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:Debresser reported by User:Newman Luke (Result: Protected)

Page: Forbidden relationships in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Comments:

• See also Debresser's history of bad behaviour discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. Newman Luke (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that editor Debresser might want to be more watchful, however the complainant has made many significant and questionable edits to the page without significant discussion. Revert him 6 or 9 times if necessary!

Editor Newman Luke (love the name!) may I please ask... What is it about the term "consensus" that we need to discuss here?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As an outside observer I note the number and type of edits made by the ocmplainant in several articles are certainly a large part of the problem, as there is no mention of the vast nature of the changes made on the article talk page, as WP:BRD anticipates. Collect (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who is right here. But whichever admin closes this report should also take a look at WP:ANI#User:Newman_Luke. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And note that Debresser started that section in an apparent attempt to circumvent 3RR by a subtle hint for meatpuppets (evidently it failed, as he eventually made the further reverts listed above, breaching 3RR). Newman Luke (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston has asked me to comment with regard to my edits possibly breaching 3RR. My reply is that as far as I am aware they do not, and I would like to see the diffs to prove me wrong before people make such accusation. Newman Luke (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Newman Luke (talk · contribs) is up on WP:ANI and has himself engaged in edit warring on this article, while at the same time refusing to participate in discussion as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke and WP:BRD and the recommendations of that WP:ANI discussion. This post here is moot to the issue at hand, which is the problematic edit pattern of User:Newman Luke.

In addition, technically I am not sure 1. who of us made the first 3RR edit (see [6])2. whether his actions may be considered vandalism 3. whether there is dispension for reverting edits of a user who refuses to head the advise given him on WP:ANI and continues his disruptive editing 4. whether the fact that my edits were all different (just reverting to the same version) makes a difference.

But, as I said, I don't think the technical details matter: the issue is dealt with at WP:ANI and User:Newman Luke is so far blatantly disregarding its recommendations, and came here for the possible gain of a temporary victory. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said at WP:ANI, Debresser refuses to use the actual article talkpage, or point out specific edits he thinks introduce factually untrue or inappropriate material. He was cautioned for failing to do this by the Arbitration committee two days ago. He also insists on escalating the heat by going straight to WP:ANI, and uses divisive and agressive rhetoric; this he has also been cautioned by the Arbitration committee against doing. Newman Luke (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'd also like to point out that Debresser has explicitly stated he thinks he can ignore WP:OWN - [7] - the policy which prohibits editors from claiming ownership of articles, or dictating who can edit them, or claiming veto over the content. Newman Luke (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I answered these allegations and untrues in the WP:ANI discussion. They have no value here and now. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected two days. Debresser has made four reverts, and Newman Luke only three, but I believe that both parties are edit warring. There are enough grounds to block both, but that can wait for the next stage. Neither party has written anything on the talk page in the past week, and the project discussion is of a very general nature, like 'Newman should not be doing this.' Newman's request for specifics is surely justified. If warring continues when protection ends, blocks may be issued. I recommend that neither party make any significant change to the article until they receive a formal consensus on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. No problem here. Actually, forcing Newman Luke to discussion and consensus seeking is precisely what I was trying to achieve on WP:ANI. I am glad you choose the wise path, instead of just blocking us. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Its no surprise you find there's no problem, after your fifth revert - [8] - is now the protected version. Now, will you use the talk page? Newman Luke (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. "Now will you use the talk page?" Is this article the property of two editors? I've put some of my arguments protesting the wholesale rewriting on the talk page, with no answer. What happens when the protection stops? (Please excuse me if I've broken some policy by writing here.) Mzk1 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Please continue the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there. My concerns on the edits (some of them, with no response) are in the previous section (Rewriting). I was not referring to the specific changes that I made myself. But I am concerned that NL will continue without discussing, and whoever reverts that will get their hand slapped. Mzk1 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Newman Luke is now on the admin radar. If he seems to be engaged in a pattern of reverts that lack any Talk consensus, consequences may follow. Be sure that you yourself make reasonable efforts to negotiate on Talk when you disagree with edits by Newman Luke. There is nothing sacred about the old version of the article, but any changes should have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And when are you going to put Debresser on the admin radar for ignoring WP:OWN, indeed claiming that it doesn't apply to him [9], despite even being cautioned by the ArbCom to behave and use article talk pages instead of aggressive behaviour?Newman Luke (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And when are you going to put Avraham on the admin radar for ignoring WP:DELETE#Processes and instead blanking pages he doesn't like ([10] [11] [12]), even including talk pages ([13] [14]

