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:Amshermar reported by User:NeilN (Result: No violation)

Page

Pubic hair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Amshermar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
2. 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
3. 12:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
4. 20:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pubic hair. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

New editor, only edit-warring to add his dick to article (told it was redundant). NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First, NeilN, you made me burst out laughing with the "only edit-warring to add his dick to article" text. Second, because of your diff-links above, I just minutes ago noticed that he was changing the image with each edit (so maybe most of his additions are not technically reverts); apparently, he thought that all he had to do was change the image and it would be accepted. Third, editors who never respond to messages left on their talk pages (as though they didn't even know they got the messages or as though they didn't comprehend them), like the editor in question, irk me. Perhaps he didn't see the notifications at the top of his screen? After all, our WP:Notifications system doesn't use that big, yellow (what some describe as orange) bar anymore for registered editors. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. Since the fourth revert was more than 24 hours after the first, it's not a 3RR issue, and given that this is a brand-new editor, I'm willing to say it's confusion rather than edit warring. I've posed a more thorough welcome to his talk page, let's see if that works. I'll keep an eye on it. —Darkwind (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. I think that was an accurate, if somewhat exasperated, comment. Glad I could make you laugh though. I think they count as reverts as the same type of content is being added. It's like if an editor kept adding the same paragraph but changed some of the prepositions each time. Darkwind - no problem, thanks for keeping an on the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Exasperated? I didn't mean for it to bother you in that way, or for it to be a pain at all. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant my initial comment, the one that had you laughing, was written with a touch of exasperation at the editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a notice that Amshermar moved on to penis photos on Urinary meatus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:70.190.253.77 reported by User:MilesMoney (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.190.253.77 (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. [5]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
User insists that BRD and 3RR do not apply. MilesMoney (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WDGraham reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: No violation)

Page: Atlas (rocket family) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WDGraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Editor is inconsistently operating in conflict with WP:OWN, nor following both WP:BOLD and WP:BRD and instigating a low-level revert war. Bringing it to the attention of an administrator prior to violation of WP:3RR. Good faith attempts have been made by this editor (here and here), but the editor reverts any good faith updates. It seems that the editor is protecting the status quo of a number of poorly written and WP:STUB articles in a potential violation of WP:OWN.

I've reverted the original edit, and once more when the reporting user restored his content rather than participate in the discussion I had started. I'll post a detailed response in a second. --W. D. Graham 09:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've had a couple of disagreements with the reporting user in the last 24 hours, on two separate but related pages. The first was on Talk:SM-65D Atlas, where I opposed a merger he had suggested and he, out of nowhere, accused me of asserting ownership over the article without any evidence. I reminded him that making accusations without evidence is incivil. This morning I noticed some major changes to another article Atlas (rocket family) which I felt reduced the quality of the article, so I followed WP:BRD and reverted them, posting a detailed explanation on the talk page and notifying the user in question to try and promote a discussion. When he reverted me again I assumed it was a good faith mistake rather than an attempt to start an edit war, so I restored the status quo (my second and final revert) and again asked him to participate in the discussion. I had, and still have, no intention of making further edits to the article until a discussion has taken place. He then joined the discussion but repeated his accusations, again without evidence. I then asked him to be civil and refrain from making further unsubstantiated accusations, took a few minutes to cool down and then replied to the content issues he raised. I am not "revert[ing] any good faith updates" and have certainly not 3RRd - I followed WP:BRD once, and then reverted once more because I thought Ajh1492 had made a good-faith mistake. Had he reverted or edited further without discussion I would not have taken any action. --W. D. Graham 09:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor has been from my first contribution to the article and a properly posted WP:merge of 4 low-quality WP:STUB articles into a single article in keeping with WP:Integrate, immediately rejected out of hand rather rudely - "'Yes, an article on the Atlas as a whole is useful, but we already have it so there's no need to destroy our coverage of individual variants just to create another page doing the same thing." [15]. "'destroy our coverage" as a response to a valid WP:Merge request is rather uncivil, and appears, IMHO, as a violation of WP:OWN. The editor then takes this as a personal affront and immediately goes into a diatribe claiming an "'ad hominem argument, and could be conceived as a personal attack, so I'd suggest you consider retracting it.'" [16]. I then attempt to make some edits on Atlas (rocket family) to meet some of the editor's objections to the merge request. The article in it's original state [17] was evaluated as Start class [18]. My in-progress updates resulted in the following article state [19] prior to the editor performing a wholesale revert of the article [20] which left it in a worse shape than the original state using a method usually reserved to skirt WP:3RR. The editor then continues with the "ad hominem" diatribe in this second article's comments [21]. WP:BRD is not a process used to justify wholesale reverts. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I opposed your proposed merger because I didn't think it would improve the encyclopaedia. "Destroy" was perhaps a poor choice of word, but that was my opinion and I expressed it, and I don't think that I was incivil in doing so. By "our" I was referring to the Wikipedia community. And yes, if you accuse somebody of disruptive editing they are probably going to take offence. --W. D. Graham 10:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That said, I do apologise if my comments caused offence to you - that was certainly not my intention. Can we please try to find some way to move on and resolve this disagreement by discussing the articles and edits, not the editors. --W. D. Graham 10:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right forum for this discussion - I agree there is a disagreement here, but I wouldn't characterise it as an edit war, and I'm the one who is trying to encourage discussion. Mainspace editing has stopped, and I don't think there's been enough time yet for the discussion to take place. I'd like to try and resolve this amicably - Ajh1492 escalated this so quickly that the discussion wasn't given a chance - and if that doesn't happen then we should go through dispute resolution, but I don't see how administrator intervention would benefit the discussion at the moment. --W. D. Graham 10:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts of good-faith editing efforts without ANY discussion is not good WP etiquette and not in the spirit of WP:BRD. I'm invoking the administrator's review to prevent any WP:3RR violations (which is perfectly acceptable) and what I perceive as a possible WP:OWN issue. The open hostility ("'destroy our coverage" [22]) towards any good-faith editing is disturbing. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You've been assuming bad faith of me from the beginning. I have been trying to engage in a discussion, but you just came back criticising the changes I had made. I provided a detailed explanation of the first revert I made (which was a partial revert - I left your content changes in place, and some of the structural changes - I mostly just put back the table you'd split and moved the recent stuff back to the end of the timeline). It was in no way a "wholescale revert". I posted a clear explanation of this on the talk page, and put a notice on your page about the discussion in the hope that you'd participate. I feel that I acted fully within WP:BRD at this stage, however you reverted my first revert without participating in the discussion which I was trying to start. Fair enough, I shouldn't have reverted you again after that, and I acknowledge that, however I believed you had made a good faith mistake so rather than interpreting your action as edit warring, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by removing it and reminding you of WP:BRD. --W. D. Graham 11:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless requested by an uninvolved party, I'm not going to make any further comments in this particular thread as I feel it is going nowhere. There's no edit war and no 3RR violations; I acknowledge that I am partly at fault for the dispute, but there are faults on both sides and I'm willing to accept that and move on. What we need is a calm, civilised discussion of the content issues, not accusations flying back and forth which is what this is turning into. I'm also going to take a 48 hour break from editing starting now because this discussion has got me so wound up that my last couple of comments on the matter have maybe not been as civil as they could have been. Ajh, please can we go back to the article talk page, put aside our differences and try to find a solution to the problem? --W. D. Graham 11:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. WDGraham has reverted twice. The "reverts" listed in this report are links, not diffs, and they show the three reverts of both parties (Ajh1492 has reverted once). I didn't look at anything but this article and this article's talk page, but both parties should not be reacting negatively to each other's comments. As such discussions go, any conduct comments are pretty mild. I agree with WDGraham that the two of you should go back to the talk page and discuss the issues. If you can't resolve them, then use dispute resolution, and this board is not the best place to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Csi.southpark reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: Blocked)

