Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Ksenofontoff reported by User:Beagel (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]

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

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

Comments:
Seems to be meatpuppet of user:Christiankkk or vice versa. Beagel (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 31 hours by another admin. The newly created article at Activ Solar appears to be worth keeping, but Christiankkk and Ksenofontoff have edit warred to remove material from it, perhaps because it was unflattering to the company. They might be connected with the enterprise. I hope that the experienced editors such as User:Beagel will continue to keep an eye on things and will try to explain our policies. Christiankkk is now blocked one week per a sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ksenofontoff is back. This time not doing block removals, but taking bit-by-bit out of information about links reported by sources and labeling these sources as "gutter media". Do avoid any edit warring from my side, I would like to ask that some not-involved admin will keep his/her eye on this article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

After block ending user:Ksenofontoff first edit was to add one additional reference to the Polysilicon production section and labeling the sources he previously tried to remove as "gutter press" and "untrusted sources" [8]. By three following edits, I fixed formatting of the added reference and restored the previous text of Ownership section per WP:NPOV. However, after checking the added source I removed it as it does not contain information after which it was put. There is no problem of using this reference in the article in general as it is published by Bloomberg and says that Active Solar has invested in the semiconductors plant. The only reason from removing it from the specific location, as described in edit summary, was that it says nothing about specific products or capacities which were provided in the text before citation.[9] This edits were reverted by user:Ksenofontoff and all text and most of sources about company linkage to the Ukrainian authorities were removed.[10] After that I explained on the talk page why the previous version about owners which gave different versions from different sources is more neutral than version edited by user:Ksenofontoff, and why I will restore the latest stable version. I also raised potential COI issue. [11] After that I reverted the article back to this version.[12] I was reverted by following two edits.[13] To avoid edit warring I did not revert these edits anymore, but restored one reference and added a not-in citation tag the added reference for the reasons given above. [14] I was reverted again. [15] In addition, user:Ksenofontoff made a personal attack at the talk page accusing me to be "payed person hired by competitors".[16] I don't know how to prove that this claim is nonsense. However, everybody is welcome to check my edit history. I don't want to continue editing that page any longer but I also think that it would be very bad example if potential COI editor(s) is/are able to censor information in Wikipedia. If necessary, all disputed sources could be submitted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for discussion. Beagel (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Notified Ksenofontoff that he's continuing to violate our policy. Asked him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Miguillen reported by User:Fry1989 (Result: Reportee warned; reporter blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Template:Navarre-geo-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miguillen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Comments:
Miguillen is showing extreme ownership of this template and it's content. He will only allow it to use his version of the flag map for Navarre. It started when I made the Navarre flag map on Commons. He repeatedly uploaded a different version saying mine was wrong. I asked for sources, and he wouldn't give any. Eventually, he [File:Wikiproyecto Navarra.svg uploaded] his own version, and started edit-warring on the template to insert his prefered version. It started on 8 April 2011‎. I repeatedly asked him for sources, he still refused to give any, and eventually gave up his edit war on 12 April 2011‎, waiting until 17 August 2011‎ to start it up again, no doubt hoping nobody (especially me) would notice after such a long pause. However, I did, and I have again asked him for sources, he simply refuses to give any, and even though I gave a source myself, he just says it's wrong. I have already been blocked for edit-warring on the template myself (block has since passed) which I accepted, however Miguillen has gotten away with it free, and this has only emboldened him furthur. He needs to understand that A: he does not own the template, and B: He must have a source to back his claims, and C: when another user has a source themselves, saying "it's wrong" doesn't cut it. I already warned Mguillen that I would have to bring it to a report as I no longer have time for his nonsense, and so it has come to this. Whether Mguillen is blocked for a couple days, or simply warned to stop inserting his prefered version (unsourced) against a sourced version, does not bother me. I simply want him to stop fighting a sourced version, unless he himself has a source for his claim as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have warned Miguillen that he will be blocked for any future edit-warring and have blocked Fry1989 for edit-warring after just coming off a 72-hour block for similar behaviour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
The image that was there before he had intervened is the same i want to include even though in png format(2009/08/25 image that had the problem before you start a 2011/04/02 time when the problem started). My intention is not to impose my image but to avoid including a wrong one.

