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:Awaythelads reported by User:Socrates2008 (Result: Stale)

Pages:

• R4 assault rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported:

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

• Stale NJA (t/c) 08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:72.81.124.230 reported by User:Wikiwatcher1 (Result: Warned)

A new user is only deleting specific material on one article, Ingrid Bergman. I have not warned or posted any notices, but instead wrote to user on their talk page, User talk:72.81.124.230, which is being ignored. Four reverts, last two with no comments, so I feel a 3rr or other warning by another editor would be more neutral.

Diffs:
1
2
3
4

Maybe someone's comment on their talk page would help. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Warned. No warnings given, thus we'll see if one makes a difference. If not, re-report and cite this report in it. NJA (t/c) 08:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need and User:Mserard313 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 31h)

Page: Socialist Party USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Mserard313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

I apologize in advance for not linking specific diffs, but this one is too large and obvious. Both of these accounts have made 10+ edits to the article over the last two hours, and the edit war is still ongoing. Both were warned on their talk pages [2] [3] and acknowledged the warning, then went right back to work. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mserard313... We've stopped edit warring now (i hope), finally... --TIAYN (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:PRODUCER reported by 78.2.133.18 (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (Result: semi)

Page: Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PRODUCER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]
• 3rd revert: [6]
• 4th revert: [7]

Stephen II of Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

User:PRODUCER also has a record for beeing edit warrior:7 times

As you can see by his contributions reverting is cca 90% of his activity.

This is another sock puppet of banned user Aradic-es (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aradic-es/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aradic-es) who is apparently hell-bent on keeping his Croat view into these articles. He has gone so far as to remove my requests for page protection. [12] ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC) The main pint is missed. His (PRODUCER'S) HOLY duty to delte all he dislikes.And no to PRODUCE anything indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.133.18 (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Pages semi-protected by Ged UK (talk · contribs). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:72.81.124.230 reported by User:Wikiwatcher1 (Result: Protected)

Warning by User:NJA did not help: [13]. Because user is apparently married to someone in the family, they are taking published bio details personally.

Latest diff: [14] --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I added a Welcome notice along with a talk page section to hopefully avoid further edit warring. But I'd like a neutral 3rd party to oversee this since it's becoming a one-on-one debate. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected NJA (t/c) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:PrBeacon reported by User:Cetamata (Result: Protected)

Page: Whaling in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PrBeacon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

Rather than attempting to resolve the issue in the discussion page this user proceeded to begin an edit war by re-reverting back to his recent undone changes and reported me without any prior discussion or attempt at dispute resolution. Cetamata (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion about the reverts is ongoing on the talk page. This looks like an attempt to weaken one side through a block.
• 2 reverts are of course not a 3RR violation. 2 reverts that are part of a discussion with edit summaries may not be optimal, but would not normally be considered sanctionable edit warring.
• In PrBeacon's recent contributions there is no evidence of PrBeacon reporting Cetamata for edit warring. Apparently Cetamata is referring to a warning for edit warring on Cetamata's talk page. Hans Adler 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Disruptive dispute that needs sorted on talk page so that the article can be edited in a way that has consensus so as to avoid abuse of undo. NJA (t/c) 08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cetamata is misrepresenting the situation and has bypassed normal channels of dispute resolution, hereby retaliating for my warning to him [20] (and deleting it). Over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV, including the euphemisms "take" and "catch" and ignoring disagreements about these terms on the talk page, while paying lip service to WP policies. Notice also his links to warning & discussion above are incorrect & misleading, respectively. PrBeacon (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't misrepresented anything. PrBeacon proceeded to re-revert his edits after they were undone rather than discuss them and then continue to make more changes despite statements of objection in the discussion page. He continues to push for his POV in the article and prior to ANY discussion dropped the "you may be reported for warring" threat on my talk page - which having never been through this process before I did misinterpret as an actual report. Regardless, the dispute has not been resolved. Cetamata (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify what PrBeacon has brought to these notes - there are two disputed issues.

1) Change of the subsection title "Research Whaling" (describes history behind use of science permits) to "Claims of Research" and the section title "Scientific Research" (describes science proposals/results) to "Claims of Research". I "undid" both instances and got a threat instead of a discussion. PrBeacon re-reverted and has stated his opinion that the research is not valid and therefore should be described accordingly.

