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:Nikkimaria reported by Rreagan007 (talk) (Result: Declined)

Page: Ray Farquharson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 04:07, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "image placement")
2. 12:46, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
3. 15:37, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
4. 01:49, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")

Comments: Upon viewing today’s featured article, I was surprised to discover that there was no image in the infobox, as is standard formatting on Wikipedia when a free use image is available per WP:Images. I then added the available free use image to the infobox along with a couple other parameters to the infobox. Upon viewing the article again a few hours later, I discovered the image had been removed. I assumed it was just a routine case of vandalism of today’s featured article as often happens, so I added the image back.

I just now looked at the article again, and I discovered the image had disappeared yet again. I then took a look at the article history, and discovered that Nikkimaria had been reverting any additions to the infobox by me and at least 4 other good faith editors within the last 24 hours. This activity clearly violated the 3 revert rule. I then took a look at her user page and was shocked to discover she is actually an administrator.

Not only that, but it also appears from her edit summaries that she was using Twinkle rollback privileges to do these reverts, which is a clear violation of the Twinkle abuse policy and would be, on its own, grounds for a block.

There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior by an admin, as an admin is expected to know and follow Wikipedia policies, and should be setting an example for other editors to follow. Per Administrator conduct policy, “Administrators are expected to lead by example… Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies”.

An admin blatantly violating Wikipedia policies in this manner is totally unacceptable conduct by an admin and must be dealt with accordingly.

—Rreagan007 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't using Twinkle, all these edits were manual. I was, however, maintaining the quality of a featured article that was then on the main page, which does allow for some leeway under the edit-warring policy. If, in the process of monitoring changes and vandal edits to that article, I stepped over the line, I apologize for that. I invite Rreagan007 to discuss his/her views on image placement on the talk page, where this discussion belongs, and entreat him/her not to engage in such disputes while an article is mainpaged. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. Not the appropriate forum to request review of an administrator's actions or request sanctions. Best would be to work it out in light of Nikkimaria's apology.Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the 3 revert rule doesn't apply to admins. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:StillStanding-247 reported by User:Little green rosetta (Result: No action)

Page: Parents Action League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Only 2 reverts to restore recently disputed content

[1] [2]

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

[3]

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

Comments:

I really did not want to bring this here. I would hope that the editor in question would self-revert and this can be put to bed without admin intervention.

A user added some content which I reverted due to (IMO) being a POV and coatrack edit. User "Still Standing" undid my reversion (thus reinserting the disputed content) insisting we discuss the issue on the talk page. I once again removed the content and joined the talk page so that we could get to the "D" in BRD. I reiterated my concerns about POV and coatrack issues (which from a quick view of the article should be readily apparent) and I'm getting a "I DIDNT HEAR THAT" response. At least one other editor on the TP at least understands my concerns about the coatrack.

This user is (or should be) well familiar with WP:BRD and that its not WP:BRRD. I suggest that he is being intetionally disruptive. I request that he self-revert and he not do this again.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Using a left-wing source (not inappropriate for opinion, but not inherently notable to declare fact or make neutral claims) to make a partisan coatrack assertation is bad enough, but not inherently disruptive - but edit warring over including it instead of discussing it? Still knows better than to edit war, so there is no real excuse for it here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are the recent edits by SillStanding24-7, as formatted by the 3rr.php script:

1. 06:47, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "removing redundant reference; same exact article as the previous ref")
2. 08:58, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "there is no "gay influence"; that's their conspiracy theory and we can't use Wikipedia's voice for it")
3. 09:00, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "cited")
4. 09:00, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "also supported by rolling stone cite")
5. 02:36, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: ""In Michele Bachmann's home district, evangelicals have created an extreme anti-gay climate." - See talk.")
6. 22:59, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: "Talk this over; this is what our sources are commenting on.")
7. 00:10, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted unexplained removal")

In this list, edits 1-4 by StillStanding-247 are consecutive. The above does not show four reverts in 24 hours, though admins will need to decide whether this is a pattern of edit warring. The submitter of this report is complaining about edits #6 and #7 as 'restoring recently disputed content.' The question is whether Michele Bachmann should be named as part of the story of the Parents Action League. I assume that people who don't think well of Bachmann want to add the material. Apparently StillStanding-247 feels that the connection should be asserted in the article. If Mother Jones is the source of the connection, then the opinion comes from a journal unlikely to be neutral in the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for cleaning up my (poor) submission. I think you have the overall gist of the complaint. I would like to point out that I'm not necesarily against linking Bachman to this article, but I objected to the (in my view) POV presentation of the material amongst other things. Per BRD the edit in question should be discussed, not included and then discussed. 3RR has not been crossed, but I feel ISS is demonstrating WP:IDHT to a tee.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Many of these aren't even reverts or are contiguous, or both. 3RR has not been violated.
2. All of my changes are explained in edit comments and on the talk page.
3. LGR shows many reverts in that time scope, and his talk page posts are evasive.