)? Newman Luke (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If this weren't so serious it would be hilarious! You were going through making sweeping changes without discussion just as if you owned the article. You were deleting and changing with NO REGARD for the opinions of other editors who are ALSO involved with that article. Do you even have an inkling as to how "circular" your arguments are? They circle right back to you. Please wake up and really see what's happening here, because you've been warned that if you don't, you just might be blocked from editing! So far, the only person who seems to really want that to happen is YOU.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you go and read WP:OWN again, as you've just contravened this bit:

“ Examples of ownership behavior.... "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" ”

and this bit:

“ Examples of ownership behavior.... "Get consensus before you make such huge changes" ”

and this bit:

“ Examples of ownership behavior.... "...please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval." ”

Newman Luke (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is you who should read that policy again, which also says that editing WP is a "collaboration". So if ONE editor says all that stuff to you, then YES, you can accuse the editor of trying to own the article. But when several editors ask you to discuss changes first, that is "collaboration". Please discuss your changes to this article on the Talk page BEFORE you make them.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cexycy reported by User:Rapido (Result: Stale)

Page: Living Next Door to Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Cexycy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] ^{See comments below Terrillja _talk}

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments: Continued edit warring. Cexycy keeps justifying his edits with summaries like "please read the discussion page", but appears to be using this phrase as a permit to justify his edits. This went to WP/3RR before [22] and Cexycy was warned [23], then ignored the advice on the article talk page given by the admin [24], and reverted again - subsequently, went to WP/3RR again [25] and was briefly blocked for edit warring [26]. Tired of this situation of original research, unreferenced information and point of view being added to the article. Many editors have tried to reason with Cexycy (see his talk page, and also e.g. [27]), but to no avail.

Rapido (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Note: The 3rr warning was left after the last revert and neither user has reverted since the warning--Terrillja _talk 06:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Generally, still a dispute. If discussion isn't working, use WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 08:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ratel reported by THF (talk) (Result: warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bill Moyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:20, 14 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 344043671 by THF; restore gutted section and remove editorialising "poked fun" comment. (TW)")
2. 03:44, 15 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 344104684 by Ratel; rvt wholesale undiscussed changes; rmv additions of unsourced comments. (TW)")
3. 04:40, 15 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */ remove comment unrelated to Rove")
4. 16:13, 15 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */ this guy is not notable at all, so we should delete this or put him in context")
5. 22:41, 15 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */ Sorry, no, check the book again, Moyer is not mentioned in the BDSyndrome section")
6. 15:04, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 344379124 by Ratel; Blatant and egregious wp:SYN removed. (TW)")
7. 22:50, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */ consensus clearly against including this")
8. 22:52, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ already on page")
9. 23:40, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Newsday */ unnecessary and off-topic repetition of material from Newsday page") (arbitrarily removes material User:THF added.)
10. 00:09, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commentary */ Restore gutted section that is sourced and for which there is no consensus for removal")

• Diff of warning: here

5 reverts in last 10 hours, part of larger pattern of 10 reverts in last 49 hours.