Page

Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Csi.southpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577976191 by Dailycare (talk) Unsourced claim. But I see that this is going to be a problem so I removed everyone."
2. 04:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577933296 by Sepsis II (talk) give me a break that is a lie, check the sources and google it for yourself. Stop the vendetta"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See User_talk:Csi.southpark#1RR_violation_at_Israel_article for some background. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article is restricted to 1RR. The user also violated 1RR at Israel article [23] & [24], and then self-reverted. AsceticRosé 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed something that I wrote. I did this because I realized the having the article say the Jewish people and Samaritans descend from Canaanites is, while true, going to cause problems so I simply removed it. And yes in the process I also removed what someone else added to my edit. But had I left my original comment in place with the other users edit. It would have caused more problems. So I'm sorry that I violated the 24 hour rule, but what would you have had me do. Csi.southpark (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

He has reverted, let it go. Sepsis II (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sepsis II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csi.southpark (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: Withdrawn)

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: Dragon Ball (anime) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26] Redirecting article @ 15:05, 20 October 2013
2. [27] Redirecting article @ 16:26, 20 October 2013
3. [28] Removing content @ 17:23, 20 October 2013
4. [29] Removed same content @ 17:59, 20 October 2013
5. [30] Removed another chunk @ 18:11, 20 October 2013

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

Ryulong is continuing to post messages to my talk page after I said I do not want to speak to him. Including reverting my removals of his posts.

1. [32]
2. [33] Reminded him to kindly stay off my page.
3. [34] Response to my 3RR warning. Acknowledged and removed.
4. [35] Reverting my removal and demanding I speak to him.
5. [36] Reverting both posts.
6. [37] Reverting more of the same; his edit summary also accused me of refactoring his edits when I did no such thing.

Comments including talk page: Ryulong has previously redirected the article and it was contested.[38] We are currently in mediation for Ghost in the Shell dispute and I've asked Ryulong to not continue edit warring and redirecting contested pages. And after the issue was raised at Mediation, Ryulong began this edit war redirecting and content removals. During the September redirecting it went to the talk page at Talk:Dragon_Ball_(anime). As I was addressing the "citation needed" templates, Ryulong broke 3RR and I was unable to continue lest I broke 3RR as well. Many citations are off Anime News Network and I managed to do two before he broke 3RR and again removed the material. The issue was touched upon in the mediation prior to his redirect and removals. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri cannot be trusted to discern what does and what does not count as a violation of WP:3RR as he called my edits at Bleach (anime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now a redirect) a means to game him into violating 3RR himself when I was adding content in good faith. This request should be dismissed as there is clearly no edit warring going on after my second attempt to restore the redirect, and instead good faith edits to remove disputed and unsourced content.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, he has previously been admonished for demanding that people not post to his page when he is actively communicating with them elsewhere. And this edit is most definitely refactoring my comments.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri also mysteriously leaves out the fact that this edit ("Removed same content @ 17:59, 20 October 2013") was eventually followed by this edit, which effectively restored the information, but in a different format.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: - I see plenty of reverts to go around. No, Ryulong, you don't get to keep making reverts to an article after being warned to stop just because you think it's right. And no, you don't get to post on his talk page when he asks you to stop. I think I should block both of you. Please tell me why I shouldn't. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  I made two very clear reverts in this whole debacle: redirecting the page a second time and removing the songs section. It could be argued that I did that twice, but I restored the content removed, in part. And ChrisGualtieri has demanded me to stop posting on his talk page today and twice in August. How the hell am I supposed to communicate with someone that I constantly seem to get into disputes with if not on their talk page? And I'm not totally sure I gave you a good enough reason so 24 hours sounds like a good plan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Let me state this simply; I should not be blocked because after many months of issues with this user we are in formal mediation which I filed because of content dispute at Ghost in the Shell. He has previously redirected articles after they were contested; and I note WP:BLAR is against continually redirected pages that are contested and says they should go to AFD. This is part of why the mediation was made. I did not refactor his post, I simply undid them as Davidwr posted I could not rollback. He made two edits which I undid.[39] [40] Now Ryulong is abusing the notification system with "thanks spam" by "thanking" every edit and will post print screen if asked. I am doing everything I can to solve the underlying content issues and Ryulong has repeatedly continued to create new issues and be incivil. After providing a diff and a context for the mediator, Ryulong shoots back "stop whining".[41] Ryulong knows about 3RR very well and if this is not 3RR than re-redirecting a restored article after repeatedly being informed of WP:BLAR should be a sign if not bringing me to 3RR or breaking to prevent improvements and doing so with numerous talk page posts and notification spam. Oh and to be clear, I did not break 3RR. I let Ryulong's last 2 go uncontested since it seems that he would not even allow the citations to be made before removing the text. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to screencap, and yes that was very childish of me. But I am up to here with dealing with your nonsense on these pages, your spurious reports on my behavior and of others when they've proven to be unfounded, and your lording over every single discussion on manga and anime because you have to clearly be right about everything. I am on the verge of pressing "Log out" and deleting every single fucking cookie of this website off of my computer after having spent 7 years on this damn website because of you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As I stated, perhaps you both deserve to be blocked, but I'm not going to be the one to do it, because I don't think it will help improve anything. Ryulong, you are clearly losing your cool here; could you take an hour or two off to cool down a bit? I don't have anything against you. Meanwhile, can you see that other people have different opinions from you about what should be in what article, and that you can't just go reverting at will when they disagree? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to pry, but what I have done to "deserve" blocking? I did not break 3RR, I contested the first redirecting and the article was stable until the related issue came up in mediation where Ryulong decided to again re-redirect it, twice. I was fixing the citation needed tags and have already pointed out that the censorship section while accurate, just needs the episodes or comparisons to be cited which I was doing as this happened.[42] It is a lot easier to say "if you can't cite these by tomorrow I'll remove them" to which I'd say "sure" because I can get most of them, but I do not personally remember the bit about Blue and I rather get the important information right first. Aside from it airing on July 23 instead of August, there isn't anything wrong with the actual text besides its lack of citations to primary sources and a nice comparison shot. Covered at the Wikia already... some pages even have sources to follow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's 04:30 JST right now so perhaps it is not the best time to do make such decisions. And I'll restore the censorship section as it feasibly could be sourced, but that music section was just awful and I have this feeling I may have been involved in its original formatting.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I've put the mediation on hold until this thread and the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime) are concluded. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please close this, consider this withdrawn or whatever, I want the mediation to continue. Violation or no violation, if I messed up on the definition of 3RR please tell me and Ryulong on my talk page as I believe 4 reverts including different or the same content being altered by any editor out of order to be a 3RR issue. If there is a violation, do not block him, by Ryulong's logic there was no 3RR violation. The page is at AFD as it should be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note I don't think blocks are needed here. My reasoning follows: I don't think Chris broke 3RR here, based on my count he only made three reverts and then stopped reverting: [43][44][45]. Whether Ryulong broke 3RR is more complicated. this is a revert of this, this is a revert of this, and this is a revert of this. So whether he broke 3RR depends on if you see this as a revert. I suppose one could make the argument that it was a partial revert because he was technically removing information that Chris added in this edit, but as it was a very selective revert I'm not inclined to count it. So my feeling is no blocks are needed here, but both parties need a strong warning not to bush up against the bright line in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 21 October 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:Jerry Pepsi reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)

