mendaliv|Mendaliv]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Taiwan}}
* User: {{userlinks|Blueshirts}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&oldid=284317284]

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=284561585]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=284641249]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=284717231]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=284725463]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=284731385&oldid=284726522]
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=284738001]

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blueshirts&diff=284791491]

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
* Taken to here as a result of an [[WP:EAR|EAR]] request: [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Terminology]]. The other editor seems to have broken 3RR as well, and has been warned. &mdash;/[[User:Mendaliv|<b>M</b><small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:54, 19 April 2009

    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.

    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

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • 6th revert: [7]
    • 7th revert: [8]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    User:Tycoon24 reported by User:MMAJunkie250 (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [12]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]


    Global warming

    List of common misconceptions/Hippo43

    Pashtun Ismailiyya reported by Sampharo (Result: prot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [17]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]

    The User over and over again is trying to plug in Shia negative stories into the biography of this Islamic figure, and using hardcore Shia citations but fakely reporting them as secular or Sunni sources. Over and over since the User's message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umar#Regarding_my_reversions_and_edits he is insisting to plug in Shia beliefs in the body of the text, and against the obvious disagreement of most everyone in the talk page. Then the User used edit warring techniques to force maintenance of those changes and stories and outright lying about the citations. The citations are from shia books and we have been trying to clarify that these are all Shia beliefs, however the user is erroneously claiming that they are neutral secular "Yale" research books or referred to that they are mentioned in famous Sunni books. I have confirmed one of the Sunni books, Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, and found the page number and found no reference whatsoever, when told the user merely removed the page number but maintained the false citation.

    When he sent the link to one of the books he called "secular and neutral sources" it was a clear religious "introduction to Shii Islam". He continues to insist on reverting the page with false citations despite being disproven as per the talk page.

    I have posted a report before and it was somehow removed. Please tell me if there is something missing from my report before removing it so as to know how to make a correct report. Otherwise if you haven't removed my report for some admin requirement kindly please check why it was removed and by home. I don't know how.

    --Sampharo (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigating. This is more of an edit war, but could involve sockpuppetry. One sec... --slakr\ talk / 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-04-06T05:53:13 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) m (43,761 bytes) (Protected Umar: IP vandalism. ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uirauna reported by Arcayne (Result: prot)

    • Previous version reverted to: [22]

    Uirauna has almost 1000 edits and has been here for over a year. (S)he knows the limitations on reverting. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. Still, a warning would have done no harm. But it matters not, as 2009-04-14T19:56:01 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs | block) m (21,951 bytes) (Protected Persian Gulf naming dispute: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, i tend to agree. Warning them of impending doom (as I did after the 4th edit but before filing here) seems enough to bring everyone to the discussion page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    PhilLiberty reported by Soxwon (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [27]


    as a reversion of this:[31]

    as a revert of this edit: [33]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [34]


    User:Mitted reported by User:Rurik (Result: User warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [35]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [40]
    • User mitted refers to actual person ("MIT Ted" Johnson). Edits are WP:COI, as he adds information about his own acclaims into article. He has continually mentioned his own business CEJBlackjack in the article and in talk discussions. Upon being warned of the edit war, user removed notice from his talk page, along with parts of the discussion (see [41]). He then removed other names from the article as possible malicious retribution (see [42] and changed the acclaim to read "anonymous" player. User warred with other editor, Objective3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), upon whose talk page the discussion continued. At this point, however, Objective3000 backed out of the edit war and simply maintained discussion on his talk page.

    Outerlimits reported by Emerson7 (Result: No vio/stale)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    1. 06:59, 14 April 2009 (edit summary: "range of dates after a name will be interpreted as birth/death unless otherwise indicated.")
    2. 19:53, 14 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 19:54, 14 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 06:18, 15 April 2009 (edit summary: "remove confusing data until a less misleading presentation can be agreed to on the talk page; the data is already included in the article.")