It is wrong mainly because it has highlighted effects in the crown and emerald using more than one color tone, and this is not just wrong because the coat of arms described as a model for formal events and official flag (BON No. 140, 20-11-1985) where although not defined color tones if you see a color image where these effects are not seen relief. Besides I think it's totally inappropriate to try to imitate a model of a flag, coat of arms engraved on which exhibits the highlighted effects of its original features and that this supports the coats of arms are painted or embroidered.

This flag has a simple description "Red with the coat of arms of Navarre in the center." and in addition can only add the previously discussed with respect to the model a coat of arms must use in the flag.

As happens in other flag officers exposed sites there are two variants: those with and coat of arms embroidered and painted and it has ambasla difference between representation are the colors used and the definition of its edges. I think in this case represent more logical to have the coat of arms painted, which are less common but their definition is clearer and we interpreted as a graph.

Finally i'd like to apologize for my not native English if that makes it hard for you to understand me. regards.--Miguillen (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:190.46.108.149 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: already blocked)

Page: Reservoir Dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.46.108.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [23]
• 5th revert: [24]
• 6th revert: [25]
• 7th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Comments:

Haven't exactly been formal about this because it's not this user's first first time warring over this same article and content, so the warn was informal, and actually occurred on my own talk page. Article talk was not used as recidivism and hostility both pointed directly at an unwillingness to discuss or compromise. GRAPPLE X 00:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked --slakr^\ talk / 23:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:149.169.201.191 reported by User:Buggie111 (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Ironwood High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 149.169.201.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Multiple IPs are trying to push the same material into the article (WP:SOCK) and they never participate on the talk page. Buggie111 is cautioned that the 3RR limit applies to both sides of this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't able to file a report early in the article, and thuts only had time about half a day after it started. I understand that 3RR applies to both sides of a dispute, and promise that in future cases, I won't make a third revert unless I know I will have time to file a report soon after. Again, my apologies. Buggie111 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Aprock (Result: Protected)

Page: Pan Am (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lhb1239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st 20:12, 29 November 2011: [34], "Reverted 1 edit by Jasonbres (talk)"
• 2nd 20:23, 29 November 2011: [35], "Reverted good faith edits by 128.189.200.210"
• 3rd 20:55, 29 November 2011: [36], "Reverted to revision 463076976 by DocWatson42"
• 4th 23:37, 29 November 2011‎: [37], "Reverted to revision 463169647 by Lhb1239"
• 5th, 00:12, 30 November 2011: [38], "remove some wording per WP:CRYSTAL"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 23:49, 29 November 2011‎ [39]
• previously, [40]

Previous reports for page Pan Am (TV series):

• 04:06, 14 November 2011 User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: 48h)
• 07:28, 21 November 2011: User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Aprock (Result: Stale)

Comments:

Third barrage of edit warring on this article in the last two weeks. aprock (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• An internet rumor started today regarding the cancellation of the TV show Pan Am (the subject of the article in question) has inspired a spate of editors to add unreferenced and dubious content to the article. Edits in question/listed above commented on below:

1. 1 = A dead link for a reference was added by an editor and subsequently removed by me. The editor was cautioned on his talk page about adding unreliable references - also by me (as seen here).
2. 2 = An IP added the rumor back in, without a reference. The IP was cautioned on his talk page about this - also by me (as seen here).
3. 3 = Changing back to last stable version of article since more IPs and others had readded the rumored cancellation - as well, I provided a reference that debunked the rumor in the edit summary (see edit summary here)
4. 4 = Removing speculation reported by an unreliable source per WP:CITE (as seen here)
5. 5 = Not a revert, but a cooperative edit improving language and removing phrasing per WP:CRYSTAL.

