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:Bbb23 reported by User:Strangesad (Result: WP:BOOMERANG)

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposing indef block for Strangesad. 'Nuf said. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Bbb23 edit-warring or not? Apply the rules equally, not preferentially. Thanks. Strangesad (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Bbb23 is not edit-warring, Bbb23 is trying their best to deal with an exceptionally disruptive user who is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of picking fights.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, is calling the result BOOMERANG an impartial act? Is it edit-warring or not? Apply the rules equally for all. If I did what Bbb23 did, I would be blocked. Why isn't this a double-standard? Strangesad (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not edit-warring. An administrator is allowed to close a section if they feel the issue has been resolved or does not require further discussion. Users should not revert administrators unless they have excellent rationale, and they should definitely not revert multiple times. In this context, Bbb23 is completely in the right. m.o.p 20:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

He was directly invovled in the debate, had taken sides, and made disparaging comments about my worth as an editor. In that context, and admin should not be acting in ways available only to admins. Strangesad (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

These are allegations you raise before you edit-war with the admin, not after. m.o.p 20:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I did, on my Talk page, linked above. He ignored them and reverted. Edit warring. He also deleted my comment from the discussion [7]. Strangesad (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Move to close per WP:CDS. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to review, according to the rules. Admins are not exempt from the rules. In fact, admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard. "BOOMERANG" is not the result of an investigation into whether Bbb23's behavior met the definition of edit warring. Regardless of whether the proposal on AN to block me goes anywhere (looks dead in the water, to me), the report of edit-warring by an editor--admin or not--should be treated equally and objectively. Strangesad (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Move denied. --Malerooster (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And it appears rightly so. Let me just note here that based on this statement Arbcom looked at the technical evidence, and decided to leave it as is. Case closed. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Moral support for Bbb23 based on his proven judgement, and consensus support by multiple editors, including myself. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gruesome Foursome reported by User:The C of E (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Mid Ulster by-election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gruesome Foursome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments: Gruesome Foursome has just returned from a block for violating 3rr on this page. He has since returned and continued in the same vein of ignoring consensus while also making accusations of lying that are unfounded. Similar actions have happened on the Manor of Northstead page too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear 3RR, was warned and prior recent block for same. Kuru (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Venus fzy reported by User:Eyesnore (Result: Warned; user agreed to conditions)

Page: Šar Mountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Venus fzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Comments: Changing non-ASCII characters with ASCII ones to be typed. Eyesnore (PC) 23:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Venus has violated WP:3RR. However, they have not reverted after being warned. In addition, there's been no attempt to discuss the issue with them except through edit summaries, which is not sufficient. Finally, they are a fairly new account. For those reasons, I have left a note on their talk page saying I would not block them if they agreed to leave the article alone for 7 days. This report can remain open to see how they respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sthubbar reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29], dicsussion also taking place here [30]

Comments:
This user has removed this 2009 Cochrane review 5 times now without consensus to do so. The one other editor who weighed in and reverted the person in question once disagreed with its removal as stated here [31]. The user in question has not gained consensus for the changes in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how these administrative procedures wotk, but somebody ban Doc James for 24 hours from editing the osteoarthritis page. He has submitted 5 reverts in 24 hours and nothing from the 3 reverts rule has happend.

I have completely followed the rules. I made 3 reverts, not the 4 that he falsely claims, and after my 3rd revert I opened a discussion on the WP:Medicine talk page. A version was reverted by an independent person and I accepted that and continued editing from there.

I am completely following the procedures and Doc James is just plain making mistakes and lying.Sthubbar (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sthubbar. Depending on exactly how we count your reverts, you've made either six or seven reverts at Osteoarthritis within 24 hours starting at 13:07 on April 7. Jmh649 seems to have made three reverts. I recommend that you agree to stop editing this article until consensus is reached on the talk page. If not, your account may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This user asked for a ref in this edit [32] while deleting the content in question yet deleted the ref in the edit right before it.[33] The ref in question was a 2010 review article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I obviously don't understand how Wikipedia arithmetic works. My 3 reverts gets turned into 4, then 6 or seven and Doc James' 6 reverts is 3. I guess because you are counting every time I remove these negative treatments as a revert.Sthubbar (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report Sthubbar myself for edit-warring at Osteoarthritis. In each of the following reverts, Sthubbar removed at least two good-quality sources, PMID 17437317 PMID 17438317 fixed typo Zad68 13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC) and PMID 19821296:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

but I see Doc James has a more complete report than this. Already warned as above. Zad68 04:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