Page: Piz Gloria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and others)
User being reported: Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Jerry_Pepsi and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14#Category:Bond_girls They've had warnings for edit warring from three independent authors already – see also User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi#October_2013.

The crux of this is about categorization related to the James Bond films. They've stripped locations from the general film category, sometimes with (but frequently not) with the edit summary "locations aren't defined by being in a film". They have a point, but there are cases when there is a significant relationship worthy of categorization (see discussion on the ANI link). Likewise "Series characters are not independently notable" (from their attempt to delete yet another category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14#Category:Airwolf_characters) seems to be implying that such minor topics can never be notable, rather than the more widely held view that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and is required to be (but potentially can be) demonstrated separately.

There is no support for their deletions from other editors (see the ANI link), just concern over their edit-warring and their attitude to other editors. The greatest support they've had so far was mine, and that was pretty sparing. They've made no real attempt to discuss these changes, not gained any support for them, and where reverted they're edit-warring to push their unique viewpoint. Mostly they reject discussion as not being "ON AN APPROPRIATE TALK PAGE", which seems to mean any location other than where other editors are already trying to discuss it. Their ANI response was basically stonewalling. I raised this Bond issue at Category_talk:James_Bond_films#Subcatting_to_James_Bond_locations.3F, but they've ignored that too.

They've also listed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14#Category:Bond_girls for deletion and prodded at least one individual entry from it, Tatiana Romanova. Clearly an editor who just doesn't like James Bond, or categorization. A look over their entire editing history (it doesn't take long) shows the view that the way to build an encyclopedia is to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The problem is I see no real consensus at ANI. One administrator told Jerry that he should follow WP:BRD, which he isn't doing, but I wouldn't call that a consensus. At the same time, when I look at the article you reported here and at Nene Valley Railway, both of you are edit-warring. Jerry may be more in the wrong by not discussing it after you revert his edit, but that doesn't entitle you to battle it out. You may find another administrator who will view this differently, but my suggestion is to go back to ANI if you want to establish that Jerry's removal of these cats is sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:47.64.227.224 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

Page: Geiger counter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.64.227.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

Long-term edit-warring and socking by Europefan (talk · contribs) to categorize anything and everything as German inventions. This is now bright-line 3RR EW by this one unconfirmed IPsock. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked by User:Rschen7754 for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:99.238.140.176 reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: pending changes)

Page: Paul R. Ehrlich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.238.140.176 (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]
6. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Exhortations to take the addition to the talk page:[63], [64] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
Although not breaking 3RR right now, IP is clearly edit warring against multiple editors, has previously broken 3RR before, has received multiple warnings, and has been blocked for exactly this same offense. (See his talk page,[66] which he has now blanked, showing that he has read it.[67]) IP comes back to edit war over exactly the same issue after his block expired.

Action should be taken to prevent defamatory material from being continually re-inserted into a BLP. LK (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined to block as I'm not seeing a 3RR violation, but I've placed the page under pending changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WeldNeck reported by User:Cjhanley (Result: no action taken)

Page: No Gun Ri Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WeldNeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version before WeldNeck's edit warring: [68]

Diffs of some of the user's edit warring and reverts:

1. [69] 8 August: Deletes important sentence without explainer (SEE COMMENTS BELOW FOR GENERAL BACKGROUND TO WELDNECK'S DAMAGING EDITS, REVERTS; 58 EDITS SINCE AUGUST)
2. [70] 8 August: Removes witness, illogical reason.
3. [71] 8 August: Removes "massacre" twice, though that's article's title.
4. [72] 9 August: Misrepresents analyst's call for integrity process, attributing it instead to South Koreans.
5. [73] 9 August: Removes key source, North Korean journalist.
6. [74] 19 August: Removes leading scholar from Further Reading because dislikes his views.
7. [75] 7 October: Reverts fixes to Aerial imagery section with dismissive few words.
8. [76] 7 October: Misleads on which investigators found 2nd Battalion responsible.
9. [77] 7 October: Removes entire Korean commission description of events, without discussion, explanation.
10. [78] 9 October: Falsifies description of Navy document re strafing civilians, adding nonexistent exculpatory clause (sugarcoating)
11. [79] 9 October: A dozen highly objectionable changes, including falsifying the description of Army "shoot refugees" documents by adding nonexistent sugarcoating clauses, and deleting without explanation an ex-soldier's testimony that they were told to shoot "everyone from 6 to 60."
12. [80] 9 October: Deletes Pentagon statement that discredited witness wasn't essential to investigation; no explanation, as usual.
13. [81] 10 October: Reverts contributor's removal of extraneous material.
14. [82] 15 October: Again reverts contributor's fixes to his Aerial imagery edits.
15. [83] 15 October: Deletes sentences noting, with citation, AP refutation of attacks on its journalism, and NY Times article supportive of AP.
16. [84] 18 October: Though warned in Talk that "infiltrators" in official Army history doesn't mean enemy disguised as refugees, inserts actions involving infiltrators to build case against refugees.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre#No Gun Ri Massacre according to Hanley and the AP: "If anyone has any further 'documented' issues to raise (to use WeldNeck's term) -- that is, specific, sensible questions, not the wild fantasies and fabrications of Robert Bateman, a former officer of the very regiment responsible for the killings -- it is appropriate first to do so here on the Talk page, to start a reasoned discussion and take advantage of what knowledgable people know, and not to take us back to the days of nonsensical inserts and overwrites that served no one except those who would like No Gun Ri to simply go away. Even before that, one should review the previous Talk discussions of body count and other matters".