2) Change of the text of the article. PrBeacon stated the word "take" (eg: Japan went on to take over 200 Bryde's whales) should be replaced with the word "kill" or "killing" everywhere it appears in the article. I have not reverted any of these changes. That was done by another editor. Cetamata (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please note the top of this page where it says not to continue the dispute here. This is why the article is protected, ie there's clearly a disagreement that has digressed into disruption. Use the article's talk page and the step by step mechanisms at WP:DR to sort this. Best of luck. NJA (t/c) 21:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Move war currently going on at Homophobia (Result:Move protected)

Started by User:Garrythefish who will not stop moving the page despite repeated reverts. Henrymrx (t·c) 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just move-protected the article. I think that should solve the problem for the time being. If consensus emerges for a move, it can of course still be carried out by an admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Henrymrx (t·c) 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing looks like a classic example of agenda pushing, though I could be mistaken. Sudden, very controversial change made without discussion followed by an aggressive edit war doesn't inspire good faith, at the very least. Zazaban (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cleo22 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: )

• Omar Sharif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cleo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [21] Removing that Sharif was born into a Lebanese family.

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

1. 21:22, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:47, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 00:39, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 06:38, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Omar Sharif#continued removal of Lebanese

Comments:
I myself have reverted three times, but one of those times I added 7 reliable sources that said that Sharif was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian family. There was also one revert by an IP to the same edit here, also with no edit summary. The user refuses to answer any question or provide any type of response, just continues to blanket revert on a number of articles. See the users contribs, nearly all of their contributions are removals of "Lebanese" or "Syrian" from various articles on people who the user apparently feels are only "Egyptian". nableezy - 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If you look at the entire editing history of user cleo22, the only thing that account is used for is to go around to biography articles and remove sourced background content. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

86.148.18.98 breaking three revert rule at Roman Polanski sexual abuse case (Result: 31 hrs)

1. [22] Reconsider the static reverts him
2. [23] Dream Focus reverts him
3. [24] Everyone Dies In the End reverts him.
4. [25]Everyone dies in the end reverts him yet again.

He was warned on his talk page.[26] The difs listed are what he/she has done today, the same exact edits reverted previously. He refuses to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. Account has made only one edit not related to Roman Polanski. Dream Focus 10:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hoursJodyB _talk 12:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Иван Богданов (Result: )

• Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Serbia and Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Template:Politics of Yugoslavia (edit | [[Talk:Template:Politics of Yugoslavia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Diffs

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]

User:DIREKTOR is behaving very uncivil and vandalistic. He constantly revert my edits at articles wich I listed above. DIREKTOR is known for numerous WP:3RR violations; his last 48 hours blockade expired only three days ago. He had four blockades so far. This behaviour shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia. --User:Иван Богданов (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, it would be helpful if you would include the actual diffs to support your statements instead of asking someone to go through the articles looking for the information. Do be careful as it appears you are also involved with him in the edit wars. Thanks. JodyB _talk 12:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to protect my edits from his vandalism. --User:Иван Богданов (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Parties are reminded that editing in this area is part of the area of conflict under WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2. Consequences of tendentious editing can be stern. Note in ARBMAC2 the discussion of page moves and naming conventions. I would strongly suggest that this discussion be taken to a talk page before any further editing. JodyB _talk 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Commandr Cody reported by ►Chris Nelson^Holla! (Result: No action taken)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:New York Mets roster (edit | [[Talk:Template:New York Mets roster|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commandr Cody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:57, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345942157 by Chrisjnelson (talk)Barajas did not pass physical yet")
2. 21:01, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "No news sources report that Barajas passed his physical")
3. 21:17, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345953025 by Chrisjnelson (talk)The Mets have not officially made an announcement, Rotoworld is not a notable source.")
4. 21:25, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345955540 by Chrisjnelson (talk)")

User:Commandr Cody has reverted four times on Template:New York Mets roster despite verifiable evidence to the contract of his edit here.

RotoWorld is NOT a notable source. No other notable news sources have reported that Barajas passed his physical. Players are only added to MLB rosters when it is officially announced by the team. the same prototcol was followed during the Jason Bay signing.Commandr Cody (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All those claims are either false or without merit. There is no special protocol for editing MLB rosters, other than passing WP:VERIFY, which this does. Rotoworld is an extremely well-known, highly-trafficked website that is part of NBC Sports. Whether or not you think they are notable enough is entirely irrelevant.