    • Diff of warning: here


    78.33.101.58 reported by O Fenian (Result: 7 days)


    • Previous version reverted to: [43]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: Editor previous blocked for 3RR violation


    Minor variation of original text on the 3rd and 4th revert, but the bulk of the unwanted and untrue message remains the same. O Fenian (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LifeStroke420 reported by GaryColemanFan (Result: Blocked indefinitely)


    • Previous version reverted to: [48]


    This user has four previous blocks for violating 3rr. Warning was left on talk page but deleted. The edit summary for one of these reverts is also troubling: "WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" does not make it seem as though WP:AGF is being applied. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoever is the admin that reviews this, I suggest they look at this comment made by Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) on LifeStroke420: "I will be unequivocally blunt: The next accusation you make will be your last Wikipedia edit. Accusations of harassment, sexual or otherwise, require solid evidence or else they are personal attacks. Consider this your one and only warning." - I would at this point support an indef block. D.M.N. (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm blocking him now, and posting at AN/I about the block. Given everything else and the fact this is his fifth 3RR block, I'm getting the impression that he's a hopeless recidivist. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 08:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiaddict8962 reported by Debresser (Result: Warned )


    • Previous version reverted to: [54]



    User:Wikiaddict8962 has claimed the sources he removes do not support the text. I have checked 5-6 sources and found them to be fine. I suspect a user who thinks that the article has to be precisely the way he thinks it should be, based and biased on his possibly limited understanding and sources. On the other hand, his extensive contributions to other articles related to Sierra Leone suggest he is some kind of an expert in the field. Which would seem to contradict the "limited understanding and sources part, but could go well with the WP:OWN part.

    I'd like to make clear that I have no personal connection with the subject whatsoever and ended up here in the course of my regular Wikignoming. (Debresser (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whilst there are edits, and potentially an ongoing dispute, there does not appear to be a violation of the three-revert rule within 24 hours. I've warned the user that they should avoid further edits without considering Wikipedia guidance on policy. If they continue to disregard this warning then report to me or any admin (or at WP:RFC). Nja247 09:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Might I point out to you that I posted this notice on a board for edit warring as well, and that I stated specifically "Record of edit warring warning". Debresser (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand. I've replied to the comment you've left on my talk page regarding this matter. Nja247 12:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    128.163.229.227 reported by Marauder40 (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [60]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]

    User logs in every month or so and adds POV edits without discussion to multiple pages, pages include Raymond Arroyo, Eternal Word Television Network‎, George Weigel has been warning by numerous editors and even blocked before. Previous IP addresses include 128.163.229.36, 74.143.204.130, 74.143.204.162, 128.163.229.32 etc. Marauder40 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Red Peacock reported by Dayewalker (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [66]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [71]

    Editor has been very active on this page for the last three days, blanking certain sourced information and adding others to push a POV. He's been warned several times on his talk page, but refuses to discuss on his or any other talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.40.57.99 reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: )

    Right to keep and bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 92.40.57.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 09:55, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 284305740 by Hauskalainen (talk)")
    2. 13:48, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 284400257 by Nick Cooper (talk)")
    3. 14:40, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 284422051 by Nick Cooper (talk)")
    4. 14:55, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 284425822 by Onorem (talk)")
    5. 17:51, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */")
    6. 19:07, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 284467593 by Famspear (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Onorem♠Dil 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anuttamadasi reported by Wikidas (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [72]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [79]
    • Diff of another 3RR warning: [80]

    WP:DISRUPT, WP:SPAM Wikidās ॐ added it at 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TomCat4680 reported by User:Delicious carbuncle (Result: Both editors warned, article protected 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [81]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [85]

    Despite being pointed to appropriate guidelines and asked in edit summaries to discuss the change on the article's talk page, the editor did not attempt to discuss until after the third revert. Additionally, the editor has just incorrectly warned me for 3RR, so I presume there is a personal animus behind this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors have been warned, and I could argue that both are at 3RR. A block at the moment would be punitive. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I plainly have not violated 3RR (just look at the article's history to confirm). I have had a series of increasingly unpleasant messages on my talk page from TomCat4680, despite having asked them to stay away. I believe their reverts are because of some personal conflict they perceive with me and a block may help them realise that they need to reconsider their course of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further discussion taken to article talk page and talk pages of respective editors. Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tycoon24 reported by User:Black Kite (Result: 24h)


    This is not a standard 3RR report, but a little more complex. User is trying to insert information on this article to highlight the turnout figures for this event given by the media source Pajamas TV. This source has claimed turnout figures way in excess of other more neutral sources. Unfortunately, PJTV is not a neutral source, as it promoted the Tea Party events, even giving instructions on how people could set up their own Tea Party events.