Comments:

This article deals with the U.S. military's large-scale killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri early in the Korean War, an event first confirmed by The Associated Press in 1999, reconfirmed and elaborated upon by other news organizations, and then affirmed in investigations by the U.S. and South Korean governments. From the beginning, before the government investigative reports, apologists for the U.S. military, and in particular for the responsible 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment, have attacked the messengers, the media, over this blot on the U.S. record. From 2006 to 2011, the Wikipedia article fell under their sway, and in the process turned into a useless, incoherent mess. In 2012, it was brought back into shape as a solid, factual, highly informative and readable WP article. Now with WeldNeck's intervention, particularly with his efforts to "sugarcoat" the facts and revive long-ago discredited attacks on the media, it is slipping into tendentiousness and sloppiness again.

He has made 58 edits since August, with 35 in October alone. It has been very difficult for contributors even to keep up with the many, many ways he has altered the article. Among the most serious and damaging changes have been his adding of nonexistent exculpatory clauses in describing declassified military documents that authorized the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Korea 1950 (clauses such as "as warranted," or "when they were suspected to be North Korean forces"; such qualifiers don't appear in the documents, which were reported in media and other reliable sources and can be linked to from the article); his deletion of sentences in the WP article that reflect negatively on the U.S. military or officials, such as his elimination, in two places, of the fact that the U.S. Army, by its own admission, deliberately omitted the highly incriminating "Muccio letter" from its investigative report, and his deletion, as usual without explanation, of an ex-soldier's testimony that troops were told to shoot "everyone from 6 to 60"; his misattribution to Korean investigators of findings or statements made by American investigators or by both Korean and American investigators, in an apparent belief that removing the American attribution weakens the point; deleting a sentence noting the U.S. Army failed to investigate No Gun Ri in 1950, although it knew about the killings then. Many more errors and problems were introduced, including some petty ones, such as his removal from the Further Reading list of a leading scholar of this period of the Korean War because WeldNeck doesn't like his political views. (Please see Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre#Full Stop, Part II for further details).

WeldNeck posts at Talk, but almost always in a confrontational, not conciliatory way, dismissing fellow contributors or attacking their integrity, very rarely engaging directly with the substance of an error or overreach that's pointed out to him, but instead reverting to his error-plagued material when others correct it.

WeldNeck’s actions at this page are reminiscent of those months earlier of user Kauffner, who I understand was eventually banned from WP. I also understand WeldNeck was cleared of being a Kauffner sockpuppet. WeldNeck has been cautioned elsewhere for edit warring at another article. Being relatively new to WP, I don't know what action/sanction would be appropriate in this case. But I do know that WeldNeck's aggressiveness and determination to emasculate this WP article bodes ill for the truth and for efforts to make Wikipedia accurate and authoritative in this important historical area.Charles J. Hanley 14:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

If find these charges to be spurious as I have not been edit warring on this article. There have been only 4 or 5 reverts on the article in the past two month. Every edit I have made has been explained at great length on the talk page. ‎Cjhanley's objections can be summed up with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has a blatant WP:COI with regard to the article, even going so far as contacting the publishing company of an author critical of him and demanding thy not publish his book on this topic. This is a content issue, not a edit warring issue. WeldNeck (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is typical: No one "demanded" the publisher do anything. The publisher (circa 2002) was warned that the author had been recklessly spreading nonsense on the Internet, and he'd be wise to fact-check his manuscript. Sadly for the truth, the publisher did not. Meanwhile, the edit warring speaks for itself. Charles J. Hanley 14:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Thats not how the president of the Poynter Institute, Nieman Foundation for Journalism and the ABFFE saw things:

It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable." At Harvard, Bob Giles, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, said that books about events that happened 50 years ago draw "on the memories of many people who may or may not have been participants. So it's a subject of continued historical and scholarly investigation. Think of all the versions we have of events leading up to Pearl Harbor." "It seems to me to be out of bounds for one author to try to short-circuit the publication of another author's book," said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. "It's extraordinary and alarming."

Once again, there is no edit warring. There are many changes and a great deal of discussion, but no edit warring. WeldNeck (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is silly, and ancient history. The communication with the publisher said explicitly, "We’re not questioning anyone’s `entitlement’ to get published. This is not about rights, but responsibilities, that is, the responsibility of a publisher to do its utmost to ensure that what it publishes is fair and truthful." Obviously, those quoted above never saw the letter and instead were misled by the truth-challenged author Bateman about its contents. It was "extraordinary and alarming" because it wasn't true. It also is 180 degrees off our subject today, which is WeldNeck's assault on the No Gun Ri article, as he tries to impose his POV heedless of the facts. Charles J. Hanley 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

You are right, reporting me for edit warring is silly given that this is a content dispute. WeldNeck (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined This type of dispute is better suited to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Precision123 reported by User:Debresser (Result: warning)

Page: Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precision123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous consensus version changed from: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [86]
2. [87]
3. [88]
4. [89]
5. [90]
6. [91]

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jews/infobox#English_as_the_predominant_language

Explanation of the conflict:
Template:Jews/infobox is where the edit warring started. That template was merged into Jews per this discussion and the history was moved to Jews/infobox. history. The issue is whether or not English is nowadays the lingua franca of the Jewish people. The consensus version from before Precision123's first edit on October 10 did not make that statement, and Precision123 has been adding that statement repeatedly since October 10.

