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:Malik Shabazz reported by User:GabeMc (Result: unorthodox solution)

Page: The Autobiography of Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [1]
• 2nd revert: [2]
• 3rd revert: [3]
• 4th revert: [4]
• 5th revert: [5]
• 6th revert: [6]
• 7th revert: [7]
• 8th revert: [8]
• 9th revert: [9]

Diff of edit warring: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

Comments:
Since June 25th, User:Malik Shabazz has reverted these edits 9 times, the first three are within 24 hours of each other, and the first 6 within about 51 hours. He refuses to engage in the talk page discussion, has ignored talk page RfC consensus, and has supplied scant sources for his claims:

Reverts from June? Really? Maybe you should re-read WP:EDITWAR, Gabe. This should be closed as stale. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: This isn't the page to bring a content dispute, Gabe. Nice try, though. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Stale? The edit war is ongoing. In fact, everytime someone has changed the lede to co-author you have reverted them, since June, every time. Also, you made a substantive revert today, here, [17]. So no, this is not stale. It's also not a content dispute Malik, you know that, it's an edit war, but nice try, though you need some work on your red herrings, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be instructional for the closing admin to look at this where nearly every uninvolved user agreed that the author of the Autobiography of Malcolm X was, shockingly, Malcolm X. An editor who was part of that discussion continues editing contrary to an established consensus and then files a report on edits going back over a month should be facing a block. nableezy - 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Reverts from June?" - 9 out of the last 42 edits to The Autobiography of Malcolm X are reverts by Malik, all within the past 35 days, [18].

@ Nableezy, thanks for that suggestion to the reviewing admin, the link you provided will support my assertion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Nableezy, you should look here [19], where I provided 182 WP:RSs that consider Haley a co-author, including Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, UCLA, Stanford, etc...

There seems to be an RfC open at Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X#Request for Comments: Authorship. If this is the same issue that is causing the reverts, it might be worth it for the RfC participants to ask for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The RfC pertains to the same issue and its 30-day period has elapsed. I'll post a message at WP:AN asking somebody to close it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@Nableezy, the only two uninvolved editors to comment on the discussion since the it's page protection, [20], and RfC tag, [21], agreed with me, here, [22], and here, [23]. — GabeMc (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here an "uninvolved editor" said Malik's "approach to this situation is not becoming of an admin in my opinion" — GabeMc (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient history, Gabe. This complaint is stale. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

He is talking about the same edit war in which you made a revert today, how is that stale? It only shows how long you have been warring. — GabeMc (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here Malik seems to be threatening an edit war to hold up GA status for Roger Waters in retaliation for good-faith editing I have done at The Autobiography of Malcolm X. He made this comment at 16:24 (UTC), and then, this edit, less than four minutes later. His second edit ever to Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabe, Gabe, Gabe. You've never made any good faith edits. You came to the article to "have the back" of an editor who was blocked for edit warring there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think what I wrote speaks for itself. If you read all of it, and get a feel for what I was saying in a bigger picture and not focus on that one sentence. I wished I hadn't used that phrase after I typed it, as I knew it would likely confuse Mk, and it did, he missed the whole point, as have you. I can tell you it was not about you, it was about him, it was not personal, it had to do with a good point that could be illustrated by showing him to source and gain concensus to sway opionions versus edit warring. I was trying to convince him to make some friends, a good idea for a disruptive editor I think. — GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You should read this edit I made to the same page one hour earlier. — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@GabeMc: Given the book itself states "as told to" your edits/reverts are little more (if even that) than vandalism and your reporting Malik here is speaks to your conduct, not Malik's. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Vecrumba, have you read any of this yet? I provided 182 WP:RSs to support my arguement, Malik provided three. — GabeMc (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Vercumba, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." — GabeMc (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, are two more editors who think Malik is behaving in a way unbecoming an admin. Here, and here. Here is an editor who thinks Mailk is lying about his threats to edit war. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The article in question, and the content about which there is a dispute, had been stable since creation, then Malik began a series of edits starting here. — GabeMc (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, you caught me. It had been a "stable" poorly sourced stub that I rewrote, tripling its size and adding two dozen references. Since when is that a crime, Gabe? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How many of your "two dozen" sources refer to Haley as a ghostwriter?