    Timeline 17 Apr

    18 Apr

    • Diff of disruption warning: [86]

    Black Kite 13:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wapondaponda reported by Causteau (Result: 48h and)


    • Previous version reverted to: [87]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [88]

    The above editor has just violated WP:3RR across two separate articles: Haplogroup M (mtDNA) & Haplogroup N (mtDNA) (on the haplogroup N article: his first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, fifth revert). He basically just kept knee jerk reverting edits I made to both articles, edits for which I provided a detailed justification here. Judging by the quick time in which he reverted my edits (literally less than five minutes later), the editor never even bothered to read my explanation of said edits much less respond to them. The editor was also recently blocked for violating 3RR (as was I) in a revert war with me over the same articles, but does not seem to have learned anything from the experience since he is back to knee jerk reverting. This appears to be the editor's modus operandi, as his personal page audaciously outlines, among other ploys, the following:

    "As WP:3RR concerns the reversion of any content, you can bleed your opponent's allowance away by insertion of different content. You can never violate WP:3RR by adding new content. Make an edit you know your opponent won't like. If he reverts it, you can add different content your opponent also won't like. If you do this three times and are reverted three times, your opponent is out of reverts for the day, and you can safely restore your preferred version."

    Causteau (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So too has Causteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated the 3rr as per
    Causteau's block log reveals that the User has been blocked twice for edit warring on genetics articles. Once in October 2008 and again in April 2009.
    With regards to my so-called strategy, it's simply an excerpt from a famous wikipedia webpage at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war which was deposited on my page by some user diff. I though it was hilarious so I decided to share it with the world on my personal page. There is no evidence that I use any of the information contained, I just have a sense of humor.
    Wapondaponda (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no I haven't. You see, I made the first edit to both pages (haplogroup M; haplogroup N), which Wapondaponda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then began reverting. I also only performed three reverts to the haplogroup M article (1, 2, 3). On the haplogroup N article, while I did perform five reverts, my last revert was a self-revert of my next-to-last revert, thereby annulling it. And per both WP:3RR and this noticeboard, self-reverts don't count:

    "The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons."

    User:Wapondaponda, by contrast, also performed a self-revert... only in doing so he was yet again reverting back to the way the page was before I first began editing it i.e. he had just realized that he had reverted my self-revert and was correcting his 'error'. In fact, his edit summary reads "oops"! Causteau (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And despite his claims to the contrary, User:Wapondaponda's personal page is very much in line with the true nature of his edits as this post of mine makes clear. Causteau (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a mystery to me why C doesn't realise he has 4R on the M article. Ah well, this will be a learning experience, as the new-fangled folk say. W clearly has 4R too. And both have form, so can have 48h and WP:1RR restriction on the article William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.194.123.23 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Already blocked)

    Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 98.194.123.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC, indended blocks were multiple consecutive edits, which are treated as one for the purpose of 3RR.

    1. 07:57, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    2. 04:07, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    3. 06:32, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    4. 06:37, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    5. 06:40, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    6. 06:42, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    7. 06:45, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    8. 07:02, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    9. 07:04, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    10. 07:10, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    11. 07:13, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    12. 07:15, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
    13. 07:19, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")

    Diff of 3RR warning (oops, not previously warned; previous warning was for vandalism, rather than edit warring)

    Comment:

    All adding unsourced claims of GMO and allergies, some within quotes, some not. Even if if the first pair doesn't constitute a revert, this is rediculous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BullRangifer reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: warned)

    Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BullRangifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 06:00, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by RetroS1mone")
    2. 06:34, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
    3. 06:38, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
    4. 06:42, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin")
    5. 07:08, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin")
    6. 07:12, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
    7. 07:14, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
    8. 07:16, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")

