Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:Belchfire reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: withdrawn)

Page: Corporate welfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Dishonorable Disclosures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1] and please note the next edit[2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3][4]

Comments:
I am reporting Belchfire for edit-warring, not specifically a 3RR violation, so I'm omitting the specific diffs and instead asking that you look at recent history for the overall pattern of repeated reverts. (Depending on interpretation, he may or may not have exceeded 3RR, but I don't want to base the report on this because it's debatable.)

I'm concerned that he has either avoided discussion or has been belligerent and uncooperative, all while repeatedly reverting to keep his version in place. The actual edits he makes all seem to have the same basic pattern, which is that they favor the conservative political POV (he is a member of WikiProject Conservatism).

These are not the only articles he's edit-warring over at this moment, but they're among the clearest cases. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• This report is clearly simple harassment by this user. He's been following me around all over Wikipedia for the better part of two months, doing his best to frustrate anything and everything I do, without regard to reason or sanity. In this case, he's seized upon some edits by this indeffed user User:Orvilleunder, which he then decided to adopt as his very own [5] [6], clearly for the express purpose of creating a confrontation. Admins should note that StillStanding never edited either article prior to today, but simply saw the opportunity to generate fodder for this report. I'm not going to spend the time necessary to dig up all of the diffs, but this is merely the most recent episode in a long string of similar abuses. I would urge interested admins to look carefully at his contribs to evaluate whether this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Belchfire-TALK 07:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)This is ridiculous. In both of the articles you linked to, he reverted a sockpuppet [7] [8]. Are you looking for a boomerang?. Hot Stop 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Reverting a blocked sockpuppet's contributions is explicitly listed under WP:3RR as not counting. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore the sock puppet revert. That's the one that I said was arguable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, on Corporate welfare, he deleted some material and has reverted everyone's attempt to restore it for days now. He gets exactly one free pass for the sock puppet, but the pattern remains. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The two articles today are not isolated occurrences. Here are a few other recent examples of StillStanding following me to a diverse selection of articles for the express purpose of reverting my edits: [9] [10] [11] In each case, he never edited the articles before, but suddenly found them interesting once I had touched them. As one might imagine, this gets old, and it makes it difficult to avoid the guy. Belchfire-TALK 08:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• What StillStanding doesn't understand is that Orvilleunder, Belvbelv and both of the IPs are the same indeffed sockmaster. All of the edits coming from the 216.81.*.*/28 IP range are the same disruptive user with multiple blocks to his credit. Not a single one of those reverts count towards edit-warring. Belchfire-TALK 08:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In both of these articles, Orvilleunder is identified as a sock only in the second to last revert. Was he known as a sock before this? If so, why aren't the edits commented with that information? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You knew it was a sock and STILL decided to reinstate his edits on multiple articles. How come? Belchfire-TALK 08:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to withdraw this report, unless you want to be blocked as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur that the report should be withdrawn, but I take issue with "as well". There is no basis to accuse me of edit-warring here. Nada. Belchfire-TALK 08:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Read: "if you want... as well" :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll withdraw, but anyone who reverts a sock because they're a sock needs to say so in their comments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

thx Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I find Belch's explanation a tad questionable. Only one of the accounts was identified in any way as a sockpuppet from what I can tell and Belch clearly reverted most of those instances on the basis of a content argument, rather than sockpuppetry. Accusing Still of filing a bad faith report on the basis that these were all reverts of sockpuppets is thus inappropriate. However, Belch neglects to mention that the initial revert removed long-standing material. The sockpuppet defense doesn't quite add up given that the material was not recently added by such a user.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that similar circumstances apply with regards to the Dishonorable Disclosures article as the material was inserted by AzureCitizen and only later did a sock restore that material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:JonFlaune reported by User:Shrike (Result:JonFlaune blocked 24 hours for 1RR violation )

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

• 1st revert: [12] revert of this edit [13] which of course wasn't vandalism.(So this probably violation of WP:NPA
• 2nd revert: [14] of this revert [15]
• 3rd revert: [16] which reverted this edit, and falsely claimed consensus. (Added by AnkhMorpork Ankh.Morpork 15:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JonFlaune&diff=prev&oldid=510440138

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are currently ongoing discussion on talk page.