Lhb1239 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Admin comment: I don't like getting involved with 3R, since it's often difficult to figure out what edits were reverted when, but in this case it's easy: the reverts cited are not the same reverts, and they all appear to be good-faith edits in which information based on unreliable sources is removed. No action; Aprock is urged to be more careful since this complaint is without merit. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion that this is without merit is curious. It appears that canvassing/discussion of this issue between you and Lhb1239 has occurred off-wiki: [41], [42]. Please do recall that 3RR isn't a privilege, it's a bright line. That Lhb1239 has repeatedly engaged edit warring on this article instead of using talk page discussion to resolve disputes is more than clear here. While it may be inconvenient for Lhb1239 to participate in talk page discussion, edit warring is not an acceptable alternative. aprock (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this case Lhb is correct, with these specific reverts, narrowly construed--in my opinion. I was asked to look at the report, which I did; I was not asked to give a general overview of the editor's work but I do share EdJohnston's thoughts about the article. Moreover, it is well possible that broadly construed there is more to this, perhaps OWNership, but you have to understand that these are judgment calls, and that different admins can have different opinions. Finally, I fully support EdJohnston's final statement, on 'continued reverting.' Does this help? And I'll do one more thing: I will strike my "without merit" comment, since it was too strong, with a closing remark: please don't think that what is crystal clear in your eyes is crystal clear in someone else's, and that's especially true on this board. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected one week, with the consent of Drmies. The submitter of this report has correctly supplied a list of five reverts. A flow of bulletins on the web about the status of this show can make it hard to reach a firm conclusion, but in my view there is no reason for the article to bounce around like a ping pong ball with each new rumor. There is plenty of time to hold a discussion on the talk page. If consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted. Lhb1239 should not expect that continued reverting on this article is a safe activity. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Despite two blocks, a warning, narrowly missing a block because another 3RR report was stale and numerous warnings on his talk page, Lhb1239 still doesn't seem to get that there are only limited exceptions to 3RR and that there are times where you simply can't revert any more that day, because you've already made three reverts, and that you have to request page protection or hope that some other editor will rescue the page. He's good at making mistakes and apologies but he doesn't seem to want to follow policy unless it suits him to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Rajagopal11 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef)

Page: Nair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rajagopal11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49] - on user talk page: the issue has been discussed on and off for months on the article talk page. This is simply unexplained removal of sourced content (& well sourced, at that). Very common POV-pushing behaviour at Nair, unfortunately.

Comments:

• Result: Blocked indef by User:Materialscientist for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jsmcdo reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Hardin, Montana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jsmcdo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51] 20:25, November 30, 2011
• 2nd revert: [52] 22:06, November 30, 2011
• 3rd revert: [53] 22:11, November 30, 2011
• 4th revert: [54] 22:13, November 30, 2011
• 5th revert: [55] 23:57, November 30, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] 22:27, November 30, 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:
Jsmcdo was warned at each revert. After the fourth revert, he was warned about 3RR and blocking. 90 minutes later he went ahead and reverted once again. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Straightforward. Kuru (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Megwhich reported by User:Dan653 (Result: Semi)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donkey_punch&oldid=461319093 Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

Dan653 (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month, since the process of reaching a consensus version is being impeded by IPs (from both sides of the dispute) who are reverting without discussion. The 3RR complaint against Megwhich is stale since the edits listed are from 25 November. Anyone who continues to revert before the RfC is finished is risking a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Gertrude Lawrence reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Natalie Wood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gertrude Lawrence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]

Diff of warning / going against consensus: [70] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] - this link gives a complete picture of the combative nature of the editor's editing and reversions and the collective attempt by three editors (including myself) to try and work with the edit warring editor per consensus already reached about 10 days ago.

Comments:

The first revert diff is a reversion and re-inclusion of content that was decided - via consensus on the article's talk page - the "Final months" section was not appropriate for the article. See link to that discussion here: [73]. The editor being reported does not seem to understand edit warring to begin with, who is actually edit warring (he placed an edit warring warning on my talk page today as seen here). The editor also seems to have ownership issues (as seen in this edit summary) - '...keep your hands off my "Final months"'. His continued editing of the article (seen in 4th diff above) shows that preventative measures (e.g., an administrator's warning or short 3RR block) might be in order here. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How is your 4th diff a revert rather than just editing?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the original diff is a reversion, not just an edit. The 4th diff is of an edit that shouldn't have happened since he was already aware he had violated 3RR. Near the top of this page it states: "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." Frankly, I don't want to see the editor blocked, just warned so he understands what edit warring is and how disruptive it is and how he can't just keep putting stuff into articles that he likes but is against consensus. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