    Diff of 3RR warning:

    Sorry, folks, even though it started after the 4th revert of the anon.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to have been reverting an anon who has subsequently been blocked for a week (2009-04-18T09:00:44 Mentifisto (talk | contribs | block) blocked 98.194.123.23 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block)) so I'll warn re procedure but don't feel any urge to block William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about all this. I do have some questions on my talk page. I was under the impression that reverting BLP violations (which this wasn't) and vandalism was excepted from the 3rr rule, and thus not considered "edit warring". I counted it as vandalism because of that user's history on the matter. Others also considered it vandalism. BTW, the "result" above needs to be changed (thankfully!). -- BRangifer (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a number of us considered the IP's edits to be "obvious vandalism", which is indeed excepted from the 3rr rule. I took my cue from that, as well as the history, which included numerous warnings for those identical edits being vandalism... ;-) -- BRangifer (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please fix the "results" in the heading above. Even if it had happened, a week would be overkill considering the good faith attempts to fight vandalism. The context should be considered. We don't want to be treating loyal editors the same way we treat vandals and disrupters. "Justice that is blind to both circumstance and status can have an oppressive effect." [89] -- BRangifer (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Catterick reported by MusicInTheHouse (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [90]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [95]

    MusicInTheHouse (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The same user is now involved in edit wars on two other articles and is also vandalising talk pages with obscenities: here (twice within minutes).

    Warnings on the users talk page were deleted and the user now claims to have "retired" after this latest flurry

    The other articles are

    British Isles

    • 1st revert [96]
    • 2nd revert [97]
    • 3rd revert [98] with obscenity in summary
    • 4th revert [99]

    Republic of Ireland

    There are other examples earlier, but those are the most recent. In view of the aggression of this author, and the talk page vandalism something more than the normal 24 hours cooling off period is needed. The decision to "retire" may or may not be real --Snowded (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by Laveol (Result: article sanctions)




    Note that the warning was placed now, not previously, but that the user in question is an admin and should be well aware of all the rules around here. I hope that the fact that he's an admin won't spare him. Thanks. --Laveol T 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, seems I forgot one revert I did yesterday. The first listed is not a revert (a removal, yes, but not a revert to any earlier state that I'm aware of, the material has been there for ages), but okay, the rest are still four. I'm generally unapologetic when it comes to revert-warring against nationalist obsession (which is what we are dealing with here), because I find there's often no other way of dealing with it, so, do what you have to do. I will remove that passage again at the earliest opportunity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, so you intend to continue edit-warring at the earliest possible opportunity? --Laveol T 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you start expending your energy on rewriting that passage into something halfway decent (if you can), yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At least I'm trying. All you've been doing this week was calling me an idion, a banana citizen and so on. I've answered you on the talkpage, but you don't seem willing to communicate with unless it involves some lame personal qualifiers. --Laveol T 13:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Future is again resorting in personal attacks. What "if you can" means if not a reference to the intellectual capability of another editor?--Avg (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I read "if you can" as indicating that the passage might be unsalvageable as an encyclopedic section. Black Kite 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fut.Perf. is a repeat offender in attacking Laveol in terms of his ethnicity and encyclopaedic capacity. --Avg (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see one admin trying to remove a tangent passage musing on what a Macedonian is, while being reverted by three different editors. The better tactic would have been a short term protection of the page, but I advise all parties to cease the edit war. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he is an admin offers him immunity? He is an involved editor with a POV. Ask him yourself if he is acting with his admin or editor capacity here.--Avg (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst he shouldn't have reverted past 3RR, I can understand FPAS' problems in attempting to keep irrelevant synthesis (which is what the majority of that paragraph is) out of obscure articles when multiple nationalist editors have a vested interest in keeping it in. Black Kite 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. I see him acting as an admin to keep a clearly absurd section out of the article. Hopefully, the ArbCom case related to this kind of editing will help empower us to deal more cleanly with this sort of thing. If he, or I, protect the page, then we are accused of protecting his POV, even though the removal of the passage is clearly appropriate. The problem is that a nationalist consensus established what should be in the article. The only way an admin ends up in one of these pages is usually in the course of removing something that is out of place, at which point we become "editors abusing our admin powers to protect a POV". Our hands are tied on this, but there is no way that I am blocking someone on a technicality. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you can clarify your comment, are you offering Fut.Perf. carte blanche to violate Wikipedia policies if he has a dispute over the content of this paragraph? And may I remind you, Fut.Perf, is an involved editor in this case, he's not an uninvolved admin defending Wikipedia encyclopaedic quality. In fact this has been his modus operandi for years. He edit wars over content disputes playing the uninvolved admin card.--Avg (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I know is any other editor would've been blocked for this (and has been in similiar cases in the past). That's all from me. --Laveol T 14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Something needs to be done about this battleground, and blocking FPAS isn't the sensible solution. I will attempt to impose something sensible, see the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why blocking FPAS is not the sensible solution? This is not the first time and it will not be the last. He's right now edit warring in other articles too, see his contributions. If he feels he has immunity he will continue.--Avg (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mashkin reported by Shuki (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [103]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [107]