I support protecting the page to force him to state his reasons instead of ducking my questions or edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, don't play the ignorance card - you know full well that you don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. You also know what bold, revert, discuss is, so why not follow it? If you have the superior argument and are following process and policy, you shouldn't have to revert because your idea would be policy-compliant and neutral. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

First, let's not pretend that you're in any way neutral. You side against me consistently, and now you're piling on because this is a false report against me.

Second, I'm going to suggest that any admin reading this ignore us both and see for themselves whether LGR is being evasive. It's all in the talk page that I linked to (including the section at the bottom). I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't side for or against anyone because this isn't a warzone. If I wanted to pretend like I'm in a warzone I'd be playing Call of Duty, not arguing with people I don't know on the internet. Politics isn't my main topic area for that reason - it simply isn't much fun to edit there. When I do comment or edit, I support additions I think are supported by vital policy and it just so happens that many of the additions you support are ones I feel are incorrect. I'm not 'piling on because this is a false nomination' - I noticed the notice on your talk page, examined the evidence, and commented. I haven't endorsed any proposals or anything, I've noted that you know the policy on edit warring and there is no real reason for you to be doing it.

bold, revert, delete does not mean 'revert back to my edit while we discuss', it means 'discuss controversial changes if there are objections through reverts and establish consensus before re-adding it'. Still knows our policies, he isn't ignorant. I urge all admins or reviewing editors to examine the material added and the reverts and compare them to applicable policy, and see the clear disconnect. As long as the solution deals with the issue, I'll support it. Toa Nidhiki05 03:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're a member of WikiProject Conservatism. Consider that before you pretend to be neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pretending to be anything. Toa Nidhiki05 03:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to chime in. So out of curiosity, why are you deploying red herrings to distract from the point of this report against you? What does his being a member of a Wikiproject have to do with this report? Perhaps you can enlighten me? Is it that you are currently planning a RFC against the Wikiproject therefore you are claiming these members have an axe to grind against you? Is that what you're accusing him of? ViriiK (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note This is not an isolated incident. This editor is also violating BRD at a different article [5]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD is essay, not a policy. As it happens, I like BRD and I generally follow it. I do make exceptions, which is allowed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, I have things to do. I very clearly haven't edit-warred. This is a false report and should be closed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. At most three reverts by StillStanding-247 within 24 hours (#5, #6 and #7). StillStanding has been notified under Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log but this is not one of the affected articles. If some editors continue to believe that Michele Bachmann's name should be included in this article I hope they will find better sources to justify the connection. The addition of her name seems to raise WP:BLP issues. EdJohnston (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:203.35.135.174 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

Page: List of social networking websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 203.35.135.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 03:54, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Added new website")
2. 06:25, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "New site")
3. 07:18, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Not a spam")
4. 07:43, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "It's notable")
5. 07:53, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment -- Additionally, editor has repeated recreated articles W3leaf and W3leaf.com after speedy deletion as A7 and G11. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W3leaf.com. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See also:

• Abhi1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123 Connect Safely (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 123 Connect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Safe Social Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Tgeairn (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I would have made it longer except there was no discussion with the IP about their edits. Abhi1028 was already blocked as the creator of the non-W3leaf articles listed above.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Fabyan17 reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Declined)

Page: South China Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fabyan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:
User has been making controversial POV edits without engaging in proper discussion with other editors, and has been mindlessly reverting edits without looking at them, even if they are maintenance edits (such as removing links from the "See Also" section that are already present within the article body per WP:MOS). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any admin reviewing this should also look at WP:ANI#User complaint: Benlisquare - Re: Using derogatory words against editors. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. Please continue any discussion at ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx reported by User:Ronz (Result: 1 month)

Page: Weston A. Price Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sockpuppet ip used by user: 66.41.95.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 01:51, 14 September 2012
• 2nd revert: 19:46, 14 September 2012
• 3rd revert: 21:28, 14 September 2012
• 4th revert: 08:58, 15 September 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mike18xx (after he threatened to continue edit-warring [13] Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Recent_attempts_at_rewriting_and_changing_pov_of_article As to the sockpuppetry, 92.4.165.211 (talk · contribs) pointed it out twice [14] [15], providing this May 2011 diff. The ip is still being used by Mike18xx as seen here followed by this.