All my attempts to resolve on Talk:Bill Moyers have been rebuffed. Editor just ignores me or insults me and continues to insert his original research from (trivial) WP:PRIMARY sources and delete well-sourced material that I add. Reverts are indiscriminate: last edit duplicates material that is elsewhere in the article, all so that there can be a full section of COATRACK criticism of Karl Rove; 03:44, 15 February 2010 edit misused Twinkle to rollback several changes I made because he disliked one of the deletions. Tendentiously claims WP:SYN violation because I summarized three pages of a book with a single sentence; tendentiously claims that best-selling author is "not notable" while he adds links to blogposts and web interviews. NB that his edit summaries are inaccurate: the "undiscussed" changes are discussed ad nauseam on the talk-page; the "unsourced" comments were sourced, but for the fact that he reverted as I was in the middle of editing the page, and I could not source the comment without reverting. THF (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Please note that the reversions are to a BLP, where 3RR does not apply when removing denigrating material, such as the reporting editors attempt to insert a journalist's opinion that Moyers is insane (suffers from a "derangement syndrome"). Many of my reversions and amendments were to prevent the article becoming nothing more than an attack on Bill Moyers. Note that THF is engaged in an edit war on the page and an admin has had to remove numerous AGF breaches made by him. ► RATEL ◄ 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, unsatisfied with lying in his edit summaries, is now lying here; I've made two reverts in the last 24 hours (each time after extensive talk-page discussion where no one could cite any legitimate policy reason for opposing the policy-supported edit), three only if you include this cleanup edit undoing part of one of Ratel's indiscriminate Twinkle rollbacks. Ratel's claim of protecting BLP is questionable given that his reverts have deleted sourced criticism about Moyers's rhetoric while reinserting unsourced criticism of Karl Rove irrelevant to the Moyers article. THF (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The complaining editor THF has thus far been the antithesis of an ideal Wikipedia personality and I would suggest that the evaluating administrator take what he says with a healthy dose of skepticism. Gamaliel (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gamaliel is retaliating here after admins at WQA took him to task for his uncivil personal attacks on me, including baseless claimsof sockpuppetry. THF (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use yet another page to attack the same editors. Try to confine yourself to under a dozen or so, please. Gamaliel (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing - reviewing together with below, this may take a while. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Warned The BLP exemption should not be asserted in questionable or borderline cases, but given discussion on talkpage and elsewhere no block is warranted at this time. Reporting user blocked for related matters. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• It was pointed out to me that any edit that doesn't add brand-new material counts as a revert (a subtlety I'll remember for the future). I'll take a week's wikibreak from the article, which is something I've been encouraging my fellow editors at the article to do as well. ► RATEL ◄ 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel reported by THF (talk) (Result: no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bill Moyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 03:07, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */ no consensus for inclusion of this controversial material in this BLP")
2. 21:15, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Newsday */ clearing up some confusion regarding sources") removed dubious tag without addressing reasoning on talk page
3. 05:35, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Newsday */ restored sourced material but i am willing to engage in a civil discussion regarding it") NB edit-warred to reinclude material, but did not reinclude npov-section tag that was removed only after factually incorrect material was removed
4. 05:40, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Allegations of bias */ tweak wording of CK, rm DL again - no consensus to include, obviously controversial, and there's plenty of more notable critics anyway") Deletes innocuous sourced cite to David Limbaugh on tendentious grounds that the best-selling author isn't "notable enough" -- meanwhile does nothing to remove the multiple left-wing blogs cited in the article

• Diff of warning: here demonstrates he's aware of 3RR, but insults me whenever I point out he's close to it.

Four reverts in 27 hours. But has been tag-teaming with User:Ratel.

—THF (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
Editor refuses to engage on Talk:Bill Moyers. Very clearly POV-pushing: I gave an extensive refutation with several cites on the talk-page why I removed some questionable factual content; he simply reverts the edit without ever defending the factual accuracy of it on the talk-page with misleading summary that "he's willing to discuss"--and his only discussion is to delete my talk-page comment. Refuses to permit citation to best-selling book under any circumstances, with such marvelous reasoning as he doesn't like the author's brother.

Editor also edit-warring [28] on Nina Totenberg with tendentious theory that L. Brent Bozell III isn't notable, ignoring and refusing to engage evidence to contrary on talk page or respond to proposals for compromise.

Similar unCIVIL POV-pushing edit-warring and misuse of WP:TW on Center for Constitutional Rights, where he reinserted a blatantly POV description of the organization in the infobox, and refused a polite invitation to self-revert that clearly erroneous edit.

This is not how an administrator is supposed to act. THF (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that replacing a "unsourced" tag with a source is a revert, since the source was not there before. In fact, it's exactly what we are supposed to be doing here, sourcing articles. If any administrator feels that it is a revert or otherwise inappropriate, I am willing to self-revert my last edits to the article and refrain from replacing "unsourced" tags.