    3RR within one hour. User:Mashkin refuses to accept information credited to six sources from a wide spectrum of WP:RS even though this is the compromise reached. --Shuki (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is misleading information of course. First, as you can see I have not violated 3RR. Second, no compromise regarding these sentences was reached (please look at the talk page). This is not the place to discuss editorial decisions, but let me just mention that I do not see any merit in discussing a label such as "far left" with no explanation as to what this term means in the particular context. Mashkin (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR needs 4R William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CharmingPeople reported by Aunt Entropy (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [108]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [113]
    • Diff of warning as IP [114]

    Editor also as IP, also making similar edits and edit warring on Creation according to Genesis as IP. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    70.71.22.45

    User:70.71.22.45 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h )


    • This editors subsequent eight edits , in 27 hours, have all be reverts, all to Talk:Stephen Barrett


    This article falls under ArbCom sanctions, but I thought a 3rr report would be a step prior to AE. --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Blocked for disruptive editing to prevent further disruption. Nja247 10:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Grant.Alpaugh reported by CyMoahk (Result: Warn )


    • Previous version reverted to: NA - see below


    • 1st revert: [115] - statistics
    • 2nd revert: [116] - score format
    • 3rd revert: [117] - score format
    • 4th revert: [118] - score format
    • 5th revert: [119] - statistics
    • 6th revert: [120] - statistics
    • 7th revert: [121] - stastics

    It's hard to identify exact reverts and an 'original version' since this user has been banned from editing articles multiple times for other edit wars, so his reverts on this article have happened over long periods of time (3RR doesn't apply) with lots of different information entering the article between his edits. It's the same issues over and over again though, even when on the discussion page he's in the minority on each issue.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: NA - see above

    I'm still relatively new at Wikipedia myself (six months or so, only a handful of article) - I've read as much information about edit warring, trivia, reverting, original research, etc. as I could, though, so I don't think I'm in the wrong here, but please correct me if I've messed anything up (including if I've messed up this report somehow) - I don't want to cause the same kind of frustration I'm feeling right now for other people. CyMoahk (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Half of these are completely non controversial or not within 24 hours. The SB to NJ edit is just like one CyMoahk made previously. All I did was use the abbreviation used by WPS. I was also updating the statistics (not merely reverting), and in the process was eliminating unsourced WP:OR. I have also been discussing this on the talk page of the 2009 WPS article. Furthermore, none of my edits were contested, and if Cy wants to revert them, they are more than welcome to. Making a bunch of edits that you disagree with is not edit warring. This is based on an incomplete understanding of policy by CyMoahk. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I still believe my edits to be correct, but I've reverted to avoid a block until further discussion takes place. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    You are both advised to take a minute away from the keyboard and cool down to avoid escalating the dispute. Use the article's talk page to hash out the issue and come to a consensus. Please review Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and keep in mind that continuing to edit war will result in blocks. Nja247 10:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blueshirts reported by Mendaliv (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [122]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [129]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=284791727"