There is extensive discussion on the talkpage, with Precision123 pushing his point with awfully long posts. Three other editors, me included, have disagreed with him (one editor only partially, admittedly), and none have supported him. The template was fully protected for a week on October 11 [93] because of Precision123 repeating his edit. Just two days ago the template was merged into Jews, [94] and I reverted to the consensus version from before Precision123's edit. Precision123 just today added a Rfc tag to the talkpage discussion, and already made his edit again. And that is not withstanding the fact that nobody agrees with him.

In addition, he has been annoyingly highhanded in the discussion, making remarks like "It will soon be readded" [95] and "I will probably not respond to further comments" [96].

He also edits parts of the discussion that were made days ago, thereby confusing the discussion. In this and this edit, or this one today, he adds information to the top of the discussion, and inthis one, he changes his previous comments. He did the same on WT:JUDAISM and I placed a warning on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am still new to editing and apologize for any disruption, I do not believe my behavior amounted to edit warring. I was only adding citations while Debresser continued to remove them. Debresser's contention that "three other editors have disagreed" with me is not true. In that pool of editors, Debresser includes (1) an editor (StevenJ81) that says specifically, "I'm afraid I have to agree with Precision123 on this issue"; and (2) an editor that made a single-sentence comment that indicated he did not fully understand the definition a lingua franca. The latter editor said nothing about the inclusion of the lingua franca in the infobox.

On the other hand, User:Debresser has been pushing his point of view without submitting a single source that expresses an alternative view. He first began reverting because he mistakenly believed that the source said that English is the lingua franca of Israel because he said it was "BS about English being a Lingua Franca in Israel," when in fact the source indicated English had become the lingua franca for Jews worldwide -- not in Israel. He never explained his views on the talk pages until I opened the discussion. He simply reverted and indicated personal disagreement with the source -- but never brought up a relevant Wikipedia policy or submitted a source indicating an alternative point of view.

He continued to revert on a constant basis, saying: "Even if some source would say that English is lingua franca, I am still sorry to say it is not. As a Jew who has been in many places, including the USA, Israel and West and Eastern Europe, I can tell you that I have seen Yiddish used as a lingua franca more than English." It is true that in many instances I became frustrated because I was submitting reliable sources while Debresser continued to reference only his own personal experiences and original research, but I always tried maintain a cool head. I explained this to him in discussion and politely on his talk page.

I note that I filled out a WP:Request for Comment and sought the advice of an administrator. As the number of reliable sources began to expand, I felt I had met the burden under WP:V and WP:RS for the cited material. I added more reliable sources to the list so that Debresser would end his reverts. He kept saying that the sources were not reliable enough because "[he did] not accept" the sources. Indeed, only Debresser was reverting while I continued to do more research and add citations.

If this amounted to edit warring, I sincerely apologize. I am new and obeyed the three-revert rule. Indeed, none of these reverts were the same; they all added more reliable sources. In addition, this was over the span of almost two weeks. I will continue to learn from this experience and negotiate politely with other editors. --Precision123 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I also note that Debresser alleges five instances of revert. (1) The first one is one that I completed not involved in. (2) In the second one, Debresser misread the source, thinking, erroneously, that it "BS about English being the lingua franca in Israel" when that was not the case. So yes I reverted because he indicated that he misunderstood the source. (3) In the third one, Debresser had written something similarly confusing in the edit summary, never explained on the talk page. He [wrote: 1. Incorrect claim. English is no lingua franca. That was an exaggeration. 2. Why add French?" He never explained what this confusing argument meant or used a source to back it up. (4) The fourth one is also one in which I am not involved as a reverter. The article was reverted by User:Avaya1, not because of my edits but rather because of another content dispute over size of the Jewish population. What Avaya1 had done was essentially to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," so I undid only that part. (5) As to the last one, this was one in which I had added more than five sources so that Debresser would be satisfied after saying: "If you can not find a second source, more explicitly discussing the issue, saying the same thing, this can not stay."

In addition, there was no solid consensus for the version that Debresser alleges. He argues this point to an admin. [97] He never gained consensus for any of his reverts. --Precision123 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined If we're dealing with slow edit warring on multiple pages, then it seems WP:ANI would be a better place for this discussion. As it is, I don't see a 3RR violation and I don't think the reverts were on 1RR pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the diffs. I apologize for the mistakes, partly a copy&paste error. Also, these are not multiple pages, but one and the same page that was merged, as I explained above. There is no 3RR violation, but a definite edit war, with 6 edits (5 partial reverts). Precision123's attitude only aggravates the situation. In his above posts he shows nothing of the arrogant attitude his displays on the talkpage, examples of which I have quoted above. His nice words above notwithstanding, he behaves like any edit-warrior I have seen in my over 5 years on Wikipedia. Please read the facts again, and let them speak for themselves. I do not ask for a block, but a firm warning definitely is in place, imho. Debresser (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's my opinion: Precision123: I'm not sure if this counts as a revert, I would tend to see it as a bold addition. This is revert #1, and a failure to follow WP:BRD. This is revert #2 a day later, again ignoring BRD. Then ten days later there's revert #3 here. I don't think that this is enough reverting to merit a block, but I think it is disruptive to continue reverting; instead, WP:BRD should be followed and we should wait for the conclusion of the RFC.

Debresser, by my count, has reverted four times: #1, #2, #3, and #4. This was also over 11 days, so it doesn't merit a block. So I have the same advice for Debresser as I gave to Precision123, please stop reverting and wait for the RFC to conclude.

To issue a block for slow edit warring, I would generally need to see >4 reverts or reverts in the face of an RFC consensus or similar. My decision here can be appealed to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevinrexheine reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: No violation)

Page: United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kevinrexheine (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. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

The editor in question is using a supporting citation which requires a subscription to read and thus cannot support the edit in question. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. There's been no breach of WP:3RR. There's nothing wrong with using a subscription source (WP:PAYWALL), and, @Steelbeard1: you shouldn't yell at the other user (using all caps frequently).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Abhi reported by User:Medeis (Result: Warned)

Page: Unnao gold treasure incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abhi (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. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Comments:

This article came to my attention when it was nominated for ITN, here with an improper template. I defended the nomination here at ITN. I tagged the article for grammatical improvement here and returned here to follow up and correct grammar (verb usage and ten wrongly used articles in one paragraph alone) and idiom when I saw that only the first two paragraphs of the article had been corrected.