I stand by my other edits here, whether they qualify as reverts or not. The material I removed was a controversial edit to a BLP, there was no consensus for inclusion, and the majority of editors on talk do not support inclusion. Thus repeatedly inserting it in the article without consensus is what qualifies as tendentious edit warring.

The uncontroversial material I restored is sourced to a first-rate reference work. THF's method of "disputing" it is to call me a liar (despite the fact that I quoted the entire paragraph from the source on talk word for word) and demand I give him my database password so he can examine the source without going to the library himself.

I will not comment on my edits to other articles here as those discussions belong on the talk pages of those articles and not here. This page should not be yet another battleground for THF to argue about whatever he feels like at the moment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing - reviewing together with above, this may take a while. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• No violation. Reporting user blocked for related matters. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by MILAZERO (talk)(Result: Declined - Stale )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

--MILAZERO (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stale Last edit in that series was 4 days ago. Smashville^talk 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But that user had 3 blocks for edit warring: you decide--MILAZERO (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I did decide. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. --Smashville^talk 16:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I second this. As noted at the top of this page, this is for recent edit wars. No editing of the article at all for 3-4 days is not a recent edit war. NJA (t/c) 16:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ru magister reported by Serg3d2 (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

AboveNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ru magister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8

—Serg3d2 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 08:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:TheLeopard reported by Ecourr (Result: Protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dongyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maliciously deleting well sourced contents including info from classic Chinese history record, peer reviewed academic journals, government website and government media. Didn't stop after I post discusion. He even erased my warning.

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

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Ecourr (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• No violation User reverting substantial blanking of the article without proper discussion, and thus not a blatant disruptive pattern of edit warring. Please use discussion. NJA (t/c) 08:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• What do you mean "substantial blanking of the article"? He is deleting huge amount of contents. How can you say this is not disruptive? Ecourr (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note Yes, you're right, sorry it was early for me then. I've cautioned the user reported on ownership, and I agree that there's concern, but I don't think enough discussion has taken place to say it's disruptive and against consensus at this point. I will leave open though for another admin to consider. NJA (t/c) 08:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. On the Dongyi article, Two new-account users User:Reriemw and then User:Ecourr both have contributed the exact information several times to the article, and Ecourr have reverted my edits several times [29]. I've commented in edit summary to User:Ecourr to resolve the dispute regarding the problems over the user's contribution in the article's talk page and gain consensus before presenting it.--TheLeopard (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I only reverted the contents you maliciously deleted on the execuse that peer reviewed journals are needed. I even added peer reviewed journal sources. But you contininue to delete even after the warning. The contents you deleted are well supported by the sources provided and these are reliable sources. You can single out which sentense is not accurately cited, instead of deleting all the contents. Ecourr (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Might you both consider WP:3O if discussion doesn't produce a consensus? NJA (t/c) 09:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

From the template in the talk page, users from Wikipedia:WikiProject China should weigh-in on the user's content. Various users' input would definitely help resolving the dispute.--TheLeopard (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would recommend that one of you put a note on their board to get more eyes on it, as resolution is the ultimate goal. NJA (t/c) 09:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm actually the third party. I was just adding more sources that TheLeopard was asking for. But he even delete the sources I added. Ecourr (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ecourr, User:Reriemw are the one who puted all these paragraphs on the article, and you are directly involved in the dispute. We need other editors' opinions and consensus on this issue.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected. I'm here in response to NJA's request for another admin to look at this. Please try to get opinions from more people about the value of this material. Be aware that when the source names are only provided in the Chinese language that English-speaking editors may be unable to review this material and give any advice. Surely you can at least give English translations of the journal names and book titles. And brief passages from the sources could be translated so people can figure out what they are saying. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JpGrB reported by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) (Result: Semi)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lost (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JpGrB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:18, 15 February 2010 (edit summary: "Unsourced.")
2. 21:15, 15 February 2010 (edit summary: "It's all the same vandalism.")
3. 23:45, 15 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344299686 by 75.89.176.197 (talk)")
4. 20:49, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344473560 by 188.141.40.189 (talk)")
5. 04:53, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344556592 by 69.117.175.71 (talk) Stupid? I'm sorry, but *THIS* is the way we do things here.")
6. 06:32, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "This is the summary. Here, we aren't interested in the one scene featuring Mr. Linus.")
7. 07:05, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "Please stop this. You will be reported for vandalism and possibly blocked if you continue.")
8. 07:21, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344571612 by 24.18.156.43 (talk) Major vandalism. Please stop.")
9. 22:22, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverting some major unsourced vandalism.")
10. 23:10, 17 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344707045 by 74.13.203.52 (talk) Not needed for a short summary.")
11. 07:42, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "Not a reliable source. Sorry.")
12. 07:43, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344777449 by Benatfleshofthestars (talk)")