That is neither here nor there, though. The primary issue is that you violated 3RR on a verifiable edit, which makes you undoubtedly in the wrong.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit war seems to have stopped and both parties seem to be communicating so I see no value in a block for now. I would request that you both keep talking and try to figure something out. If there are any further reverts without agreement between you, or without the intervention of a third party, a block for the reverting party may result. TigerShark (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Primrose

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to report on the behavior of User:Giano (aka User:GiacomoReturned) who has twice reverted edits on the Hannah Primrose article, which, as it stands is loaded with offensive WP:POV and WP:OR and blatant salacious innuendo. For an example of the former: "Yet his Jewish wife, during her lifetime regarded as dull, overweight and lacking in beauty", and the latter: "Rosebery's possible homosexuality has been much discussed in recent times. Nothing conclusive has ever been found one way or the other, but it is possible that he had homosexual experiences while in the care of a paedophile housemaster at Eton in his youth.[46] No evidence exists that his wife was aware of these rumours against her husband, or would have understood them if she had. It is unlikely that she would have even known of the existence of homosexual men, bearing in mind her sheltered upbringing and limited education."

Neither comment is sourced. The first comment has no citation. The latter, trapped in a convoluted lengthy pseudoanalysis, may be sourced, but that does not mean it should be permitted to stand. Would anyone cite The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for a quotation? Why then this self-admittedly non-factually founded salacious garbage? User:Giano clearly believes he owns the article. His history on the talkpage is filled with abusive and gratuitously condescending language towards other editors, who gave up last December 2009 in trying in good faith to improve the article. He has not deigned to respond on the article's talk page or on my talk page regarding his drastic reverts of my attempts to make the article conform to encyclopaedic standards. He had already rv my edits twice. Once more and it becomes WP:3RR. I reverted his edit once so far, yet I suspect if I do so again I suspect that I will be blocked for violating WP:3RR. I would appreciate a disinterested admin weighing in and if necessary correcting the article as needed. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Everything is sourced and referenced. It has changed very little since it was FA'd and as we all know anyting not referenced that should have been would have been picked up there. I suspect this user has an agenda, and I cannot be bothered to discover it.  Giano  22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no agenda at all regarding the British peerage, my tastes are eclectic. User:Giano's unfounded accusations and contemptuous and dismissive language, are evidenced right here. It is clearly he who has the agenda and believes he owns the article. He seems to believe that no one will want to tangle with him. I hope he is proved wrong. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, but a reference is a reference and a fact is a fact and a FA is a FA, and of course a troll is a troll. you removed referenced and very important fact from the article and I replaced it. you then put POV tags on the article and I removed them because it is not. Simple.  Giano  22:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

" you removed referenced and very important fact from the article and I replaced it. you then put POV tags on the article and I removed them because it is not." -- if I can decipher this rather unintelligible comment, I removed fact (1 fact?) which he believes is "very important".

"you then put POV tags on the article and I removed them because it is not." RESPONSE: I did not put a WP:POV tag, but rather WP:TONE and WP:LONG. Given this factual inaccuracy and his compulsive need to insult anyone he disagrees with ("a troll is a troll"), I believe this user seriously needs to be given the 411 from the only source he respects -- one with the power to block him. I am not going to play into his hands by reverting again, which will likely get me blocked, even though it would only be the second reversion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are begining to sound like a stuck gramaphone record - the page is fully referenced, so you will have to get over it. All the reference books used are highly reputable and trustworthy. I don't deal in rubbish. Finally, drive-by tagging on a FA is disruptive and speaks for itself.  Giano  22:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Yet his Jewish wife, during her lifetime regarded as dull, overweight and lacking in beauty" Hmmm. Sounds like something from 1930s Germany (Julius Streicher, anyone?)

"so you will have to get over it" - isn't that one of the soundbites used by ideologues on Wikipedia who, due to their own agendas must necessarily refuse to cooperate in good faith with others, usually say? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. - I hope no one here attempts to defame me pre-emptively by bringing up blocks I was dealt in 2006, four years ago because I am tired of those maneuvers and they won't work. I am only mentioning it because two editors, just to get their way on two separate WP:AFDs did just that. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not Julius Striecher (as you suggest), but Henry James - have you heard of him? He is fully quoted in the text along with others "Henry James, an occasional guest in the Roseberys' homes, delivered one of the most unflattering condemnations of Lady Rosebery describing her as "...large, coarse, Hebrew-looking with hair of no particular colour and personally unattractive"." Furthermore, the page has over 100 more multiple footnotes. Many of them proper footnotes - explaining discrepencies and alternative views of various authors and accounts. It is fully referenced, it could not be more so - I'm sorry you don't like the content, but it is all proven fact.  Giano  23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• This report is frivolous. We do not run to WP:AN when a user makes two reverts. Hannah Primrose is a featured article, which has been very thoroughly reviewed. I think User:Rms125a@hotmail.com's arguments are tendentious and disruptive. The fact that I had to remove person attacks posted by Rms125a on their own user page [32] is further evidence that this editor might not be acting in good faith. I recommend dropping this matter, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, disengaging from this conflict, and avoiding future behavior of a similar nature. I also recommend changing your username so that it is not an email address. Jehochman ^Brrr 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"We do not run to WP:AN when a user makes 'two reverts'." -- Yet three reverts earns an editor a block.