Nineteen minutes later more ungrammatical material was added and my corrections were reverted (diff). I reverted this, describing the edit as synthesis (it has nothing to do with the article topic) and restored the corrections (diff). This was again reverted with the instruction that I should fix Abhi's grammar (diff). I started a new section on the talk page to object the additions were the responsibility of the person adding them to correct (diff). This was met by the response: "I am writing almost whole article....I won't tolerate removal of contents just to fix missing 'a' or 'the'" and by another reversion with the command "Fix it or wait". I advised Abhi to fix the contributions before adding them again, and not to revert the corrections (diff), and warned him on his talk page not to edit war, and to do his additions without reverting the corrections. His response was he was "editor who created and wrote whole article" (diff), and another reversion (diff) and when I told him my edits to correct the grammar were solely aimed at improving the article, and that I wouldn't revert his edits if he would leave the corrections alone, (diff) he responded by tagging the article with the point that "as an Indian" and owner of the article he is entitled to his improper grammar, which he calls Indian English: "Tagged because this is India related article, written primarily by Indians. A user is wasting my time and edit-warring over Indian english" (diff).

The attitude here is obvious, that Abhi created the article, so he controls it, and that as a non-Indian, I should not be interfering by making it readable; that cooperation is unnecessary. Were it not for his ownership behaviour, I would have corrected the prose of the entire article by now, and would have been willing to follow up to fix anything needed in the future. Instead of restoring the corrections and edits, he encouraged this report on his talk page. Please warn Abhi his actions are neither according to policy nor in the best interest of the article. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Warned, in detail. —Darkwind (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:MrScorch6200 (Result: No action)

Page

Jolina Magdangal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "i just deleted unsourced materials w/c is the issue of another editor here and i also added sources for the filmography"
2. 00:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 00:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "you are not gonna delete the filmography, because they are accurate and just wait for me to include sources"
4. 08:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) "there's nothing wrong with removing unsourced paragraphs, but to remove the entire filmography and yet keep the unsourced discography? I don't think so"
5. Consecutive edits made from 03:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) to 03:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 03:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
   2. 03:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
6. 03:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Jolina Magdangal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are most likely more reverts of the same content (discography and filmography), however the warring is a bit difficult to follow. (I suggest going into a bit more depth with it). MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You are doing this because of what? I just helped to improve the Jolina Magdangal article by maintaining the filmography section which is absolutely necessary since the subject of the article is also an actor and a TV personality. And I added a couple of sources so it won't be deleted again. And I also listened to the other editor's concern, so I deleted back the paragraphs (like endorsements and honorific titles) that doesn't have a source after I reverted the other user's edit.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Hotwiki (t c), your behavior on this article is pretty clearly edit warring. Since you don't seem to make a habit of edit warring, I don't see a need to block you over this. However, please control the urge to revert (especially for the second or third time) when you disagree with another editor. Also, the burden of proof is on the editor inserting material if it has been challenged by another user. Please do not insert the material in the article, and then edit war to keep it there while saying "wait for me to add sources". Put the material in your sandbox, add the sources there, and then put it in the article. Doing otherwise contravenes WP:V. —Darkwind (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:98.169.63.91 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)

Page: Phineas and Ferb the Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.169.63.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: See comments section

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 570470954 by JDDJS (talk)(The Manual of Style encourages listing English speaking countries"
2. 22:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC) - No edit summary
3. 23:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC) - No edit summary
4. 00:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 577622069 by Geraldo Perez (talk))"
5. 14:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 577647190 by Geraldo Perez (talk) (What's wrong with tables?)"
6. 16:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - No edit summary
7. 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 577990720 by AussieLegend (talk)(What's wrong with tables)"
8. 22:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 578039239 by JDDJS (talk)(can you tell me why these are bad?)"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [107][108]

Comments:
I've only come into this recently, but it seems the IP has been edit-warring over the iInternational broadcast section for some time, starting 10-12 September. Edits he made on 10 September were certainly vandalism.[109] His first revert at the article was before the vandalism,[110] but to be fair, this revert was appropriate, as the removal in toto of the "Worldwide release" was not appropriate. On 15 October, this edit apparently reverted all edits from the past two months and was reverted by another editor.[111] He later did this again.[112] Included in his reversions was the restoration of the "International release" table, which had been converted to prose per MOS:TV. Since then, he has been persistently restoring this table. Starting with this edit he has been asking in his edit summaries "What's wrong with tables?". However, he had already been told why prose was used back in September.[113] He continues to ask even after I left an appropriate post on his talk page.[114] I had made other fixes to the article,[115] and he's now reverting these as well. I reported him to WP:AIV,[116] but an admin determined his edits not to be vandalism[117] and instead left him an edit-warring warning.[118] Despite the warning, the IP has decided to revert again.[119] Obviously this is not a 3RR breach, but it is edit-warring and this is not the only article where the IP has done this. On 8 October, the IP made edits that were subsequently reverted as disruptive at Disney Channel (Asia).[120] Today he reverted the entire article back to his 8 October version.[121] His only other edit for the day was the reversion at Phineas and Ferb the Movie. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Laser brain (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jerry Pepsi reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Locked)

Page: Nene Valley Railway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On this article alone, amongst several others, we have 7 removals in the last week, 3 of which are in the last day. This user has been at ANI twice in the last week, and AN3 once (just above here), all with no action. Apparently this isn't edit-warring because consensus for this categorization is unclear. So 7RR is now OK then, so long as it's all a bit vague?

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122]
2. [123]
3. [124]
4. [125]
5. [126]
6. [127]
7. [128]

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I find it more than a little bit interesting that two IP editors who have no other contributions have suddenly jumped onto this article. Is Andy Dingley perhaps logging out and editing anonymously? Regardless, this endless string of reports from him in lieu of SPEAKING DIRECTLY WITH ME in an effort to build (or more correctly, understand the existing) consensus is as mystifying as it is tiring. If anyone can explain to me why multiple reports are better than engaging with an editor directly who has asked over and over again in forum after forum after forum it would be illuminating. An explanation as to how a railway is a James Bond film would also be appreciated.
• There was no technical or spiritual violation of 3RR here. What is here is forum shopping by a disgruntled editor who doesn't like it when things don't go his way and complaining not only here but at CFD about it, desperately hoping for something to stick. It's abusive.
• I'll ask one last time that the editor ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for one week. I've also locked Piz Gloria for the same period.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Greenman (Result: Locked)

Page: European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

I have not personally been involved, but it's been discussed extensively on the talk page without consensus. It seems that this is a single editor intent on removing the content, while there have been three editors (not all involved in the talk page) restoring it.