Comments: Pretty much the entire internet including IMDB and numerous reliable spoiler sites knows the names of the next 12 episodes of Lost but this editor and a couple others are on a crusade to keep them listed as "TBA" up until ABC or TV Guide confirms the names (meanwhile those official sources have literally NO incentive to go out of their way to tell us what everybody already knows). It is incredibly irritating and the fact that they are engaged in an edit war against practically every casual well-meaning editor of Wikipedia who has gone to the work of looking up the names on the 9.5 million sites that have them, and thinks they are doing a service to the community by adding the information tells me that JpGrB's primary motivation is not to make Wikipedia a better site, or to have it contain more facts, but rather to satisfy his own needs to feel like an important figure of authority in a world that has left him behind.

-UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment- User:JpGrB has done nothing wrong and is merely removing things that are improperly sourced or unsourced entirely. The article in question has been protected in the past because IPs continually add speculation, information from blogs and IMDb (which has long been held unreliable) and even things that are just plain made up. We are merely conforming to WP:V and WP:RS. Also, this user didn't even have the courtesy to tell JpGrB that he had been reported here, nor did he/she even try to start a dicussion on the matter anywhere. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have to say I also don't really see much wrong with those edits by User:JpGrB. The issue isn't whether "everybody knows" the information or whether it is correct, it's whether it has been added with reliable references, and it really didn't look as if it had. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an entertainment news source, so if it's behind the times that's just fine - and the addition of new material should wait until a reliable source can be found. I'm also disappointed that User:UnnotableWorldFigure did not try to discuss this on the Talk page before going for an Edit War report. Also, the "...satisfy his own needs to feel like an important figure of authority in a world that has left him behind" comment is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, and must be close to warranting some remedial action itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Just to be clear, your stance is that there's something wrong with adding content to a page that happens to be truthful and is most likely what a high percentage of users have come looking for when they search for the page, but there's nothing wrong with reverting the same article 8 times across 27 hours -- always reverting it back to the same version in spite of the fact you're not allowed to do this more than 3 times -- in order to delete good faith edits by anonymous users. Well apparently there is a deep misunderstanding of what "wrong" means. Good day.UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment- It is also notable from Jackieboy87's own talk page that he was enlisted by JpGrB specifically in hopes of getting the 3RR rule bumped up to a 6RR rule so realistically they should be viewed as one entity and investigated together as I'm sure that will bring the total number of reverts far in excess of 8 per day. Here is the relevant talk item: Hey Jackie, I was wondering if you could possibly help with the continued vandalism from User:Greenbird534 to, currently, the Lost season 6 page. They continue adding IMDb as a reliable source, and, they have a large history of vandalism on other Lost articles, as well as other articles overall. Thanks. Happy editing. --(JpGrB) UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Article is now semiprotected. User:JpGrB is warned that he shouldn't exceed 3RR. IPs have been adding lots of information that they 'found on the web' and many of them seem unaware of our WP:Reliable source rules. Since lots of people must be watching this article, JpGrB should not assume the role of its sole defender; let others help with that. Use WP:RSN if there is controversy on whether a source can be used. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:NastalgicCam reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: 24h, semi)

Page: Chicago-style hot dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: NastalgicCam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Not sure how to properly do this section, please check out the article's recent history

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

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

Comments:

This user is using multiple admitted sockpuppets, which I have tagged as such, and is repeatedly removing sourced information from several editors, violating WP:POINT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, on top of 3RR. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 21