P.S., some editions of the book say "as told to" not "with the assistance of", so it's not an author attribution is it, if it can change with the edition? — GabeMc (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize this is your third attempt to use a noticeboard inappropriately to resolve a content dispute? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I opened a Wikiquette Alert because you were using profanity and insults, a totally appropriate thing to do, where at least 4 other editors thought your behavior was unbecoming an admin, here, here, here, and, here. And now I have this Edit Warring complaint, so how did you get to three, and how are either inappropriate? This outlines how Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. That's what you have been doing since April 25, 2010, removing sourced edits made in a neutral narrative. — GabeMc (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Wikiquette alert was appropriate considering the somewhat uncivil comments, however I consider this edit warring report to be slightly dubious. I suggest this should be closed with no action. I hope Protonk's involvement will help resolve the underlying dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I consider this edit warring report to be slightly dubious"

Look here, here, here, here, and here, then look here. — GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not dubious, what else is there to do when someone refuses to discuss the content, yet reverts you for over a month no matter how many sources you find for your edits? — GabeMc (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

1) There's plenty of discussion at Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X and its archives.

2) It's dubious because it's unfounded, your diffs are stale, and you're wasting everybody's time here with a content dispute. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not stale, you reverted the same substance two days ago! Look here. And I am sure, if I was the warring type, you would revery me again today. I must be missing something if an ongoing edit war is stale. — GabeMc (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Closure

No block, but see Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X#Stopping the edit war about the lead: administrative restriction.  Sandstein  10:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User:Nableezy (Result: article 1RR 2 weeks)

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

Each rv explained

1. 01:04, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376224881 by Cryptonio (talk) Ooops") --labeled a rv
2. 02:16, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376358512 by Cryptonio (talk) Per Talk:Gaza_War#POV_tag")--labeled a rv
3. 03:12, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Since the dispute was not resolved it is inappropriate to remove the tag. Removing the tag will not cause the dispute to disappear. Some article are special, no shame about it.")--reinserts pov tag as before
4. 00:43, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "per Nableezy, avoid WP:WEASEL. Still without solid evidence we can not state is as fact. Sometimes reliable source claim.")--reinserts "commentators claim" as in this edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gaza War#POV tag

Comments:
nableezy - 01:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess this is reaction to wacky discussion. Cryptonio was clearly wacky warring. Changes with Nableezy are incremental improvement effort with phrasing coined via discussion and balancing his remarks. It is sad that Nableezy prefers notice board festival to sources discussion on article talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quick review: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently banned 5 weeks (editwarring and POV pushing) from all the Israeli and Arab city articles a second time this year (See: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2010), has made 3 reverts himself (00:37, 31 July -- 00:32, 1 August) and is playing the electric fence game. I see two very long bans this year and also 2 editwarring blocks (all in 2010). AgadaUrbanit, blocked once for editwarring in September 2009, on Gaza War (of all articles) and, on the face of it, has made 4 reverts. AgadaUrbanit should be again reminded that repeated reverting can easily turn into a sanction. He has a fairly clean log for almost a year, but his one block was in relation to the same article. As such, I would suggest a one week ban on him from this article which causes him to lose his calm (not very often, but still) as a reminder that if he can't work out his differences on this page without using the undo button he won't be allowed to work on it at all. As far as Nableezy goes, I figure including this article into his Israeli-Arab city ban is worthy but probably not enough to get the point across. Perhaps a two week topic ban from the entire Arab-Israeli conflict area will be a good hint that if he can't work out his differences within this topic without using the undo button he won't be allowed to work in it at all. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Added note: I noticed this type of commentary from Cryptonio on the talkpage:
    

    Self revert this you little freckled house mouse. Final warning, and not because there are only three, but because I simply can't be here all night babysitting you. Cryptonio (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

    The editor is clearly confrontational to the point of trying to gain the upper hand by bullying his fellow editor off the page through incivility. Looking at his block log, I'd recommend a 48hr block. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, and also thanks for trying to canvass a selected admin. Oh, and there is one edit warring block in 2010, and on my second edit-warring block I later found out you had privately communicated with the blocking admin who later said he should not have blocked me. And one of my supposed "reverts" here was adding an additional source from a peer-reviewed journal article. nableezy - 03:30, 1 Augusst 2010 (UTC)