Comments:
The user has also been warned about edit warring in this instance, and been warned on occasion in the past as well. Greenman (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 is not breaking 3RR as the reverts are over four days. However as a senior editor, could have requested assistance on the page. With that said, the "by city" addition is complete crap and should not have been added, let alone restored after it was removed. I too would have reverted it. After it was removed for the second time, the adding editor should have discussed the situation, as should the removing editor, instead of edit warring. May I suggest invoking WP:SHOT? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I rather have WP:SHOT myself in the foot here, but given that two of the other three parties involved have not made any attempt to discuss the issue on the article talk page, I don't think it's fair to include my reverts of their edits in this accusation. Furthermore, the two uninvolved editors who have contributed to the discussion on the article talk page (User:Koppapa and User:Walter Görlitz) have both expressed their support for my position on the matter. – PeeJay 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Locked for three days by User:Mark Arsten.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Protected one week)

Page

IPad Mini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jimthing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "/* External links */gens, create and move to iPad Mini (1st generation)"
2. 19:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578297433 by Walter Görlitz (talk) yes there is: clarity of link"
3. 19:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "/* External links */as per ALL other Apple pages before you came along: leave it as was!"
4. 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578307932 by Walter Görlitz (talk) the link is not to a page about "x - official page" it's to one about "iPad Mini", hence piping SEPARATE to the link!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC) "Unconstructive editing"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

What part of my explanation is difficult for you to understand. It's you who continues to completely ignore that reasoning, repeatedly reverting unnecessarily, and not explaining your actions. Thanks for wasting an experienced users editing time on actual articles dealing with such trivialities. Jimthing (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Both editors need to step back and seek other input in talk. To assist this I have protected the article for one week. While I judge Jimthing to have broken 3rr while Walter Görlitz has not, I feel that a block on either editor would be punitive at this stage. I will give both editors some advice in their talk. --John (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I will discuss and I don't need the advice. I think this is another admin cop-out as the other editor's argument as Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and not WP:EL, which takes precedent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you are not happy with this. If you like, I can ask for a second admin opinion. Would you like me to do this? I haven't archived this report yet in case anyone else wasn't happy with it. If you are happy to go along with what I obviously think is the best way forward, you need do nothing and I or someone else will archive this. --John (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer John. No, upon reconsideration, mercy is the better choice. I suspect that the editor will find his (assuming male based on user name, apologies if that's not the case) way here again, and I suspect I may find myself here as well. I'm fine with discussing for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:158.58.234.92 reported by User:RJFF (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Attack (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 158.58.234.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [136]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [137]
2. [138]
3. [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

Comments:
Page has repeatedly been "battlefield" of politically motivated edit-warring.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:14.139.187.130 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Subhas Chandra Bose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 14.139.187.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [143]
2. [144]
3. [145]
4. [146]
5. [147]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Entire user talk page - umpteen warnings

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Repeated addition of unsourced info/attempts to sanitise to suit a POV agenda have been reverted by a multitude of editors. There is a lot of talk page discussion generally but this anon is plain pov-pushing.

Comments:
I'd be reluctant to see this article semi'd right now because some other IPs do no harm. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Clear brightline violation of 3RR. This IP editor has been using peacock terms such as "legendary". Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —Darkwind (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Report by User:Eshwar.om

People ganging together and stopping my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva.This is the talk page people ganging together [[148]].Plese kindly help anybody.Thank you--Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 07:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This editor has found Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great and copied some of it to his talk page, including something about gangs of editors taking over Wikipedia He appears to believe that if he is reverted by more than one person this shows there is a gang of editors doing something they shouldn't be doing. Needs someone uninvolved to explain that other editors reverting him might not be them edit warring against him. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnnicoll123 reported by User:This is Drew (Result: )

Page: Granada Reports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Johnnicoll123 (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. [149]
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Comments:

User:Skyring reported by User:Skyring (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156] 14:59, October 22, 2013 Changes "program" to "concept"
2. [157] 15:06, October 22, 2013 Removes reference from article.
3. [158] 15:50, October 22, 2013 Removes "program" from article.
4. [159] 15:53, October 22, 2013 Removes reference from article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Can't find anything specific -this just came out of the blue.

Comments:

I'm self-reporting here, looking for advice. I got this message on my talk page, telling me You appear to be engaged in an edit-war (diffs as above). Please note that at the absolute maximum, you are allowed WP:3RR within 24 hours. You appear to be at 4RR in less than an hour. If you continue to edit-war, you may be blocked from the article.

What's the strength of this? The article, BTW, concerns a somewhat nebulous spaceplane, which seems to have been on the drawing board for about a decade under two different names, and is currently not much more than a nosewheel and some rocket motors and a lot of hype. Our article contains large swags of material based on primary sources from the company website and I've been cutting these back with the aim of replacing anything useful from secondary sources of which there are a few useful examples, such as the Smithsonian. --Pete (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation - In order to qualify as a revert, the edits cannot be consecutive, i.e., part of the same sequence of edits. And to answer your question, we enforce the 3RR rule quite strongly. If you have other questions about how to handle disputes or poorly sourced material, feel free to ask at the help desk. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: warned)

Page: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• First removal of images: 22:01, 16 October 2013
• 1st revert: 20:45, 22 October 2013
• 2nd revert: 16:41, 23 October 2013 (partial revert)
• 3rd revert: 17:23, 23 October 2013

Comments

This isn't a 3RR report, but one for a slow edit war, which Werieth has indicated he will continue. Werieth is not involved in editing the article, but has arrived to remove several fair-use images; he seems to be doing this on several articles at the moment. The removal leaves the images orphaned and therefore eligible for speedy deletion.

The images are: (1) a close-up image of Madeleine's right eye, which is distinctive; (2) an artist's impression of a suspect; and (3) three e-fits released by Scotland Yard of men they want to trace. All the images have been released to the public for dissemination, but not legally released. They have been widely published and discussed by the media, and are discussed in the article, so the non-free-content rules appear to be satisfied.

I've asked Werieth to nominate the images for deletion if he disagrees, but he hasn't responded, except to say that he will return in "a day or two" to remove others. [160] I tried to join a discussion on his talk page, started by others, about how he appears to have misunderstood the non-free content policy, but he removed my post twice without comment. [161] [162] I asked him to respect WP:BRD, but he ignored the request and left a templated warning on my talk page. [163]

I'm bringing this here in the hope that an admin will be willing to ask him to stop reverting, and instead to nominate the images for deletion if he believes they violate the rules. I wouldn't normally post here for three reverts, but the images will be speedy deleted if they are left unused. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The files that I am removing dont meet WP:NFC I dont need to file an FfD to remove non-complaint files. SlimVirgin if you dont like policy change the policy. But the files Im removing are no where near meeting NFCC. Werieth (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And they are filing this as a retaliatory action for my warning on their talk page. Werieth (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