198.84.241.55 reported by User:Fishbert (Result: )

Page: American Collegiate Hockey Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.84.241.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: WP:3RR-violating edit compared with version immediately preceding the 4 violating edits
Previous version reverted to: WP:3RR-violating edit compared with version from December 19, 2012 (see line 461/470 and 518/506 ... this has been going on for a while)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First
2. Second
3. Third
4. Fourth

The above are the user's reverts that violate WP:3RR.
User has continually pressed similar edits since December of last year, and has been reverted by at least 3 different editors in that time; TheOriginalSoni, Bhockey10, and myself.

After the user's 3rd revert within 24 hours, I warned him of the 3RR policy on his talk page. He has since deleted this warning.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning on the user's talk page

There has been an abundance of attempts at civil discussion with this individual on the article talk page (from myself and others), but it has been largely without progress.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most recent version of article Talk page at the time of this writing ... see "Notable players section", "Creating a page standard inclusion/exclusion criteria for "notable players in professional leagues" section", and "Blind Editing". The section "This page should be deleted" may also be of interest, though not directly related to this complaint.

Also see attempts to resolve the dispute on the following user talk pages: TheOriginalSoni, 198.84.241.55, and Bhockey10.

Comments:
The article talk page, edit history comments, and interactions on user talk pages would appear to indicate this individual is a disruptive editor (tendentious, not engaging in consensus-building, and rejecting or ignoring community input) who goes through the motions of community discussion in an overtly anti-social and dismissive manner while continuing to press his views by removing content again and again over the objections of others. The user is also quite combative, accusing another editor (Bhockey10) of edit warring by reverting his disruptive edits, marking the entire article as a candidate for deletion, accusing editors who revert him of being a sock-puppets, accusing editors who revert him of being the people mentioned in the content he deletes, and directing personal attacks at others ("Are you really in university? The fate of this nation is in trouble if you are the future." on TheOriginalSoni's user talk page [as linked above] comes to mind).

In pushing his edits, this user frequently refers to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability; it has been pointed to the user (by multiple editors, myself included) that he often attempts to apply Wikipedia policy without fully understanding it. I don't claim to be an expert, myself, but when it has been pointed out that the policy he holds up to justify page content removal explicitly states "this policy does not apply to page or list content" (see the article talk page and dispute resolution attempts on user talk pages [as linked above]), the disruptive user has remained undeterred in aggressively attempting to apply it anyway.

I have not submitted anything to the noticeboard before, so I don't know if it is proper for me to put forward a desired outcome, but I would like to request a temporary block of 198.84.241.55 from editing the article in question. This being a low-traffic article and this dispute going on for about 4 months now, I'm not sure that the standard 24-hour block would suffice. I don't want to claim the user may not have valuable things to contribute to the page, but at this time he does not appear to work well with others and attempting to communicate with this individual to encourage him to participate in good-faith with the community on the talk page instead of continually pressing disruptive edits has been a fruitless and time-consuming waste.

Other Comments:
I will admit that my own interactions with this user have grown somewhat terse rather quickly. I may not always be the best at not biting the new users, but TheOriginalSoni and Bhockey10 have both shown a remarkable abundance of patience with this individual in the past (to no avail, and sometimes resulting in personal attacks).

This is a low-traffic article, and finding myself alone in dealing with this individual's more recent disruptive edits (continuing to revert, per dealing with disruptive editors guidelines), I had reached out to another editor (Bhockey10) by way of his talk page to ask for some support (here). I did this because he was familiar with this individual's behavior and because he is a long-time member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey / College Ice Hockey task force. I understand this was a mistake on my part, and have since removed my direct request for support from user Bhockey10's talk page (here). I had not received any reply from Bhockey10, nor has he been involved in the matter since (at the time of this writing, anyway).
Note: 198.84.241.55 seems to want to revert the removal of my improper request on Bhockey10's talk page in an attempt to bolster his claims that I am a sock-puppet account. His claims of sock-puppetry pre-date my improper request for assistance from Bhockey10 on April 8th (see edit comment in this diff). I don't believe he has submitted any actual report, though he does keep tagging our user talk pages with a "suspected sock puppet" tag that sock puppet guidelines say is only supposed to be used on blocked accounts. Needless to say, I am not a sock-puppet of Bhockey10 (or anyone else).