I would also note that comments such as "Rosebery only ever trusted his wife. Without her to calm and order his life he was a neurotic wreck." and "suggesting that when a choice between her children and husband was forced on her, she always chose her husband. However, the same comment also hints that she was not unaware that her choice was at the cost of her children" are WP:SYNTHESIS at best or WP:OR at worst, WP:FA or no. Also, a plurality of the edits come from one source - McKinstry. I will not change my username, as per the explanation on my talk page provided by User:Alison, which is not relevant to this page anyway. I am "disengaging", however, from this colloquy, albeit under protest, as I see I cannot prevail. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It actually takes four reverts to report to this board: "...more than three revert actions..." Doc9871 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen admins give out blocks after three reverts, citing WP:3RR. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Me too (and edit-warring doesn't require 4 reverts), but a solid 3RR report should generally have four or more reverts for a clear case of 3RR violation on this board... Doc9871 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2010 (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.

O'Brien dynasty

Resolved

 – Everybody's happy enough to figure it out on the article talk page Doc Quintana (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not 3RR yet, but it's an edit war I saw on recent changes. Hold on, i'll get the diffs. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

These are the ones I saw from the past few days, there's a few self reverts in there and a long term edit war of a few reverts per month going back awhile it seems. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou Reversions Of Yorkshirian and Edit Summaries

DinDraithou (talk · contribs)

• [33] ("see WP:OWN. you appear unwilling to accept any changes to your original text, and appear to have a limited understanding of the subject. why not swallow your pride and let me take over?")
• [34]("they actually meant different things at different times")

Yorkshirian Reversions Of DinDraithou

Yorkshirian (talk · contribs)

• [35]("contentious desciption of Irish aristocratic titles. Also this is the English not Gaelige Wikipedia-names like Brian Boru and Dalcassians are most common in this language.")
• [36]("foreign titles". They are titles of the Kingdom of Ireland.")

This does not belong here

Yorshirian and I have worked together in the past and this a minor interpretations dispute, which we can resolve. We seem to each be having a bad day, that's all. DinDraithou (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, not sure this actually belongs here. I have created a section on the talk of the O'Brien article, re-content. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, glad you guys could come to a common ground. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki-expert-edit reported by NeilN ^{talk to me} (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wiki-expert-edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 14:16, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ some more small clean up")
2. 17:05, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344817508 by NeilN (talk)")
3. 17:32, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344849106 by Ronz (talk)correcting errors.")
4. 17:32, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ minor edit.")
5. 17:59, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "Correcting information in the Article. Please discuss before undoing it.")
6. 18:34, 19 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ As per the conversation on talk page, I am removing this inaccurate information. I don't even know if any allegation that's not proven should ever be in reference material.")
7. 21:36, 19 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ clarifying the information based on the reference")
8. 00:17, 21 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345232240 by Ronz (talk)reverting to the facts of the situation. Please see comment I left for you.")
9. 17:31, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ 16(b) is simply a mechanism for profit give back and there is no way to violate it.")
10. 20:29, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345712509 by Ronz (talk)Please see detailed explanation of 16(b) on your talk.")
11. 21:13, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345735556 by Ronz (talk)Information you added is incorrect.")
12. 21:43, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ provided reference and clarified 16 (b) awkward language.")
13. 23:28, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */dispute was settled by both parties and D&O insurance. the case was on behalf of the company and not by shareholders against the company.")
14. 00:58, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ added information from SEC filing by Infospace")
15. 01:06, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345996836 by NeilN (talk)Information was correct and well sourced.")