21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours to NastalgicCam. The article has been semiprotected since we don't know how many IPs he is using. He and his IP sock, 66.177.40.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), between them have made four reverts in 24 hours. A case for blocking his IPs could be made, but for that you should file at WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Admins please note, 137.140.131.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a newly-created SPA sniffing around the article. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Coral Bay reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Indef)

Page: Pretty Little Liars (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Coral Bay (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]

Comments:
CoralBay has a history of being blocked for edit-warring and WP:OWN issues, and is at it again. Technically, this report should also include TAnthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well, but at least that editor (who is only at three reverts) has tried to discuss things outside edit summaries, which CoralBay rarely does. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 1 week. This is Coral Bay's third block so far in 2010. He reverting to insert unsourced information. I'm also warning TAnthony. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did realize that we had gotten into 3RR territory and notified Coral Bay here before TheRealFennShysa made this report.— TAnthony^Talk 04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the further info at User talk:EdJohnston#Coral Bay, and the abuse of multiple accounts recorded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/1989_Rosie/Archive, I've extended Coral Bay's block to indef. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced the editor will follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Notpietru reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: 1 month)

Page: Maltese nobility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Notpietru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]
• 5th revert: [40]
• 6th revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:

I've raised the issue elsewhere - admin opinions appreciated. How is reverting malicious edits by racist editors unjustified? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Notpietru is now at a 6rr on the article, tossing about accusations of racism etc... to boot.Bali ultimate (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Notpietru has a history of edit warring and incivilities - including in numerous edit summaries - most particularly under his old name of User:Pietru, where he's been blocked eight times [44] for edit warring, 3RR violations and gross incivilities. This certainly isn't the first time he's accused an editor of racism [45],[46],[47], [48], [49], [50], of "vandalising" an article edited against his preferences [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], or otherwise has just been uncivil [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65].  RGTraynor  11:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors are kindly asked to read the Maltese Nobility talkpage. If you seriously can't understand why the above editor is racist (or, at best, intolerably ignorant), there's not much I can say. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Notpietru blocked for 1 month for disruptive editing, as a repeat offender. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Koavf (Result: no action)

Page: Hollie Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

1. 15:09, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "rv unexplained changes to image")
2. 20:43, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344466222 by Koavf (talk) rv dash trolling")
3. 23:53, 16 February 2010 (edit summary: "rv to make content consistent with citation; del. text to make more neutral")
4. 00:23, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "made ref consistent with content")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warning on user talk of a potential post to AN/I: [67]
• Warning at AN/I that user made of me: [68]

Please note that the poster has provided neither "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:" nor "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:", instead choosing his own wording to conform with the difs that he has provided. Radiopathy •talk• 08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments: For thorough details, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#User:Koavf_-_good_intentions.2C_maybe.2C_but_still_uncivil_and_disruptive. For an abbreviated version:

• Reverting happened on Hollie Steel
• The user being reported was on 1RR.
• I told user that I was willing to discuss any changes that he wanted to make to the article on his talk and asked him to change his tone. He responded on mine. I responded on his. He posted about me at AN/I with a spurious allegation that I had broken a sanction and been uncivil.

As I wrote above, I told the user I would post to AN/I if the reverting and incivility didn't stop. He posted there first, where I told him that I would take this to 3RR pending the outcome at AN/I. User has been hounding me; mischaracterized my edits as trolling, vandalism, petulance, etc.; been consistently uncivil to me; and resorted to AN/I without responding on my talk or the article's talk page. User has been blocked for the same behavior regarding George Orwell and Snow Patrol several months ago (hence his current 1RR restriction), and I think that he is simply editing in bad faith regarding these issues. He has accused me of incivility and "spite editing" when it is frankly he who has been that way to me. Again, all of this is enumerated in great detail at my post here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#User:Koavf_-_good_intentions.2C_maybe.2C_but_still_uncivil_and_disruptive. I was willing to overlook his hounding at Talk:Remain in Light and his 1RR violation at Hollie Steel if he was willing to post to talk, but he went to AN/I instead, so I am following up his baseless allegation there with a substantive one here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This board is for reporting edit warring, not for going on about perceived slights or insults or feelings of persecution. This issue is resolved, as the admin who has been keeping an eye on my 1RR sanction already made a decision two hours before Koavf posted here. So I can honestly say that I'm the not one doing the wikihounding at this point. Radiopathy •talk• 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm doing exactly what I said I would do at AN/I. If you would prefer me to move that discussion there, I will. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're a tad wrong there, RP. This board is indeed for reporting edit warring, but, as it quite clearly says at the top, and on the edit notice, it is also for reporting 3rr violations.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but you'll also notice in the box at the top of the page it clearly states, "Do not continue a dispute on this page.". Radiopathy •talk• 08:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And you are pointing this out to me why? I'm not in a dispute with you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Taking no action here: seems stale now, not technically a 3R violation, and was already being handled by an admin before the report was filed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if there was no 3rr violation, the user is continuing to edit war on the article page. He's on his 5th revert now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:174.6.80.110 reported by User:Ridernyc (Result: 1 month)