There was modest improvement back in December to the content in question (a list of "notable players in professional leagues") made by Bhockey10 in his/her dealings with this individual at that time (diff where Bhockey10 trimmed the content in question, based on the disruptive editor's content-removal "feedback"). But this had not stopped user 198.84.241.55 from continuing to press his views with disruptive edits. Indeed, user 198.84.241.55 appears to occasionally claim this modest improvement (again, made by Bhockey10) constitutes a civil agreement on what he is pushing (see article talk page and user talk pages [as linked to previously])... despite the accusations of edit warring directed toward Bhockey10 (and of sock-puppetry directed toward me) have come months after this change to the content was made. There obviously has been no agreement struck to support his continued content removals, despite his occasional claims.

The 3RR warning I gave to 198.84.241.55 on his talk page is not the only one he has received in the past few hours. Novaseminary also gave him a 3RR warning regarding Online counseling (here). I don't know anything about the dispute on Online counseling, nor the merit of that particular 3RR warning.

I have notified 198.84.241.55 of this report on his user talk page.
Fishbert (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

After submitting the above report, I ran across this prior conversation (mediation attempt?) on an administrator's talk page. I feel it may provide additional context to the dispute and may be of interest/use in the resolution of this report.

Fishbert (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This IP has engaged in edit war like behavior at Online_counseling without engaging in constructive discussion. The IP has not explained its 3RR violation on the hockey article here, despite deleting the notice the nominator posted. It seems pretty clear cut to me as nominated (and might get there soon on Online_counseling soon, too). Novaseminary (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Another violation

The IP has now violated 3RR on Online counseling (1st; 2nd; 3rd; 4th; warning, and attempt to discuss (and my promise not to violate 3RR despite IP already having done so). Novaseminary (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Hearfourmewesique reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Hearfourmewesique blocked 3 weeks )

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

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Prior discussion on H's talk page [40], similar discussion on article talk page [41]

Comments: User:Hearfourmewesique insists that his opinion of the comedian's typical character ("off-color" or "feral" "foreigner" be inserted into the article lede, and claims it shouldn't be removed because he can quote an obscure interviewer in support. At least two editors have removed it, and a third supports removal on the talk page; no editors support User:Hearfourmewesique. Because this is a BLP, I was willing to push up to the 3RR limit, but it's not a clear enough violation to justify breaking the limit. User:Hearfourmewesique cites WP:DEMOCRACY for the principle that one editor's opinion trumps a greater number's, which is ridiculous. User:Hearfourmewesique has at least four prior blocks for edit warring, plus an AE block that may be related [42]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked - Three weeks, by User:Toddst1. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Borvo (Result: Warning to Borvo)

Page in dispute: User talk:WWGB (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WWGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments: WWGB doesn't want to react to anything I write him, he is constantly removing my talk, including two 3RR-warnings (one using template, other just text). --Borvo (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply

It seems that Borvo fails to understand WP:UP#CMT which I have continued to cite in my edit comments. WWGB (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I quote the same page: Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule.--Borvo (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Borvo, editors are allowed to remove whatever they like from their talkpage. On the other hand you are now at 5 reverts (at least) on the Margaret Thatcher[50][51][52][53][54] Consider this your final warning that any more reverts from you will result in a block. Slp1 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Borvo has been notified for 3RR and edited after the warning. I have reported Borvo for disruptive editing at WP:AIV, but this location is the correct place. Widefox; talk 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Borvo hasn't edited the Thatcher article after your warning or mine, so that's a good sign that a block is not required at this point. On the other hand, posting a 3RR complaint about an editor deleting 3RR notices from their own talkpage while simultanously breaking 3RR themselves on that user's talkpage and even worse on an article, and also deleting a 3RR notice left on their own talkpage, does suggest that Borvo needs to slow down a fair bit if s/he is to avoid trouble in future. Slp1 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:R. fiend reported by User:Alansohn (Result: )

Page: White Horse, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R. fiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]
5. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:

User:R. fiend has advocated that any material regarding White Horse Circle cannot exist in Wikipedia based on the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle, a discussion that took place eight years ago. As I have pointed out to R. fiend, Wikipedia policy allows for merging content from deleted articles into other articles and creating redirects. R. fiend has repeatedly deleted content from the article for White Horse, New Jersey even after the material was repeatedly expanded and additional sources were provided. He has also marked the redirect at White Horse Circle for speedy deletion, even after the deletion was challenged with an appropriate explanation. Other edits made by User:R. fiend include such pointy edits as "The only notable aspect of White Horse is a rotary" at White Horse Circle and "Flemington is also home to Allen St., which runs north-south, starting at North Main St. and ending at Court St. in the south." at Flemington, New Jersey. I have attempted to explain my position based on the use of sources, but User:R. fiend has threatened to continue edit warring (see here for "In the meantime, as I pointed out, we have a clear consensus that states, to paraphrase 'fuck that shit'. So don't be surprised if I remove it again.") and followed through on his threat. Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:141.136.243.34 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 31 hours )

Page: Kid President (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 141.136.243.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66]
• 4rd revert: [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

See also

141.136.240.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 7-Apr-2013

141.136.240.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 31 hours 6-Apr-2013

141.136.248.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 5-Apr-2013

141.138.38.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 4-Apr-2013

141.136.222.121 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Comments:

DVdm (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GOOD— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.243.34 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for editwarring poorly sourced, disruptive material into a BLP. Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 reported by User:32cllou (Result: No violation)

Page: Breast cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

It's not just the warring but the deletion of most recent cochrane collaboration work (and elaboration by the Nordic branch of the Collaboration) on mammography, unscholarly order of research (old stuff last!!?), change in true meaning, and writing that is not supported by the reviews. I'm sorry, this AN3 is unfortunate and my first report. I hope I've done it correctly. Thank You.32cllou (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is a malformed attempt to report user:Jmh649, who is an admin, an M.D., and generally the most active maintainer we have of medical articles. The list above shows only three reverts, and they are spread across three days. My advice to the reporting editor is that it would be more productive to make a serious effort to reach consensus. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Commment I'm fairly new at writing in wikipedia. Why is the report "malformed"? (because there are 3 not 4 effective reverts?) M.D. may suggest financial interest in promoting mammography (he's a "preventative" guy). His text was not supported by the reference, he used a bad link, and he's using the wrong order of research reviews. I've looked into how admins are elected, and found it liable to promote bias [[75]] it is as they say "cult like"!!!. PS you might be interested to know that mammography is not recommended at any age? I bet there are many users of wikipedia who look for the most recent high quality reviews. Currently buried and weakened by Jmh. I will take the issue to the dispute page.32cllou (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• So it sounds like you are withdrawing this report? It's malformed because most of the templates aren't filled in, look at the templates at the top of this report and compare it to all the others on this page. You should also read the Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) at the very top of this page. As Looie pointed out, this report doesn't support a 3RR violation. Zad68 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I repaired the formatting of this report, so one of the above comments may not make sense any more. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Soham321 reported by User:Neelkamala (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Markandey Katju (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soham321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]

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

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

Comments:
Soham321 is hostile towards other wiki editors and continues to edit war even after attempts to reach out make him understand BLP policies.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The final revert was outside of 24 hours, but this was not. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:MarkusGuni reported by User:A1candidate (Result: Both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: a

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:Newly created account with high level of edit-warring behaviour

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Chestnut1204 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Indef)

Page: Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chestnut1204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Byzantine Empire#Use/mention mismatch in title, again

Comments:

Note the personal attacks in the edit summaries of the first and last reverts: "Go live under a rock, you brainwashed loser." "undid undo from some brainwashed fool who probably believes the Holocaust never happened." DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note also that Chestnut1204 is obviously a sock/reincarnation of earlier TeleGamer (talk · contribs), who showed the same aggressive agenda behaviour on several articles a couple of months ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And it's a single-purpose account. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

An indef block should be considered, per Future Perfect's observation (above). Someone who bursts onto the scene (March 6) with guns blazing and leaves a lot of insults in edit summaries certainly fits with the traditional image of a POV-pushing sock. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

He's still edit-warring as we speak. Can we please have some action here now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - Indef as a sock of TeleGamer. The editor continued his revert war at Byzantine Empire since my final warning, with no response here. He can't be bothered to participate on talk pages and he won't answer when he is told that an indef is being considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Adam Cuerden (Result: Declined)

Page: Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549319049&oldid=549318852
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549319872&oldid=549319826
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549325272&oldid=549325065
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549325988&oldid=549325798
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549400667&oldid=549400352