• Diff of warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Wiki-expert-edit#February_2010

Comments:
Repeat edit warrior with probable COI issues intent on removing sourced facts of lawsuit settlement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-expert-edit is a WP:SPA, editing only information about Intelius and its business practices. He has been disputing this same content since 21 August 2008 . He was just recently blocked for edit-warring over this material on 18 February 2010. His first edit after the block expired was to remove this information once again [38]. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing [39] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And again [40] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not any edit war here but trying to protect few people from adding personal bias to the article instead of using the trusted source like SEC filings. I don't understand how any other source could be more reliable than the filings by a company under the penalty of perjury. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 1 week (second block for edit warring). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Fernandoe reported by User:Astynax (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Pedro II of Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fernandoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 10:21, 23 February 2010

• 1st revert: 10:36, 23 February 2010
• 2nd revert: 11:29, 23 February 2010
• 3rd revert: 13:26, 23 February 2010
• 4th revert: 19:17, 23 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:
The editor insists on protecting his/her alteration of a direct quotation from a WP:RS, without supplying an alternate source/citation for the changed wording. The editor who originally added the quotation did so in order that readers would have access to the reference's exact wording. Changing the quoted text makes the reference say something that it simply does not say. I cannot revert his last edits without 3RR myself. • Astynax ^talk 04:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the quality of the reverts on either side, but I have blocked Fernandoe for 24 hours for edit warring. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Torebay reported by User:Wayiran (Result: )

Page: Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Torebay (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]

Comments:

This user is extremely disruptive, and has been removing and tempering with references, and edit-waring about it, on several other pages too [49]. He has also been removing warnnings about it from his talk page [50]. --Wayiran (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DWL901 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Air New Zealand Flight 901 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DWL901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 00:57, 22 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 04:18, 22 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 06:01, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
4. 06:04, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
5. 06:21, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
6. 08:18, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
7. 08:33, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346054460 by XLerate (talk)")
8. 08:35, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346055016 by XLerate (talk)")
9. 08:40, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
10. 08:44, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
11. 08:49, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346056464 by Bidgee (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

DWL901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely to be single purpose account who has an interest in sanitising the article (has been done in the past). Bidgee (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

—Bidgee (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jbts11 reported by User:Gnowor (Result: )

Page: Jeff Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jbts11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]-Commentary on User talk page by C.Fred

Comments:

First time reporting here. If my actions are not sufficient to warrant a block, so be it. It feels like this is a situation of half vandalism (not using edit summaries and removing content), and half edit warring.--Gnowor^T_C 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:24.147.62.213 reported by User:RL0919 (Result: )

Page: Van Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 24.147.62.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58] (this is the stable version that the editor keeps changing in the same non-consensus fashion)

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]
• 5th revert: [63]
• 6th revert: [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments:

Technically the IP editor is the one who is being reverted by multiple other editors. The IP keeps deleting sourced material from the lead with no edit summary. The cut isn't always exactly the same, but it is always from the same passages. The edits are not obvious vandalism, but clearly have no consensus and the IP has ignored requests to explain made by multiple editors in their own edit summaries and at User talk:24.147.62.213. The latest edit (#6 above) was made after a very explicit request by me on the IP's user talk page to please come discuss the edits on the article talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just after I posted this report, the IP editor posted on the article talk page to give some explanation of the edits. The explanation doesn't seem to match the edits, but it is a start. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wexeb reported by User:68.101.143.168

Page: User_talk:68.101.143.168 (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:68.101.143.168|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wexeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Three-revert rule violation on

User_talk:68.101.143.168 (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:68.101.143.168|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wexeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:28, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Dave1185 (HG)")
2. 21:28, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Message re. User talk:68.101.143.168 (HG)")
3. 21:29, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Wexeb (HG)")
4. 21:30, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Wexeb (HG)")

User:SamJohnston reported by User:LirazSiri (Result: )

Page: Template:Cloud_computing (edit | [[Talk:Template:Cloud_computing|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SamJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]

• This was a normal edit, not a revert, thus WP:3RR was not even violated. FAIL. -- samj _in^out 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• No Sam. It was a revert of the inclusion of a SaaS category in the cloud computing template. This is another editorial dispute in which you chose to unilaterally impose your opinions without discussion. Also note that 3RR rule does not have to be violated for a pattern of disruptive, aggressive editing which includes edit-warring to be shown. LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Fortunately the edit logs never lie. Not a revert means not a WP:3RR policy violation (which was your complaint, remember?) -- samj _in^out 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• 3rd revert: [69]
• 4th revert: [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

• This was not even a warning, rather a response to me warning you for particularly disruptive and tendentious editing previously. Your only warning here didn't come until a good half hour *after* you filed this complaint. DOUBLE FAIL. Furthermore, while you were on my talk page you chose to interfere with an unrelated discussion which had absolutely nothing to do with you - itself a form of WP:HARASSment and a TRIPLE FAIL. -- samj _in^out 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I commented on a dispute you have with another editor that follows the exact same pattern as my dispute with you. You impose your views unilaterally without any attempt to discuss the matter with other editors. What you don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia is not your personal wiki and you do not own the cloud computing pages.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not at all the same thing, and in any case it has nothing to do with you, your company/project and your persistent spamming/vandalism. -- samj _in^out 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