Comments:
Note. The accusation that Mike18xx and 66.41.95.121 are the same person seems pretty well-founded to me. My recommendation would be to file a report at WP:SPI to get a determination. The edit-warring is fairly stale. However, another admin may feel more comfortable taking action than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Defense: Oh my goodness gracious! Four reverts in 31 hours...where does the time go? Book him, Dano. Stretch his ass on the rack, then send him to the guillotine.
• In other news from planets in nearby parallel universes otherwise astonishingly similar to the one Ronz is in, Wikipedia editors often do not log in to their named accounts because they dislike (a) logging in every hour, or (b) being logged in for 180hours -- and being logged in is actually unnecessary save for article-creation or when dealing with protected articles.
• ....which reminds me, Ronz' attempt to protect the article was declined.
• In three days of this nonsense, Ronz hasn't found anyone to stick around and help him defend his "critics-soapbox" version of the article; and is now resorting to this more elevated level of "tattling to teacher" after his request for protection was declined.
• He is stubbornly insistent that critics' soapbox sound-bites remain in the second paragraph of the lede of the article, and is unwilling to listen to any reasoning as to why that's a terrible way to write an encyclopedia.
• I though it was very generous of me to retain more critical references than supportive ones, and to not blot out all his references sourced to non-notable militant vegetarian blogs -- which a real hard-ass editor would have nuked. (Hint, hint.)--Mike18xx (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment And in the actual Wikipedia universe where a very dim view is taken of using an IP to tag-team edit-war using your registered account against more than one editor (despite your claims), especially when using incivil edit-summaries, why exactly shouldn't a block be the result? Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Now that Mike has admitted that he and the IP are the same, I would say that the only question is how long the block should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

7 previous blocks? Blocked for 1 month (same time as last major block). Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Acoma Magic reported by User:MrX (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:
I hate to report users, but in this case the user has continued edit warring after being warned and after removing the warning template from his/her talk page. There also seems to be a refusal to accept consensus, as documented on the article talk page.

(I apologize if I made any mistakes in this report as I have never filed one before.)

20:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you don't know that the first and fifth revert you listed aren't reverts. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Some admins would count the first diff as a revert. Even so, you made four after that. User:TParis warned you on your talk page after the fourth diff, telling you that the only reason he didn't block you was because you hadn't reverted again. Then, you went ahead and made a change to the article after that, even though you should well know that undoing other editors' material (which is what you did), even if it is different material, constitutes a revert. I blocked you for 31 hours because of your recent 24-hour block for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Shipofcool reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Not done)

Page: 1960 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shipofcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27] (bundled with some other edits)
• 4th revert: [28]
• 5th revert: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

This dispute spreads beyond this article. The bottom line is that User:Shipofcool has been replacing the historic charts on the "XXXX in film" articles with his own revisionist rankings. The problem though was that these revisionist charts aren't complete, since the box-office data is unavailable for many older films. Impartial comments at [32] were obtained where User:Grapple X commented that If it could be uniformly, and reliably, switched to gross, then I guess that would be alright. After Shipofcool dismissed my concerns (see [33]) I took the dispute to the Film project [34] where User:Gothicfilm commented Clearly the same figures - box-office grosses and theatrical rentals - should be used consistently. Shipofcool does not seem to have listed what his source for grosses on the pre-1990 films would be. If only rental figures are available on the older films, that's what you go with, right?. Shipofcool has continued with his disruptive editing despite the fact no editor has voiced support for his edits, and the two impartial editors only advocated replacing the lists if the data could be uniformly transformed. This has not been the case, with Shipofcool simply removing the films from the chart where he could not source a replacement figure. He clearly isn't acting in accordance with the approach as advocated by the two independent editors. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• This has gone to an RFC now and Ship has started toeing the line. I don't particularly want him blocked during discussions, so I think we can wrap this up and if it starts up again I'll re-file. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As you wish. Not blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeremy112233 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: stale)

Page: Frank Vandersloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
Jeremy112233 is currently engaging in disruptive/contentious editing on the lead in Frank Vandersloot. The article was revised a few days ago (prior to Jermey's first appearance) to indicate that Vandesloot's company Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing (MLM) company. The change was supported by numerous references (more than 20[42]) and by loose editorial consensus after some weak objections had been raised -- the objections were addressed in 3 different forums including the Talk page,[43] and RSN.[44] After that, the article was stable until Jeremy started reverting today (obfuscating the designation as an MLM) and edit warring over the issue. He has removed the basic MLM description of Melaleuca and instead inserted the following statement in the lead -- "Melaleuca is described by some as being a multi-level marketing company[1][2] and described by others as being a direct marketing company.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]" This is problematic on many levels.