This ignores things that are technically reverts, but so uncontroversial as to not be worth considering, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549378223&oldid=549377955 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549389741&oldid=549388721 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549389741&oldid=549388721

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalleus_Fatuorum&diff=549408569&oldid=549389356

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Malleus has thrown himself into several disputes today, but I've at least tried to deal with mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Margaret_Thatcher#celebrations_of_her_death_in_the_UK:_Widely_reported._Highly_unusual._Why_aren.27t_they_even_mentioned.3F

Comments:
Talk shows a strong consensus against the material advocated by AC being included at this time; that being said, given that this is a highly prominent individual who just died, a short period of protection (full or semi) might be useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See also and WP:BDP. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Involved admin). By well-established practice, we give a lot of leeway to editors on articles that are high profile, such as a very high profile politician very recently deceased and currently the top item on "In The News" on the Main Page. Malleus is clearly not edit-warring, but engaging in the BRD process, just on several different fronts. It is important that this practice be retained because editors need to be able to maintain high-profile articles against the tide of drive-by edits which are both a wonderful part of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and an utter pain to editors who have put a great deal of time into writing and structuring the article. The common sense approach would be to dismiss the complaint against Malleus, or at most caution him against continuing to revert Adam Cuerden.

  Additionally, this is clearly a bad-faith complaint by Adam Cuerden, who has been advocating the inclusion of disputed material. In spite of the consensus on the talk page (permalink), and in defiance of the BRD process (to which Malleus has worked hard to adhere), Adam re-added a {{POV-section}} tag when he didn't get his own way. This complaint is clearly an attempt to take revenge on Malleus, and Adam should be cautioned for coming here with unclean hands. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

May I point out your reversal of the tag claimed it was a drive-by tagging and that I should discuss on the talk page - when I had opened a hread within minutes of tagging? You reverted the tag with an obviously incorrect reason, so I restored it.

It seems far more bad faith to remove a tag with an edit summary that shows that you are obviously mistaken about the supposedly drive-by nature of the tag, and to complain that the tag was readded, then to re-add a tag, apparently removed in error, when intervening edits had removed what small amount of criticism there was, making the problem far worse. I further see absolutely no good done by having a talk page section, where a few users have said they agree that there's a problem, but censoring the tag directing people to join the discussion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of what happened, Adam, and I think you know it. Whether you're doing it to cover your arse or because you seriously think Malleus will be sanctioned, I don't know, but if we're going to have a conversation, let's have it based on the facts as they are, not as we'd like them to be. I removed the tag because one editor's opinion that something is biased does not make it so, and you can't just slap a tag like that on a GA that's currently at the top of the Main Page. Common sense ought to tell you that the tag was never going to last, and it certainly appeared "drive by" in that you didn't even give an edit summary. But motive aside, you were bold, I reverted; the correct thing would be for the two of us to have it out on the talk page (where the consensus, albeit not unanimous) was against your edit. Re-adding the tag because you didn't get your way, after you'd already been reverted, was clearly in bad faith, and claiming that my revert was mistaken is disingenuous—you could have engaged me on my talk page or the article talk page (where I was active at the time) at any time but chose not to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"18:37, 8 April 2013‎ HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,601 bytes) (-114)‎ . . (Undid revision 549369175 by Adam Cuerden (talk) please don't drive-by tag; if you thinks something needs changing, take it to the talk page) (undo)" [87] Further, my comment to the talk page was posted at 18:29, 8 minutes before you claimed there was nothing on the talk page int hat edit summary. [88]. Please use facts. If you genuinely thought what you claim to above, you didn't say so at the time anywhere. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Further, there was no consensus at the time, as you claim - check the thread and the time of your reversion. There had only been one, or at most two, comments.

Finally, I think it's clear the consensus is at least ambiguous now, so that including the POV tag appears clear.

Wait, is this one of those stupid things where HJ Mitchell thinks I have views I don't? I'm at best ambiguous about the mentioning of Cameron coming home. I just noticed Malleus seemed to be making a lot of reverts, when I looked at the history to see who removed the tag - undos do show up, you know, and decided to check them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Nikkimaria. Since Thatcher's death is a big deal and there will be people who try to push one point or another, it is better to IAR than to hand out blocks. (The page is already Semi-Protected) --Guerillero | My Talk 23:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've been observing the article today but not editing directly. I would agree with Nikkimaria, HJ and Guerillero. I think what Malleus is doing has been helpful. This is consistent with other high profile news concerns, where it is better to add less than more, and work closely with the consensus on the article talk page, as he has done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Declined For all the reasons said above. Malleus is not aggressively edit warring and his contributions today have been useful; to block him for this would miss the point of WP:3RR, which is to prevent edit wars, not prevent users from improving an article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Although not precisely on point, "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." (WP:3RRNO).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Here, here...I second that given all considerations.--MONGO 02:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• For those interested, as a result of this discussion, I requested a somewhat related modification to 3RR here. Ryan Vesey 01:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Downtownvanman reported by User:Skookum1 (Result: Declined due to lack of warning)