• This "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" was a> last year and b> between you and another editor. QUADRUPLE FAIL. -- samj _in^out 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Ironically, user responds to complaints against his behavior by edit-warring criticism out of his talk page: [73] [74] [75]

Note that user has ignored the discussion on the talk page for the cloud computing template. No attempt to engage other editors and build consensus has been made despite explicit requests which the user has responded to with further edit warring. The user seems to believe that a couple of sections on the cloud computing template (e.g., appliances and SaaS) are inappropriate but has yet to explain his reasoning. Attempts to reach out have been responded to with more aggressive, anti-social behavior.LirazSiri (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so the template this user has been vandalising despite many repeated warnings (by persistently re-inserting their own company over the last 3 months, for example here here here here here and here, despite reversion and warnings by myself and other editors, in blatant violation of WP:COI) is intended to illustrate the top level taxonomy of cloud computing using the best examples available (e.g. Amazon EC2) as per the template documentation.

Instead of addressing or explaining your behavior you instead choose to attack your critics with baseless ad-hominem attacks. You also grossly misrepresent the facts. TurnKey is a community oriented open source project based on Ubuntu. It's not a company. That's not even relevant because our dispute is about the inclusion of the appliances category, not its contents. TurnKey is only one of the entries. The matter was discussed on the talk page a few months back when the appliances category was added. You came along a couple of months later, ignored the discussion, and deleted the category unilaterally. You edit war and call other editors names instead of explaining your reasoning.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter that it's open source - it's still a blatant conflict of interest and you have made no attempt whatsoever to follow guidelines by, for example, suggesting edits via the talk page. Bear in mind this is an area I'm reasonably well versed in, having spent a few months patrolling WP:COIN. Regarding your "discussion", note that there are 3 regular editors of that article and *both* User:SteveLoughran and myself have reverted your edits and referred to COI policy. Consensus is against you my friend. -- samj _in^out 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not intended to be a WP:COATRACK for people to advertise their own products (which are only still listed courtesy deletion review following a successful CSD A7), nor to confuse matters by introducing entire segments that are not even referenced in the article despite it having been explained by myself and other editors that this is not appropriate.

As if that's not enough the user has uploaded many images with problematic licensing here here here here here here here here here and here, and they have had the audacity to revert attempts to fix it (while simultaneously reinserting the offending images into *many* spammed categories). They similarly reverted templates highlighting WP:N, WP:V and WP:COI issues on their own products' article.

Finally, despite my good faith explanations, the user resorted to WP:HOUNDing me on my own talk page, ironically violating WP:3RR (here, here and here) while doing so. In this edit, while blatantly violating WP:HUSH, the user even explained to me that "you don't own your talk page". Note that the user had been asked on more than one occasion to stay off my talk page.

While I wouldn't normally bother reporting such incidents, as the user has chosen to do so, and in light of the particularly disruptive and tendentious editing, I hope that you might consider giving them a warning and/or some time off for violating a laundry list of Wikipedia policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, WP:3RR, WP:HARASS for a start), despite repeated warnings, over an extended period of many months. -- samj _in^out 01:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing more than one big glorified ad-hominem attack that does not respond to the issue at hand. You are attempting to control the cloud computing template (and other cloud computing articles) by edit warring instead of through discussion. You are in gross violation of Wikipedia policies. All of this hand waving and wikilawyering doesn't change the core issue. We have an editorial dispute. I've discussed why I think the appliances category belongs in there with other editors. The category is added. Then you come along months later and instead of explaining why you think it doesn't, you make threats on Twitter and edit-war. Your behavior needs to be sanctioned.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• No it's not ad hominem - a charge you have repeated at least twice now - though it may feel like it when you put such a large sample of your problematic edits in one place. Your "threat" on Twitter was in light of your scrubbing out my attempts to remediate some of the more serious problems (tens of instances of category spam and more importantly, removing critical copyright templates from your uploads), and was in any case referring to nominating your article for AfD. -- samj _in^out 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Perhaps somebody would care to take steps in a slow edit war I ran into while doing my usual wikignoming on Category:Animal rights activists. There seems to be a valid content dispute there as well. Preferably somebody should try to find a solution to both. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)