...and how is this preventative when the user has acknowledged and backed away from the article. Indeed, Lhb1239's notice looks punitive in nature. No, that 4th diff is just editing...there is no violation. There was no violation before the 4th edit as you state. There is no problem with that user currently.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"...No violation"? That's for an administrator to decide (you are not an administrator, are you?) As I said above, I'm not looking for punitive action, only preventative - and that stands for now and in the future. If the editor is warned and he gets the message, terrific. If an administrator believes a block is in order so he gets the message, that's the administrator's call. All I'm interested in is an end to the disruption (and practically every time he edits the Wood article he's disruptive) and for him to be a better, more informed editor. That's what "preventative" is supposed to be about. And just for the record, accusing me unjustly of wanting punitive action taken against the editor when there's no evidence of that is definitely non-AGF and borders on a a personal attack. And I don't appreciate it in the least. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So you threaten with reporting here and three hours later with the user discussing on the talk page in good faith, you decide that the time was right to report. Well, we'll see how the admins decide but for future reference editors are allowed to comment here. I have been trying to work with a good faith editor and this combative soul has tried to butt in and badger rather than help deescalate. Have fun with your NPA claim.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not blocked Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative, and the user is talking now. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Peoeagle reported by User:EdJohnston (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ironwood High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peoeagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 18:43, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "The article is very similar to many other high school pages both inside the Peoria Unified as well as throughout the United States. You showed me one page without the fs and other information, but I can easily show you others that do.")
2. 18:46, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 18:47, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 18:48, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable Clubs */")
5. 18:48, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Clubs & Activities */")
6. 18:59, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Diversity */")
7. 19:01, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "Updated Information In Box")
8. 19:01, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Ironwood Fight Song */")
9. 19:03, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "Removed random "-"")
10. 19:05, 30 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Summer Theater */")
11. 00:47, 1 December 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted Back and updated statistical information about the school of the DOE")

(1-10 are consecutive so they count as one revert)

User:Peoeagle is presumably the same editor as a whole series of 149.169.* IPs who were warring on this article prior to the semiprotection that was imposed. Peoeagle may have dusted off a little-used account on November 30 when he found he could no longer edit as multiple IPs. The IPs collectively reverted the material added by Peoeagle back into the article about 13 times since 24 November. The series of reverts started when Buggie111 made an attempt to clean up the article on 24 November. Buggie has also gone over the revert limit, but he seems to aspire to improving the article so that it will pass GA review. He apologized for his violation in the previous 3RR. The previous 3RR report about this high school was closed by me with semiprotection and can still be seen at Wikipedia:AN3#User:149.169.201.191 reported by User:Buggie111 (Result: Semiprotected).

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
I asked Peoeagle to stop reverting and wait for consensus, but he has continued after the warning. This article will never improve unless normal article standards can be applied. My inclination is to block Peoeagle for long-term edit warring, but I would like this case looked at by a second admin so my reasoning can be reviewed. Another option is a sock block per WP:DUCK (revert warring with multiple IPs plus a registered account). EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I would rather of seen the user notified of the discussion, but they have found it themselves and keep trying to push their agenda by editing. Any admin reviewing the block, with the user stating that they will not revert the article, but discuss, doesn't need to contact me to unblock. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: Both blocked 48hrs )

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

The consensus version of the article: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: I've not reverted him after the 3rd time and chose to report here since it is obvious that he will keep on editwarring since he's doing so after a consensus (refer to comments bellow).
• Another edit: User made another edit on top of his own completely removing attribution to contentious text which was already not supposed to be in the lead. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81] (in the edit summary instead of his talk page so as to not start a flame war which I suspected).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, RFC and WP:NPOVN: [82] [83] [84].