Comments:
The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under 1RR.Moreover editor reverted additional edit and described as vandalism when its clearly not.[17](This maybe a POV push but not a vandalism)

--- This is a disruptive bad faith report by a POV pusher, and neither of these edits are reverts of any kind but normal editing and a revert of obvious vandalism earlier in the day. An SPA with only 2 edits changing the first sentence to "was an American Pro-Palestinian" (and very probably the same person as the IP who just moments before had made this edit) is a clear cut case of obvious vandalism which would also have been a BLP vio in an article on a living individual, and reverting that as simple vandalism has nothing to do with being involved in an edit war. Changing activist to peace activist in a different edit has nothing to do with reverting anything, she is listed in the peace activist article, and it's a completely new edit and not a revert of any previous edit. Trimming and editing a section I have never edited before has nothing to do with being involved in an edit war. I suggest User:Shrike is sanctioned for disruption. JonFlaune (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 

Note:BLP can't be justification as she is already dead.Moreover the user didn't said that when they reverted.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The edit removing "human rights activist" from the lead was certainly not "vandalism." This is an extremely contentious article, and I can see that some editors will disagree with certain weasel wording in the lead, which would be best to discuss on the article's talk page. I can see why someone would revert it, but it certainly is not vandalism.

I would add to Shrike's list of reverts this important edit, changing a crucial wording of my edit here (revert is anything that undoes, whether in whole or in part, the work of another editor - this is a significant change of the wording of my edit). It's a pretty major change, as it's changing the ruling of a court to just a "claim" on a contentious article. Now, courts make rulings when it fits your POV, and when it doesn't, they only "claim" and their opinions are "fringe."

Please further note that while JonFlaune discusses POV pushing, he agrees with a statement by an IP that Wikipedia is "filled" with "pro-Israel trolls" and it's "ridiculous" to think that Israeli courts located in cities are "independent" and that Israel is a country based on Apartheid. Feel free to think that, but do we need to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to air these views, and edit this contentious article to conform to these views? --Activism1234 16:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the third diff that was inserted, with the false claims of an agreement or consensus, see the talk page discussion here as proof - only 2 editors agreed, and the original editor who had an issue with the wording didn't even get a chance to respond before JonFlaune put it into the article saying "new agreement" and consensus. --Activism1234 16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no reverts on my part, only POV pushing on the part of User:Activism1234 and User:Shrike. Changing the first sentence to "is a Pro-Palestinian" is vandalism for everyone except clearly disruptive users. JonFlaune (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the output of 3rr.php for John Flaune's edits at Rachel Corrie. Groups of successive edits have been combined and only the final edit summary is shown in each group:

1. 18:02, 1 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 510305720 by 68.81.39.6: rv vandalism. (TW)")
2. 18:36, 1 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 20:34, 1 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by AneCristals (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Quick and Dirty User Account. (TW)")
4. 02:37, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* See also */")
5. 02:38, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 02:38, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 02:41, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 02:46, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
9. 02:52, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 03:03, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 03:03, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "new agreed upon wording per talk")
12. 03:17, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 03:18, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
14. 03:54, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
15. 04:02, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
16. 04:41, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
17. 14:48, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* In Israel */")

I suspect that anyone who looks at this series will see a violation of WP:1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks after editor continued EW after release from 24 hour block. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:86.40.109.132 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 31h)

Page: Rick O'Shea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.40.109.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
User is placing 22 article improvement tags on this page - everything from "lead rewrite" to "peacock" to "contradict." During my first revert of his changes, I made note of all the tags and asked that the IP discuss this in the talk page, which IP did not. The second also implored IP to use the talk page. Most of IP's responses are on User talk:86.40.109.132, where only vague responses were given as to why any tags were present on the article (e.g. no specifics as to what the contradictions were, etc.) Even after another editor stepped in and reverted his changes, he reverted right back again. Pretty clear case of edit warring. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Swarm ^X 05:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Kajalagarwal78 reported by User:Krzna (Result: 31h)

Page: Kajal Aggarwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kajalagarwal78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]
• 5th revert: [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
Two editors tried talking with the user. Following was the edit summary posted by the user, "I think there is to many bad guys editing this". Please look into it. Thanks, krZna (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. Obvious 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Widescreen reported by User:Widescreen (Result: no action )

Page: Psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33],

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

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

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

Comments:

Well, I'm sure I did somth. wrong by reverting the user again. But that doesn't mean the revert wasn't necessary. I've read the rules two or three tims. But I'm not sure if my revert was allowed. So I report myself. So an Admin can take a look at it. Maybe also at the diskussion. I think this discussion is a joke and the user is obstinate. But I'm sure these nonsens shouldn't be present in our articles. --WSC ^® 12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Huh? No diffs, user reporting themselves, don't waste our time please. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. This user reported an edit war a few days ago (I protected the pages as there was no 3RR vios.) It looks like they have reverted yet again and are reporting themselves in good faith, but there's clearly no 3rr violation here. Swarm ^X 22:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: 31h)

Page: Zero Dark Thirty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mollskman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
This one is straightforward. I'm not sure whether to recommend a block or a page protect, so I'll leave it up to you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Note. Mollskman violated 3RR. They didn't receive a warning until after violating 3RR, although given the history, a warning shouldn't have been necessary. After they violated 3RR, they were advised to self-revert as a gesture of good faith. Unfortunately, it's not clear they've seen that sound advice as they haven't edited anything on Wikipedia since. I'm disinclined to lock the article - although I threatened to on the talk page - because some new editors have entered the picture, and I'm hoping progress can be made to sort out the content disputes. As of right now, I'm taking no action. Any other admin, though, is free to act as they see fit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you, but I will briefly express my concern that, in the absence of at least a warning, Mollskman will continue to edit war in the future. I'm not out for blood -- I think blocks are generally a bad idea -- but I think this article and others would benefit from a less martial approach by him. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h. Not only this, but a triple revert on another article within the last two days and a suspicion of tag-teaming on this one not long before the 4RR. Editor is not a newbie and should know better. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Nomenclator reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 72h)

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

• 07:07, 3 September 2012
• 15:55, 3 September 2012 (almost wholesale revert)
• 16:48, 3 September 2012 (wholesale revert)
• 17:10, 3 September 2012 (wholesale revert)

Comments

This is a report for edit warring, not 3RR.

Nomenclator is an occasional editor who was blocked three times for 3RR violations on Veganism in 2007. That he is aware of the rules is further evidenced by his counting of his reverts in his summaries.

He has suddenly returned to the article to add quite a bit of OR. This includes his opinion that the definition of veganism must follow that of the British Vegan Society, namely that a "vegan" is someone who avoids all animal products, and not someone who simply doesn't eat them. That is, he wants the article, and in particular the lead, not to include a definition of "dietary veganism," though the definition is reliably sourced.

He has been reverted by two editors, and three editors have objected on talk (217.147.94.149, Victor Yus, and myself; see this section). I have left a warning for him, [41] and I also invited him to revert himself, [42] but he has not responded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Although this user hasn't been blocked since March 2007 and a standard 24 hour block might seem reasonable after all this time, I find their behavior anything but—four blocks for edit warring on the same article (within only 369 article space edits) is simply not acceptable at all. In addition, these edits mark the first time this user has attempted to edit Veganism since March 2007! They're apparently unable to edit this article without causing disruption, thus I've elected to increase the block duration. Swarm ^X 22:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:DustyCoffin reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24h)

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

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

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]. BTW, user knows what edit-warring is; they've been here before.

Comments: This is a rather silly dispute, with the editor inserting (in an FA) unreliably sourced information taken practically verbatim from the source, to argue that their fave band invented grunge. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I can't see any talk page consensus to include that band, as DustyCoffin claimed in their edit summary (diff 3), and the source is in fact improper for an FA. De728631 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, regret to inform but this user's first edit when back from the 24h block was to do the same revert again. I think we need a longer time-out. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocked again, now for 1 week, by Mark Arsten. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:178.36.78.138 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24h)

Page: America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 178.36.78.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 07:48, 3 September 2012

• 1st revert: 08:51, 3 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Photo shoot guide */")
• 2nd revert: 15:32, 3 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Photo shoot guide */")
• 3rd revert: 19:51, 3 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Photo shoot guide */")
• 4th revert: 07:45, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Photo shoot guide */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on editor's talk page:

• 11:32, 3 September 2012
• 15:52, 3 September 2012

Comments:
I was asked to do some work at the America's Next Top Model articles,[48] and when doing so I noticed many instances of MOS non-compliance so I put all articles on my watchlist. Most recently, User:178.36.78.138 made changes, some of which were not compliant with MOS:CAPS and WP:OVERLINK so I cleaned them up.[49] When the IP restored the edits, I again fixed them and left a message on his/her talk page.[50] When they were again restored I asked the IP if there was anything in what I wrote that they did not understand,[51] but I didn't revert at the time - the ANTM articles seem to be plagued with unresponsive IPs and I fully expected any change I made to be reverted, so I just couldn't be bothered getting into an edit war over such a trivial issue. (The changes were later reverted by another editor.[52]) However, the next time the IP restored the changes, I left a warning on the IP's talk page[53] and conducted a more thorough, but still incomplete, cleanup.[54] Despite this, the IP has again partially restored the changes, breaching 3RR in the process. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:2.222.145.203 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: 31h)

Page: Fong Sai-yuk (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.222.145.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.222.145.203&diff=510735232&oldid=510735185 ]

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

Comments:
This user has been at it for months and returns under various IPs, usually editing wrestling and martial arts film articles. Never replies, just changed genres and adds UK dvd info without any citations. I've tried to discuss with them, but they just keep editing this one and many many other articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Discospinster. Swarm ^X 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Brandmeister reported by User:George Spurlin (Result: warning, article protected, one editor blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [59] First instance of the removal of the information from the infobox.

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]
• 5th revert: [64]
• 6th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

Brandmeister keeps removing the motive of the murder from the infobox. George Spurlin (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, if Brandmeister wasn't involved in this case I'd have called him to help us extinguish the fire at this page. The article has been fully protected for 1 week to get this BLP issue settled by discussion. Furthermore I've done the following:
  • Frida1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 24h for edit-warring and vandalism. Preventive block to avoid the editing of related articles by this new SPA. I've also warned Brandmeister and Yerevanci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in this case. De728631 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Collect (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [68]

• 1st revert: [69] 13:54 4 Sep
• 2nd revert: [70] 15:07 4 Sep
• 3rd revert: [71] 15:40 4 Sep
• 4th revert: [72] 19:37 4 Sep
• 5th revert: [73] 20:40 4 Sep

4 of which are basically related, the other one is, nonetheles, a revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74] at 15:44 4 Sep (at the 3RR mark)

My edits took note of the comments of others and added citations, created compromise wording, and contributed to the organization and prioritization of the articles. They were not edit warring or simple "undo" edits. They were explained in Edit Summaries. It is unfortunate to see that they have been mischaracterized as such.SPECIFICO 22:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Response at [75] and at [76] where he seems to misapprehend what edit war is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77] also multiple editors at SPECIFICO's user talk page as well.

Pretty clear 5RR in under 7 hours as far as I can tell. User made the last revert well after a gentle warning (2 other editors also gently warned the user) . Collect (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a "new user" unless new users add userboxes to their userspace at the start, and know the Wikipedia argot. He also made 5 edits in one day as an IP to the Paul Ryan page [78]. He states at [79] that he is this IP editor. Collect (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

My edits took note of the comments of others and added citations, created compromise wording, and contributed to the organization and prioritization of the articles. They were not edit warring or simple "undo" edits. They were explained in Edit Summaries. It is unfortunate to see that they have been mischaracterized as such. Please also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SPECIFICO

I also posted on the Paul Ryan talk page section concerning this section of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Ryan

This user is clearly inexperienced so I think any sort of administrative action would be misguided and a case of WP:BITE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest otherwise - the user uses Wikipedia argot as though he were Athena newly sprung from the head of Zeus <g>. Considering such a person a newbie is mind-boggling. And the person clearly still does not recognize that he violated a bright line rule - after being warned by three editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Should you suspect sockpuppetry then you should be filing an SPI. However, I do not believe this is the case. Intelligent people can easily adapt to Wikipedia norms and practices to an extent that they would be seen as too familiar to be new editors. Until you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary we should operate under the assumption that this is a new editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

--Collect, for your information, my first edit on Wikipedia was made on Aug 11, 2012. In response to messages from another editor, I created the ID as documented at the link you cited. I am surprised and disappointed at the sarcastic, aggressive, and hostile tone of your remarks. They do not appear to reflect the intention of this community to assume good faith and help newcomers such as myself to get up to speed. On a purely personal basis, I must say that your hostility and hairtrigger attack make me wonder whether contributing to this community is a good use of my time.SPECIFICO 01:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that biting the noob is not the right answer. If anything, the article needs to be protected so as to end the ongoing edit wars and get editors to talk to each other. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are SPECIFICO's edits from Sept. 4. Only edits #1 and #2 are consecutive. Three edits from this list are marked 'Undid' and one is marked 'Replaced.' Looks to me that WP:3RR is broken:

1. 03:39, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Consolidate and simplify material on health, fitness, and athletic activities.")
2. 03:42, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 03:50, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Early life and education */")
4. 13:54, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2012 vice presidential campaign */ Added references demonstrating that the assertion of lies and misrepresentations in Rep. Ryan's speech was indeed widespread.")
5. 15:07, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510765188 by Eustress (talk) My revision restored text removed by an editor who claimed no widespread criticism. You should delete some less relevant sources rather than the facts.")
6. 15:40, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2012 vice presidential campaign */ Restored citation to recognized journalist. Replaced vague "drew criticism" with specific statement, qualified to indicate such criticism was not universally accepted.")
7. 19:37, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510789085 by Mforg (talk) Ryan cites his father's death as influencing Ryan's philosophy and policies. Fitness is discussed in the Personal section, but is not critical to Ryan's politics.")
8. 20:40, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510807253 by Mforg (talk)Better solution, remove the grandfather and great grandfather here, since they're cited in Personal section on fitness & didn't directly impact Ryan as father did.")

SPECIFICO has been rapidly editing a lot of the negative statements in the article (for example edits #4, #5 and #6). It's hard to extend good faith to someone who appears so determined to have the article read in the exact way he prefers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternate interpretation: various editors have been whitewashing the article by removing "negative" (read: true) statements and SPECIFICO has been too hasty in reverting them. This speaks of noobishness, not malice. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope - it is "Athena springing forth from the head of Zeus" time. And I am simply astonished at your appearance here. If SPECIFICO is a noob, then I am William Randolph Hearst <g>. Noobs do not appear with userboxes, knowing the argot here, and making multiple reverts with the edit summaries used (heck - most noobs do not even know what a userbox is (and for sure do not use them), or an edit summary, and for sure do not know the argot here). As to your explicit charge of "whitewashing" -- that is absurd, Multiple editors of all stripes concurred on this one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hearst, reports of your death were clearly exaggerated. Some editors try to blend in with the more experienced ones by mimicking their behavior. If you really think it's a sock, go to SPI; don't sully this 3RR discussion with unsupported accusations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone had bothered to look at his edits, they'd see his first was to say that he would now be posting under a username instead of an IP. His immediate previous IP appears to be "24.151.25.89", see this link for those contributions. Looking at the history for Talk:Peter Schiff, it looks like IP previously posted under the IP User:24.151.19.17 where he was warned here for edit warring in mid-August. Those IPs go to the same ISP. So this user has almost certainly been warned about edit warring before. There's no reason not to hold them accountable now. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

--I feel that I should reiterate that my edits repeatedly offered compromise or moderating language which addressed the concerns of those whose words I edited and that many also cleaned up awkward or redundant language, checked citations and did other housekeeping. As to my experience here, Jeez I can barely get a reference to create a proper footnote. That's about the limit of my expertise with the mechanics at this point.SPECIFICO 02:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

--To see the nature of my edits, please read my actual changes, not just that in several instances I began editing by clicking "undo" before working on the text. Thanks.SPECIFICO 02:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Blocked - 31 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:RightCowLeftCoast reported by User:Viriditas (Result: 48h)

Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 17:49, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Response */ reinserted word that was removed when it was moved to this section from the lead")

   Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012

2. 18:16, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "moved content that was previously removed from the lead back into the lead, and merged duplicate content; c/e; added content that meets WP:VER; added subsections, removed tag")

   Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012. Restored "On the lectern used during the speech", from 20:57, 3 September 2012, previously removed at 21:08, 3 September 2012

3. 19:24, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "moved references, added new references; added wikilinks")

   Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012

• Diff of warning: here

—Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Not a violation of 3RR, but clearly evidence of edit warring and disruptive behavior, considering the user has just come off a fresh block for edit warring on this article and engaging in the same, exact behavior. 3RR is not an entitlement to revert a page 3 times. The user has not learned anything from their block last week. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have posted on my talk page, why I did not believe that my edits constituted edit warring, and stated that I will stop editing for the given period of time. As said, the above is not a violation of 3RR, and I would argue that others are edit warring, and are tag teaming my edits in an attempt to make the article unbalanced, and thus un-neutral, even if they do so in good faith of what they believe is what is best for the article. I can leave this article, but to do so is allow it to IMHO devolve into an article that is clearly anti-one candidate, and thus pro-another candidate.