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

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:

• Other than at Talk:Adrian Dix "discussion" (accusations and response) have been made on my talkpage and also on WP:CANTALK where the SPA's goal of having me banned from Wikipedia is clearly stated.

• the last diff provided is for an IP address that's been doing the same re-insertion and biased writing; the SPA appeared only once that IP user had reached 3RR....other IP users have attempted this material in the past (which has been reported to the BLP Noticeboard); I invite you to review the article's history for more of the same.Skookum1 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Update The SPA Downtownvanman has reverted the same material again, with an edit comment claiming my re-deletion is "pro-NDP", and on the BLP board, and in edit comments, accused me of being NDP while claiming to be neutral himself. I have no party affiliation; Admins familiar with me may remember that I was a founding member of the Green Party of BC and of Canada, though am no longer. My interest in this matter is to prevent BC Liberal (NB different than federal Liberal, which is why I make a point of using "BC") talking points and attack ads being used as a the basis for sections of content; to me, the matter is WP:UNDUE anyway, it's a molehill being made into a mountain so as to divert attention from the real good mountains; with a sign on it saying "this is important, if you don't think it isn't, then you must be POV". At this point this is now 4RR definitely, though whether the IP address of similar "attack edits" as are being made against Dix here rehgularly, is the same, only an admin with CHECKUSER can know for sure. AT this point the invective against me is ramping up, and the user's familiarity with me in political news/forum spaces (where I'm considerably more fanged and clawed than around here) is very evidently the reason he is wanting to have me banned.....this whole incident may in fact be part of a "shut up that Skookum1 guy" agenda, and not really about Dix's backdated memo at all......all I've asked for is a protect or semi-protect to end the silliness and so that real editors can work on the article without "neutral" IP users and SPAs constantly re-inserting attack-ad material while claiming neutrality......Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Skookum1 has reported me but has failed to notify me as outlined at the top of the page.

Please "CHECKUSER" on me and see I have done minimal to no edits and am 1 person. It took me 10 minuted of searching the internet to find how pro-NDP Skookum1 is through his postings on various websites, blogs and new articles over the past few years. He is egotistical if he thinks there is an "agenda" to ban him. I am new here but I believe he needs to be banned based on his unbiased edits that have taken place for many years. Unlike Skookum1 I am a person with no direct or indirect political affiliation (I have not voted in the last few BC elections, neither myself, any of my family members or anyone I have come in social contact with in the past few YEARS are members of any BC political party). Skookum1's access and ability to continually amend the Adrian Dix page with a pro-NDP tone is concerning as Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. (Downtownvanman (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

• I'm going to decline a block at this point; there's a clear issue with edit-warring, but Downtownvanman (talk · contribs) has not reverted since being notified of the 3-revert rule on his talkpage (the 3RR warning in an edit summary isn't sufficient for a new user). If he reverts again, having now been warned, let me know and I'll reconsider a block without going through this formal noticeboard process again. In the meantime, I'm going to semi-protect Adrian Dix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) given BLP and other concerns. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment since your decision another SPA has emerged and attacked me, including outing, it's probably another sock from the same individual; must not have been an IP block, or they just changed IPs/computers. This has included created a fake category to do with this Category:Adrian Dix WikiWars where the SPA also outed me in a "category description", same as on User:Sunciviclee's page (who wants to contact you and me directly, why I don't know but he doesn't seem hostile). The new SPA is User:Srob88; that account was created today (April 9).Skookum1 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago1432 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 24 hours)

Page: OMICS Publishing Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chicago1432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]
5. [100] another one, subsequent to this report being filed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Comments: Sock-fest underway at this article, and an SPI report has been filed but there's a big backlog. In the meantime, a clear 3RR violation above, where #1 in the list is a revert by virtue of reversing this one.
—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring; sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry seems highly likely based on behavioral evidence, but since there's an open SPI I will await that adjudication before considering an indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:LexBlog reported by User:Theworm777 (Result: Declined)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: edit warring