One could equally argue that your warning to them was in retaliation to their more-or-less friendly note on your talk page that you deleted, so that's a non-starter. Generally speaking, and in my layman's opinion: Werieth, the NFCC are subjective; they are not black-and-white, so if someone challenges your judgement, you need to be prepared to discuss it with them rather than edit-warring. Naturally, the same thing goes for SlimVirgin, though this appears to be long-term behavior for you, Werieth. Everyone appreciates your efforts in enforcing the NFCC, but there is such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater: you need to stop taking the position that you are the sole arbiter of what meets the NFCC and what doesn't, and that everyone else is wrong. Again, for the most part, the NFCC are subjective, so they are things that should be discussed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am discussing issues, Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Non-free_images_on_a_.22list_article.22 is just one example. SlimVirgin's argument has been that I cant remove the file unless I file an FfD, which is invalid. Werieth (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is yet another case that while I agree with Werieth with the images being inappropriate to include under NFCC per my subjective opinion (we are not a site to help policy/public locate missing children), there is no exemption here for 3RR and the matter should have been raised on WP:NFCR instead of edit-warred. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The second part of my sentence was "rather than edit-warring". Your discussion with SlimVirgin over this issue was virtually nonexistent, and it sure didn't stop you from edit-warring about it. The exemption from 3RR for NFCC only counts for "content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." (emphasis original) It goes on to say that "what counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first." You cannot say that "BRD doesnt apply to NFC removals", as you did here; it does apply when the NFCC violation is questionable, and if an editor in good standing has reverted the removal in good faith, then it is ipso facto a questionable violation. Conclusion: if challenged in good faith, you must stop removing the images and start discussing things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I can raise an additional matter about Werieth's dealing with NFCC matters at Bibliotheca Teubneriana, where he removed an image three times ([164], [165], [166]) without starting a section on the talk page, and only in the last edit summary providing anything like an indication of how the image violated NFC. Oh, and as an added touch, after he removed the image for the third time, Werieth threatened to block User:Wareh, the user who had replaced the image: [167]. Then Wareh started a discussion on Werieth's user page, which quickly turned into a futile conversation. Note that at no point did Werieth start a discussion on the article's page, so other users who are interested in what's happening have to go to the article history and then go to Werieth's user talk page.

I can appreciate that Werieth is trying to uphold his interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, but he's doing so in an unecessarily heavy-handed way, without discussing what he's doing with editors who disagree with him. As noted above, NFC is subjective, and it therefore requires discussion, instead of threats of blocking! I tried to tell Werieth that he was being unnecessarily irritating on his user talk page, but he appears to disagree: User_talk:Werieth#Surely_we_could_do_this_a_bit_more_amicably.. He also seems to think that enforcing NFC frees him from normal editing behavior--see this edit summary. So I don't know if Werieth is edit warring, exactly, but when he doesn't explain himself and repeatedly removes images while other users disagree with him, it sure looks like edit warring. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: - As someone familiar with NFCC and the EW noticeboard, I must say that I agree with the above three assessments. Policy actually says that only uncontroversially non-free images may be removed without discussion. Otherwise, the proper recourse is to use WP:NFCR, and to leave the image on the article while the discussion is taking place. We also have the somewhat antiquated system of tagging a file with {{subst:dfu}}, but I don't recommend when there is pushback from another editor. As such, I must agree that Werieth has acted improperly, and should respect the process. I would prefer not to "warn" Werieth, but if I must, then I must: Werieth must stop edit warring immediately, on penalty of a further warning and a possible block. Technically, SlimVirgin has edit warred as well, but it seems to me that this is a rare case when such an action is acceptable, because the image immediately becomes speedyable as orphaned fair use. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Warned - Officially tagging this thread as over for now, and the user as warned. See my comments above. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Template:Egypt Protests and Revolutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 18:34, 23 October 2013
• 2nd revert: 18:37, 23 October 2013
• 3rd revert: 18:39, 23 October 2013
• 4th revert: 18:45, 23 October 2013

Comments

• A part of user:Trust Is All You Need's disruptive activity on Corrective Revolution related pages, which have already caused an administrative edit-block of the page 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution twice (see [168]).GreyShark (dibra) 18:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

My edits are not unconstructive.. The Corrective Revolution in Egypt was a change in policy, but has sometimes been referred to as a coup against Nasserites (but more often purge)... A search on Google Books on "Corrective Revolution" "Egypt" "policy" (as in policy changes, reform) gives 592 hits, "Corrective Revolution" "Egypt" "coup" "1971" (1971 is used since when writing "Corrective Revolution" "Egypt" "coup" many sources begin to refer to the 1952 coup which brought the regime to power) gives 176 hits and "Corrective Revolution" "Egypt" "purge" gives 126 hits.. The Corrective Revolution was officially launched in response to a failed coup against Anwar Sadat, who rose to power in October 1970, in May 1971.. I'm correcting factual inaccuracy, please do a quick search. My edits on the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution has nothing to do with this, and the editor is rolling back my factual edits (which he agrees with) because I and Greyshark are not in agreement over where the article is to go. My edits are not unconstructive, if anyones edits are unconstructive its Greyshark who seems to be insisting on pushing false information to WP because he believes it to be true - stubbornness... To make it straight, how is these changes unconstructive (I've actually expanded and referenced the entire article, so how is it unconstructive? Compare the old version with the new one and you will understand.

• But to make my edits even clearer, the "Corrective Revolution" was not a revolution or a protest.. The template title says "Major revolts and riots in modern Egypt".. You would have believed that someone else would have included it before if it was a riot, revolt, coup or an actual revolution, but its not.. It was officially launched as the "Corrective Movement" and the name was later changed to "Corrective Revolution" to reflect Sadat's "revolutionary" policy, see.. If you have further questions please reply, but if i'm going to be blocked, both of us should be. Thirdly, if there are any editors who are willing to solve the "crisis" at the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution please join. --TIAYN (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Two-way edit war, almost zero attempt to discuss the issue instead of reverting by both sides -> both sides blocked. Next time the block is longer. Use dispute resolution, guys. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Stiarts erid reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: George of the Jungle 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stiarts erid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [169]

Original reverts:

1. [170]
2. [171]
3. [172]
4. [173]
5. [174]
6. [175]
7. [176]
8. [177]

Recent reverts:

1. [178]
2. [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:
The editor repeatedly adds superfluous poorly written details to the plot summary. He did stop last month after several warnings but has recently resumed his disruptive activities. He hasn't violated 3RR but it is clearly a case of protracted edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours - I'm not quite sure how to handle the WP:DIVA departure of this user, so I'm simply going to ignore it, and proceed as I would normally. In this case, I see significant disruptive editing. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)