As I have said elsewhere, I understand that due to my attempt to keep the article neutral, and not unbalanced, that my actions are vilified, and as such I have been personally attacked.

Additionally, should verified content be removed, as was done by others?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, addition of the liberal term was in good faith, even if others do not perceive it to be so, as per WP:VER I had added reliable sources to verify that liberal commentators did state XYZ, this of course was reverted by someone else.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it takes two to edit-war. Or perhaps more if there's tag teaming going on. I trust whichever admin decides to look into this, he or she looks into the conduct of all involved edit-warriors. Or perhaps just lock the page until everyone agrees to stop edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted some content that the OP edited back in despite having been rejected at the talkpage here. Are you accusing me of tag-teaming too? I'd really like to know... TMCk (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't bother checking to see who is edit-warring with RightCowLeftCoast because it's obviously impossible to edit-war by yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Note RCLC has not edited the article since the warning, and has said that he would : "stop editing the article until discussions have completed". aprock (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the following: 1, 2. The things that I have gone through in editing contentious articles, even though my balance of edits are not in this field, lead me to want to take a break or quit. Have fun, regards.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your most recent edit warring documented by this report shows a disturbing pattern of sneaky complex reverts buried beneath innocuous edits, as if you were intending to deceive others about your reverts. Your response indicates that you refuse to take any responsibility for your edits. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for continued warring on the same article where he was recently blocked. Three reverts is not an entitlement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Goethean reported by User:RightCowLeftCoast (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Current version

• 1st revert: removing false characterization of the Associated Press as a liberal commentator. second time I've removed this today. please do not use misleading edit summaries to hide your edit warring. thx.
• 2nd revert: undo telling removal of context.
• 3rd revert: AP != liberal

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:You didn't build that#Removed verified content, diff

Comments:
I stand accused of edit waring, rightly or wrongly, yet I believe my edits were in good faith and keeping with WP:VER, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV, even if others disagree. As I have said others have been involved in tag teaming my edits in the article in question, and one in particular has come close to WP:3RR, but has not violated it. Therefore, if I am to be accused of edit warring, others should be brought to light here as well.

I would much rather have the content locked, and that no bans to occur; but if I am to be banned and punished, let it be known that others are not without fault themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Section appears to be in retaliation for Veritidas' section, above. — goethean ॐ 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• No violation Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:2.137.128.27 reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: Page protected)

Page: Windows 8 editions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 2.137.128.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82] (Today)
• 3rd revert: [83] (Today)
• 4th revert: [84] (Today)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 43#Windows 8 editions
• [86]

Comments:

This IP user constantly reverts to reinstate contents that a DRN case ruled as needing heavy sources. He has resorted to using two fake sources that do not verify the issue and the edit summary: "I am not going to allow censorship!" Codename Lisa (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Codename Lisa (talk) do not want this info in wikipedia. I gave two references the first time but Codename Lisa (talk) did not like them. In the last edit I added a Microsoft official reference but he still does not like it. Can we block Codename Lisa (talk) to prevent him censoring wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.149.169 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 3 days. Should the IP editor start edit warring again when protection expires, please re-report. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Earthloves reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Fritz Springmeier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 00:02, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 04:46, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 04:52, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
4. 05:48, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510871563 by Dougweller (talk)")

—Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not a 3RR violation, but clear edit warring so Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Borxdeluxe reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Iron Man 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borxdeluxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

• 1st revert: [88]
• 2nd revert: [89]
• 3rd revert: [90]
• 4th revert: [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Iron Man 3#Gravitons POV/OR changes to the starring list

Comments:

Despite ongoing discussion and a notice that new cast members are to be put in order that they joined the film, the edit war has unfortunately continued with the same POV/OR edits to the cast section and the info box. Also, Graviton 4 has been doing the same thing and was warned by Darkwarriorblake to discuss the issue on the talk page. What is the best way to resolve the situation? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours: unexplained reverts against consensus and refusal to cooperate. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Eptified reported by User:Activism1234 (Result: 24h)

Page: Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eptified (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [93]
• 2nd revert: [94]
• Article is under 1RR/ARBPIA.

Editor is well aware of ABRPIA and 1RR - editor claims on userpage to be an alternate account of Factomancer, after losing password. Factomancer has a long history of being blocked in the area for multiple times of various lengths, and is familiar with the rules.

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 01:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)