First and foremost, the edit is misleading and makes no sense because it describes the company using the vague top-level term "direct marketing company", when in reality, MLM is a sub-type of direct marketing (see multi-level marketing), so Jermey's edit is akin to nonsensically arguing that Bugs Bunny isn't a rabbit because he is a mammal. Obviously, MLM is a more specific and more appropriate term.

Second, Jeremy bypased the Talk page and did not attempt to gain consensus for the reversion, despite the fact that the issue had previously been under active discussion by many editors and a rough consensus in support of the MLM designation had been reached.

Third, the body text of the article doesn't refer to any such nomenclature controversy about "direct marketing" vs "MLM" (the notion has been manufactured by Jeremy and it smacks of WP:OR), nor do any of the sources added, so it has no place being in the lead (see WP:LEAD).

Lastly, the user appeared on the Vandersloot article shortly after having wikistalked me from another article (Protandim) on which we had a brief and minor locking of horns recently after he was blanking text in the article.[45][46]. I am requesting that the editor be blocked and the article reverted to the last stable version prior to Jeremy's edits.[47] Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OWN - and noting that RIR has clearly been more than a "willing participant" in any edit war at this point, including adding clear violations per WP:BLP (using opinion articles as sources to make charges of criminal wrongdoing, of "buying judges" etc.). WP:BOOMERANG obviously applies here. Collect (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you've been forum shopping hoping to get the answer you wanted but it didn't happen. Every un-involved editor that weighed in on this question after you posted it to Talk[48] and RSN[49] disagreed with you. You have no grounds for that WP:OWN red herring. Your comment above has no bearing on this particular case of 3RR. I've been following protocol. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The edit history of that article is exceedingly clear. Your personal attack is, moreover, a tad unlikely to impress anyone. The noticeboard here is to try to prevent edit war, not to work in favour of one edit warrior who reports another - the goal is to have no such battleground mentality about articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I might ask to clarify what you meant by personal attack ("forum shopping" was a simple statement of fact), but that question, like your comment above, would have no place in a 3RR report. Since you are an involved party,[50] your comment does not appear to be at all constructive but rather is carrying over warrior behavior onto the very page that is designed to prevent it. If you have nothing salient to add, saying nothing is never a bad idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has popped up on my radar several times recently, so I finally took a look at it. In addition to the very obvious 3RR violation, Jeremy's text is also WP:NPOV; it uses the word “accused” in reference to the MLM claim, which is very obviously not neutral—and as such, RIR is correct to remove it per WP:BLP. But in any case, Jeremy crossed what is widely said to be the bright line. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  22:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. It's been more than a day since either party made any edits to this article. Had I seen this report earlier I would have blocked both, or protected the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Final3211 reported by User:Semitransgenic (Result: 72h)

Page: Terence McKenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Final3211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]

• 5th revert: [55]

• 6th revert: [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:
User in question added content that was not properly sourced or formatted, which I reverted [59], said user persisted in reverting, so I then attempted to appease the editor by wikifying the material - keeping some of the barely usable cites. Unfortunately the editor again reverted, preferring instead to ignore my advice concerning the consultation of WP:MOS & WP:RS guidelines. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rules are to be observed not blindly but with a sense of purpose, which you sadly lack. All of your attempts to edit or format the article render it illegible.—Final3211 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours. Final3211 seems to be an account that was created on 15 September to edit war on this article. I've also blocked God the Son one week as a probable sock and have put semiprotection on the article to slow the success rate of any new socks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Old-timer0 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Warned)

Page: Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Old-timer0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [60] - clearly establishing his anti-science POV-pushing
• 2nd revert: [61] - dishonestly trying to hide the edit as a minor edit
• 3rd revert: [62] - his claims that the use of the word "evolutionary" is OR is bunkum
• 4th revert: [63] - Not even discussing things.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] - To which Old-timer0 responded by threatening to continue the edit war until he has his way.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65] and [66], with an attempt at discussion on his talk page.