Page: Hard rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 174.6.80.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

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

Comments:

This has been happening for months now. The editor constantly changes genre information in user boxes despite several editors reverting and warning them. There is strong consensus both in general and on the various talk pages about what should be listed in the info boxes. This has been going on for months now and no one can get a response out of the editor, they just ignores and come back and do it again. Ridernyc (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 1 month. He has been warring on music genres for six weeks or more. This is his second block in the month of February. His main activity (except for formatting fixes) is changing music genres; he never participates on Talk. His genre changes are always reverted by others. Editor might be unblocked if he will abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:LaGrandefr reported by User:Bertport (Result: 1 week)

Page: Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: LaGrandefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: 14:59, 18 February 2010
• 2nd revert: 22:40, 18 February 2010
• 3rd revert: 01:25, 19 February 2010
• 4th revert: 09:47, 19 February 2010
• 5th revert: 09:57, 19 February 2010
• 6th revert: 15:20, 19 February 2010
• 7th revert: 15:41, 19 February 2010
• 8th revert: 15:54, 19 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaGrandefr&diff=345033022&oldid=344979852

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:

Multiple editors have been attempting to work with LaGrandefr on Talk:Tibet as well as on User talk:LaGrandefr. Bertport (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: the list above doesn't show how each of these edits is a revert. In fact, #1 doesn't seem to be a revert, and #4+5 are subsequent edits and therefore count as a single revert only. Still, this is unacceptable edit-warring, connected with an overall negative battleground attitude. Therefore blocked. That said, I notice that much of the material being battled over seems to have suffered from heavily tendentious editing also from the other side – typical tell-tale signs of tendentious OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Headbomb reported by User:Likebox

Page: Infraparticle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

• 1st revert: [78]
• 2nd revert: [79]
• 3rd revert: [80]
• 4th revert: [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

The user is aware that this was edit warring, and said so himself. He was acting in good faith, but this is not the way.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Comments:

This page was subject to good-faith AfD, at a time when very few expert editors were looking. Instead of being deleted (or sourced!) it was stubbified, and all the good content was deleted. At some point I went and rolled back (manually!) the page to a state before it was stubbified, then reverted my own undos after getting the technical text (~6 undos followed by ~6 undos of my own undos). I am saying this here so that adminstrators understand what the long list of "undo's" were--- they were just to recover an old version. They have nothing to do with the edit war.

Once I had placed the very old longstanding technical contents back on the page, there was a dispute over the contents with Headbomb. Some editors supported, some editors opposed. But during the course of the discussion, Headbomb, a very experienced editor, reverted the work of two different editors 4 times in less than 24 hours. This reversion deletes massive amounts of long-standing content, and feels like vandalism to me (although it is good faith). There were no substantive discussion on the talk page, even after many attempts to explain the history of the article, the nature of the sources, etc. I hate, hate, hate doing administrative action, but I believe that it is necessary here.Likebox (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The user in question has restored the content which is being deleted, so this request may not be necessary for protecting the page. But the rule was still violated, and the editing was very contentious.Likebox (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry--- action is no longer necessary--- the user has put the material back, with tags, and has resumed discussion.Likebox (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you count, because that 4th "revert" isn't one. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The content was removed--- but you put it back. As I said, I hope to get back to editing rather than this type of thing.Likebox (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No I did not, it was you who put it back [84] violating 3RR in the doing (because the IP added a source you said you added), you reverted thrice under Likebox ([85], [86], [87]), and twice under IPs ([88], [89]), which is nothing new for you. My "4th revert" if it can be called that, was this, which removes duplicate material and adds NPOV/Disputed/etc... tags.