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]

• Declined. The editor is new. They haven't violated WP:3RR (they've made 3 reverts). You warned them after they reverted 3x, but they didn't revert after that, so I'm not quite sure why you then opened this report. Although they haven't participated in the discussion on the talk page, they did post a polite message on your talk page that indiates to me that they are (1) unfamiliar with our rules and (2) not attempting to be disruptive per se. As an aside, I don't see any source for the 2010 conviction at the end of the section at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:78.150.28.18 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Both blocked)

Page: KT Tunstall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.150.28.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]
4. [112]
5. [113]
6. [114]
7. [115]
8. [116]
9. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118], [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See user talk page for discussion.DVdm (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Please also have a look at Annie Lennox, and its recent history. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and also my conversation with the user on the talk page. Evident of a sockpuppet, and from what I've saw this has been going on for days (maybe even a week). I reckon a few days ought to do it? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have requested at the talkpage that all users stop the edit-war since this is running at approx. 8RR and it is not exempted from 3RR rules. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I too have requested a stop, but the user has chosen to ignore Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are way over yourself. Don't forget this is not exempted from 3RR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see that, and in no way am I involved in the edit war, simply trying to stop a sockpuppet, its why I have tried to get the user blocked. Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is a certified sock you should specify so in the edit summary, also specifying the master. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This report is technically invalid in the case the IP is not a sock, because the IP never got a formal 3RR warning before. If the IP is a sock or continues to edit-war they can be blocked. I just left a 3RR warning on their talk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The user has been involved in the same edit war for over a week now. Their is a first for everything. I am not edit-warring, I'm simply here to sort the problem out! There has not been an issue before on these pages with nationality - why now? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If this IP is not a sock, then you cannot revert them because you are well over the 3RR limit and you reverted again making 9 or so reverts at the moment on your part. The problem is there is no concrete evidence the IP is a sock. And you don't sort problems involving edit-warring by doing more reverts especially after other editors made remarks about stopping the edit-war. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I locked the article for three days. @Uh oh, you (and the IP) are fortunate you weren't both blocked. Dr. K.'s comments about your conduct are well-taken. I hope you learn from them as your last comment that you were not edit warring doesn't make it sound as if you have. If I see behavior like this after the lock expires, you and/or the IP may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I acted too soon without realizing that a similar edit war between the same two editors was going on at Annie Lennox. That was just too much for me. I have therefore blocked both editors and unprotected KT Tunstall as unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Applesandapples reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page: International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Applesandapples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [120]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]

Comments:
Article is under a 1RR restriction per WP:ARBIPA Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I also wish to point out the not so subtle POV push in the edit[125] along with the source misrepresentation. The first source used did not mention any NGO's or governments criticizing the ICT, nor does the other one just added. Which is what that edit is inferring. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Dreadstar reported by User:Fladrif (Result: None)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dreadstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [126]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

Comments:

Dreadstar editwarring to prevent a transclusion of a blocked user's comments to an ongoing enforcement discussion about the blocked user. Warned about it. Conceded that the transclusion was actually proper [132], then proceeded to tinker with the transclusion so as to screw it up all up, blames me for his f*-up, and uses that to justify yet another reversion. Fladrif (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The last edit (#3) was purely an edit conflict, which I self reverted once I realized what had happened - due to Fladrif's kind report here. I'm not editing anything regarding that 'transclusion' further; instead, I've taken the whole matter to WP:AN and the conflict is in front of Arbcom]. There's no bright-line violation of 3RR and no danger of continued edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 03:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Roscelese (Result: )

Page: Secular Islam Summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134] (undoes earlier edit [135])
2. [136]
3. [137]
4. [138]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked in the past for edit-warring on this very same article, and also received earlier warnings about 4RR and 5RR behaviors at the article that s/he managed to get away without sanction for, so is obviously aware of how our policies work.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most recently Talk:Secular_Islam_Summit#Chronological_order.3F, I'd also been chatting with Jeff5102 on his talk page.

Comments:
Pretty straightforward 4RR. Kwami doesn't agree with my or Jeff's ordering of the material, is going to edit-war until doomsday to get what s/he wants, has an idiosyncratic definition of "consensus" which reads "Kwamikagami's preferred version," nothing new here.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)