Comments:
I am aware that the 4th revert is not within the same 24 hour period, but edit warring is not simply 3rr but continually making an edit against consensus without discussion. He is repeating an edit against consensus with a WP:FRINGE agenda, and refuses to discuss the matter except threatening to continue the edit war until he has his way. He is edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: Warned. Report again if he continues to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Badud reported by User:Piotrus (Result: Indef)

Page: Battle of Klushino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Badud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

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

Update: Also, 5th and 6th: [72], [73]

• 7th revert: [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this new editor has not been warned yet. A warning will be a sufficient outcome this time, no need for a block (it's a first time violation anyway).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle_of_Klushino#reverted_GD_edits_by_Badud, I used informative edit summaries and also tried engaging him on his talk (User talk:Badud) Comments:
This new editor is adding unreferenced information, and refuses to discuss his additions. In the past 24h he has readded the information four times at the Klushino page, he is also doing the same at the battle of Jordanow. I tried engaging him in conversation with no result. Others are just reverting him, he needs to stop and realize this is a collaborative project. I hope that a warning from an admin will make him realize that. PS. See also the report immediately below mine (same topic). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• He has just created his user page, not a good sign really. Welcome everybody , except Russians and their fanboys. I do not talk with commies,bolsheviks and leftists, sorry. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potentially_offensive_userpage_declaration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked - Indef by User:Floquenbeam, per the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Badud reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: duplicate)

Page: Battle of Klushino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Badud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User ignores notices in article and user talk pages, just reverts non-stop. See article history. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note – user is already reported and being discussed in another section here. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Joekiddlouischama reported by User:Malley10 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: [76]
• 2nd revert: [77]
• 3rd revert: [78]
• 4th revert: [79]

Warning posted on talk page: [80]

Attempted to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:
User has removed entire paragraphs of sourced content and replaced them with rubbish. This has happened five times. User has ignored request to stop.

Malley10 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I don't see any further disruption since Joekiddlouischama received the 3RR warning. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:122.163.195.135 reported by User:Titodutta (Result: Range blocked)

Page: Paoli Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎122.163.195.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user (his IP address changes every now and then) is adding this portion in the article Paoli Dam and Mushrooms (film) continuously, which is badly sourced, contains camel case, wrong formatting and most importantly this portion is written in hysterical tone and cheap gossip. Firstly I did not make any changes and posted in help desk and article's talk page for help. In article's talk page it was decided to summarize the portion with reliable sources and without hysterical tone. In between an admin User:Lectonar stepped in and protected the article twice. I tried to get help from the admin here and also here. In the second help request the admin has mentioned he (i/wa)s busy at that time so can not spend time here. I have talked with few more users like User:Maproom (who saw my request in help desk), User:Dwaipayanc (who is the creator of the article Mushrooms (film) and few more users. That's the situation for now. --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked the range 122.163.192.0/21 (2048 addresses) for 24 hours. If the problem persists after the block expires, you may want to request semi-protection of the affected articles at WP:RFPP instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Angkorangel reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to: [82]

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• Plus seven more reverts, essentially their entire editing history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report, but a general edit-warring report. Angkorangel is a single-purpose account that has been continuously inserting an individual on the Maitreya article, even though there are no sources that would warrant a mention of this person in the article. Their only edits to Wikipedia have been to edit war in this way. - SudoGhost 06:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No sources, link spam, and the only substantial mention of him is various Buddhist sites mocking him as a poser. Though, to be fair, everyone on that particular list is a poser. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  07:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite as a promotion-only account. De728631 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

IP:88.253.207.68 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24h)

Page: Mesut Özil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP:88.253.207.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]
• 5th revert: [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Long talk there. Left comments and talk pointing editor to the talk page.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:SSZvH7N5n8 reported by User:Bilby (Result: 24h)

Page: Animal rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SSZvH7N5n8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

• 1st revert: [96]
• 2nd revert: [97]
• 3rd revert: [98]
• 4th revert: [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments: The problem is edit warring to insert a copyright violation, even though this has been explained to the user ([102], [103] and talk page discussion). The editor is aware of the problems with 3RR, having warned me about it. - Bilby (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and copyright infringements. I have suggested to quote the whole original sentence from the source which would resolve the issue. De728631 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)