As for consensus, anyone can take a look at this, this, this, and this, which is plenty of discussion about this very issue. WP:V is policy, not a suggestion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not revert this article more than twice, and only once since you came along. You did not revert the article the fourth time, I realize now you were just deleting duplicated stuff. But the diffs you are linking to are not reverts--- they were explained above--- I wanted to get some text with equations in it, and I don't have unroll priviledges.

Your claim of consensus is baseless--- this article was written by an expert contributor six years ago, and has never been challenged before. This is for a reason--- it is a clear summary of difficult material. Your challenge was uncomprehending.Likebox (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) I understand now--- you thought I was IP socking--- that's not true, and anyone can check by comparing the IP to my IP. I didn't realize the IP added the same source I found--- it took me a while to find it. I guess I should have paid attention to the anon!Likebox (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also--- I object to you calling the original insertion of the text by me a "revert"--- it was a lot of effort to recover that text, it was buried under a lot of crap. There was no opposition at the time. I reverted Finell once, and I reverted you once, and that's it. I don't ever revert anybody more than once.Likebox (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus either way, anymore. Better to work on resolving the content dispute than edit-warring. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox is correct here. A challenge always has to be a bit more than mere saying: "I'm challenging the content", without any argument apart from noticing that the content is not 100% properly sourced. I note that climate sceptic editors have behaved in exactly this way on the Global Warming article. They challenge statements they don't like, not by arguing directly the facts (for which they can and should use the literature, of course), rather they only base their arguments on pure Wiki-Law. Count Iblis (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is misplaced. Attention should be upon making the article more accessible, by including more explanation and links. That might bring it more in line with what Headbomb is after, but the guidelines are a distraction here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox is wrong here. Of course the emphasis should be on improving the article. The question is how to improve it. Adding large blocks of unsourced material, then hoping to find reliable sources to support what Wikipedians write without the benefit of research, is not the way. The right way is to do the research, then accurately summarize what the sources say. Further, consensus or no, Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires that unsourced content be removed when challenged. Likebox, primarily, edit and revert warred to add (or re-add) unsourced material that was deleted.—Finell 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of warring. the various parties could try to help each other out to clarify the article. suggesting what seems obscure, suggesting what WP articles can provide details, and finding sources. Having arrived at a formulation that appears accessible, once the outline is clear, the items needing sourcing and the items that are simply exposition will be clearer, and the whole thing will wind up wonderfully. As Tim Gunn says on Project Runway, "Make it work". Brews ohare (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bikeric reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: )

Page: MoveOn.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bikeric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

• 1st revert: [91]
• 2nd revert: [92]
• 3rd revert: [93]
• 4th revert: [94]
• 5th revert: [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:
No discussion on talk page at all, five reverts today with no explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:121.213.164.165 and User:203.51.62.245 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )

Page: Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

1. 121.213.164.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 203.51.62.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 58.165.47.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 124.180.105.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 09:44] (by first IP)

• 1st revert: 09:50 (as first IP)
• 2nd revert: 09:53 (as first IP)
• 3rd revert: 09:58 (as second IP) Edit Summary: (If you are patience and wait till I finish the changes that will be mostly appreciated)
• 4th revert: 10:02 (as second IP, almost exactly the same edit)
• 5th revert: 10:34 (as 3rd IP) (reverted to the revision of 10:04 by the 2nd IP.)
• 6th revert: 10:47 (as 4th IP) to last revision

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:59 (first IP)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: OK I, haven't. The edits have been done before (except with correct grammar), and been rejected by consensus.

Comments:
It appears to be an attempt to hide the fact that scientific consensus is against this subject, by claiming "most" instead of "all", aside from the grammatical errors. I admit that I reverted numbers 0, 1, and 2, but the editor who gave the warning reverted #3 and #4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)