Comments: The user dragged the conversation to a highly disruptive length filibustering all the time and at the end the closure was done by admin intervention in which admins have specifically stated not to included the disputed information in the infobox or lead (which the user was previously editwarring on) and to attribute the claims in the body. Reading the NPOVN conclusion and admin comments in the end by TP [85] you can see how this user is not hearing. Incase the preventive action is a full protection instead of a block, I'll request the administrator to revert to the consensus version given on the top i.e. the previous version before the reported user's top edits (which have all been declared contentious at WP:NPOVN). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: lTopGunl is misusing wikipedia forms such as this to further his pov. He misrepresents the consensus. The consensus was only in regard to not including the ISI as a current ally of the Taliban in the infobox which I have not done. There was no discussion held on the past involvement of Pakistan with the Taliban. And the discussion was certainly not with regards to the lead which none of us was edit-warring on at the time the dispute resolution started. In the end of the RFC, I agreed to remove the ISI from the infobox and to close the RFC either to go to another dispute resolution forum or to close the issue for the time being. [86]

The first "revert" that he mentions was not a revert. I was adding new content which none had removed before. Additionally, TopGun reverted as many times as I did and I reverted two times. I never was involved in such disputes and always was able to figure things out with other editors through talking except for the time when notorious sockpuppet user Lagoo sab was vandalizing wikipedia. JCAla (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• The admins should review the consensus on given section of NPOV notice board and admin comments on closure and at the end of the discussion with respect to 3 issues I presented on top of the NPOVN section to start the discussion. That will talk for itself. For the obvious editwar that could be seen coming (since he reverted even after my warning), I unilaterally stopped editing in favour of reporting here while the user has made top on, even more contentious, edits to it removing attributions. And I'm afraid he'll bring the already resolved dispute here with more essays for us to read. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for TopGun to assume I would have gone above the 3RR, since I never did (except to revert vandal Lagoo sab in the past). The consensus was only with regards to the present relation between the Taliban and Pakistan. And, the discussion was in regard to the infobox and the term "ally". The Last Angry Man and Darkness Shines shared my interpretation of wikipedia policy, while four editors shared TopGun's interpretation. That is why the ISI was removed from the infobox as a current ally. The relation up to 2001 of Taliban/Pakistan is a totally different issue which has not been discussed yet. JCAla (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Note: although normal escalation would have given 1 editor more than 48 hours, I have implemented identical-length blocks for their part in this edit-war (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Galeriechezvalentin reported by User:Reddogsix (Result: 3 days)

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

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

• 1st revert: [87]
• 2nd revert: [88]
• 3rd revert: [89]
• 4th revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

• Result: Blocked three days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Sheodred reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Restriction)

Page: Ernest Shackleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 13:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 15:39, 29 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463118372 by Ruhrfisch (talk) Its not a nationality, and it is pipelinked. I left Anglo-irish in the lede, so whats your problem?")
2. 15:46, 29 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463119362 by Ruhrfisch (talk) Ireland is not part of Great Britain (I can guess that you are doing this to get me blocked for "edit warring"")
3. 10:58, 1 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463429116 by Τασουλα (talk) IT IS NOT A NATIONALITY, IT DOES NOT BELONG IN LEDE, LOOK UP MOS")
4. 12:00, 1 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463484584 by Ruhrfisch (talk)Persistently violating MOS")
5. 12:17, 1 December 2011 (edit summary: "See IMOS, removed Anglo-Irish, does not belong there, but I have not readded Irish, so it is a violation of the 3RR")

• Diff of warning: here

See also recent history of John Tyndall.—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarek fails to mention that I only edited these articles because certain editors have been violating the IMOS, which I was trying to point out, I have not broken the 3RR on Shackleton, and I am trying to be undisruptive as possible, my latest edits to Shackleton (the last two) were not reverts, which Sarek has failed to mention also. Just to add about Sarek, he stalks me on Wikipedia, he has wrongly blocked me in the past which led him to unblock me quickly after, his conduct as admin has been called into question in the past, and funny enough I am the only editor that he has reported for engaging in edit warring behaviour.... Sheodred (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify Sarek's 5th diff example, I made a typo in the edit summary, I meant to say "not a violation of 3RR", if you look at the history page of Shackleton, you will see. Sheodred (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:REVERT, "reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." (emphasis mine) Also, edit warring does not require a WP:3RR violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I made those in good faith, people here are forgetting the guidelines outlined by IMOS. Sheodred (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was blocked by an admin involved in the same article, who edit-warred, this is really unfair treatment by the people who are supposed to protect and serve the Wikipedian community and encyclopedia. Sheodred (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC

I unblocked shortly after and apologize. I am fine with being blocked or losing the bit for my failure to follow the rules. It does not alter the fact that you were going against consensus and edit warring. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was unblocked, thats fine I accept your apology, but it is up to uninvolved admins to determine if they believe I should be blocked for my edits. Sheodred (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I urge the uninvolved admins in question to check Sheodred's block log and related talk page entries while deciding if the recent short block was sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if Sheodred is correct regarding WP:IMOS, reverts which are performed in the service of a style guideline are not an exception to 3RR. I think that normally a block would be necessary, but I've proposed that Sheodred refrain from edits regarding Irish nationality for one month. In my opinion that would be enough to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked Sheodred and should not have as I was involved in the content dispute / edit war. I unblocked him/her shortly therafter, have apologized to Sheodred, and am willing to be blocked or lose my admin priveleges if that is the consensus of the community. However, I had previously warned Sheodred about 3RR violations, and s/he had been blocked for edit warring before. While I was wrong to block Sheodred, I think that Sheodred's edit warring was deserving of a block. Sorry to have screwed up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I will accept what you said EdJohnston regarding the one month self-restriction, but this whole issue with the incorrect usage of Anglo-Irish and other substitutes for Irish on what seems to only be a problem on Irish articles needs to be addressed, otherwise we wouldn't have half these problems, if there were proper concrete guidelines that prevented editors for pushing their POV on Irish articles, most of the problems would cease to exist. Also admins abusing their tools to push their POV must be disciplined somehow, it is a serious breach of protocol, and has diminished the standing of admins in the eyes of observers.

A note also, Sarek wrongfuly blocked me once before, that was remedied, BlackKite blocked me due to a false accusation of me being a sock (extended a short block from a similar problem with CS Lewis for a 3RR) without an RFC about it, he got away with that. Regarding Daniel Case's blocked me for breaking the 3RR (the Anglo-Irish problem again), I can accept that I broke the 3RR, I won't deny that. SarekOfVulcan, I strongly suspect you are stalking me on wikipedia, I suggest you stop, your conduct in the past as an admin has also been called into question before. Sheodred (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no block, per Sheodred's agreement to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month, as agreed on his talk page. He may still may use talk pages to make proposals regarding Irish nationality. This restriction expires at 22:56 on 1 January 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Seanwal111111 reported by User:Sheodred (Result: )

Page: John Tyndall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seanwal111111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [93]
• 2nd revert: [94]
• 3rd revert: [95]

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

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

Comments:

User:Biosketch reported by User:YehudaTelAviv64 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=463205191

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=463492771&oldid=463459889

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biosketch#1RR_Violation_in_Golan_Heights

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights&diff=463510124&oldid=463505812

Comments:
YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Preliminarily noting that YehudaTelAviv64 is most likely a returned banned editor, like the rest of uncareful socks that are very familiar with intricate WP policy and noticeboards barely a month into their new account.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, not a WP:1RR violation and YehudaTelAviv64, have you ever edited under a previous account, if so, what was it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not perceiving an actual 1RR by either party. Still, any newly-created account like YehudaTelAviv64 (created 29 October) that jumps into active reverting on a hot-button I/P article should get an WP:ARBPIA warning. The editor's sophistication indicates this is not his first time on Wikipedia. If he will respond here and promise to wait for consensus before making any further changes at Golan Heights the ARBPIA warning might be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, debating whether or not to formally issue an ARBPIA warning is unproductive bureaucratish. What we really need is a CU done pronto, and if that comes up empty block the user per WP:DUCK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:88.123.232.186 reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Climatic Research Unit email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.123.232.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

• 0th revert: [99]
• 1st revert: [100]
• 2nd revert: [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This has been talked to death on the talk page. Repeatedly.

Comments:

Article may need semi-protection, lots of recent sockpuppetry.... Page is under 1RR. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. This matches the length of the last semi. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: also blocked the IP, without seeing this report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)