Jaak, every edit you have made for more than a week has been to get me banned from something or another. Would you mind terribly trying to find a new hobby? nableezy - 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy using noticeboards to push out other editors is a common enough complaint about him. However, unless it is judged that Cryptonio was vandalizing the page (his talk page stuff makes it look like he is trolling but not sure), then AU did cross 3rr. This addition to the discussion makes it doubtful that anyone (including AU) would assume good faith. Nableezy did not cross 3rr himself but he has been reverting anything based on the term "massacre" for over a year while being unmovable to alternative methods of inclusion on the talk page if that means anything. And why is an experience user making so many reverts in a day anyways? Both should be reminded to use the talk page more and AU could be blocked for crossing a bright line while Nableezy's possible edit warring should be considered.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I really need a reminder to use the talk page more. nableezy - 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. Use the talk page... in an effort to establish consensus. Or to put it in a little harsher terms: not stonewalling.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG what a mess. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

• For persistent incivility, misuse of talk pages, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, Cryptonio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict. I will not entertain any appeal until a minimum of three months has elapsed, although Cryptonio retains the right to appeal to the community or arbcom at any time.
• In lieu of protection or blocks, Gaza War is subject to a 1RR/24h parole for two weeks. Notice will be placed on talk page and given via editnotice. Everyone involved is strongly urged to resolve the issue without resorting to edit warring. The sky will not fall if a {{POV}} tag remains for the time necessary to reach a consensus.
• Any future attempts to edit war will be viewed very dimly and will likely result in a lengthy break from this topic area.

T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cryptonio has just violated his topic ban.[25] I also think a 1rr is sweet and could go for even longer.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. As to the 1RR, we can worry about extending it if necessary (I hope not) after or soon before it expires. T. Canens (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree with extending it being unfortunate if it keeps people calm. Of course walking on eggshells is not something that this project should be about so totally get it. Anyways, is this reasoning enough to limit talk page access?Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

People shouldn't have to put up with this stuff. Would it be appropriate to restrict access to his talk page for three months until he can make an appeal to the admin who made the topic ban? Shorter would be fine to but I am just going to continue to remove what looks to me like disruptive behavior and would rather not break 3rr.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Restricting access to his talk page during the block, something which already been done is sufficient. If he persists after his block, he can be reblocked. -- tariqabjotu 08:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that was done after I made the request. I should have mafe mention that it was resolved.Cptnono (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Goethean reported by User:Tao2911 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Stuart Davis (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:

I carefully reviewed article and edited to sourced information; article had consisted of mainly un-sourced original research and hyperbolic POV editorializing and commentary. I also found new sources and cited, adding other factual information, and added citations for facts already present but uncited. Goethean seems to have written the unsourced material, and inaccurately calling my edits "section blanking" has reverted the page 4 times now to biased version. Another editor has pointed out to him that the page is not the place for promotional material or personal opinion, and has pointed out possible ownership issues. Goethean has refused to discuss issues in talk before making edits, and is not making individual points, simply reverting whole page without providing any new sources or citations, etc. Editor has a long history of obstreperousness and contentiousness on a few different page, as evidenced by user:talk page.Tao2911 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Both parties warned. The four reverts listed are not within 24 hours, so there is no 3RR violation. Over the past few weeks there is a long-term edit war, between Goethean (who favors a laudatory 20Kbyte version of the article) and Tao2911, who favors a 3K version. Since the bigger version lacks extensive citations, the case remains to be proven. Please use the talk page to try to justify the respective versions during that time. Any party who continues to revert the article before getting consensus on the talk page risks a block. A WP:Request for comment is one way to bring in more people to a debate if those who are directly involved have no patience with each other. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with other people checking in is they are accused, by Goeathean to be socks and chills any meaningful discussions on any article with Goethan thinks he owns. This is the problem when bullies like Gotheanan are enabled by admins who don't fully understand the situation and just knee jerk.

• Additionally, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusation a complete red herring. Goethean himself vigorously voices his belief that I am not such. As for actual TOPIC here, Goethean still has not addressed the simple fact that all of the information he keeps re-including to article has no source support. 3 revert rule is not the only standard - if there is a clear pattern of reverting page, 24 hour rule is not the only measure by which edit warring can be gauged. Goethean needs to make case for reinclusion of individual points, that show secondary source support. This is my whole point. I should not be warned for simply maintaining the integrity of a carefully and respectfully edited page, that maintains much of the info there before, with sourced material researched and added to boot.Tao2911 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And if you come back as being unrelated via the CheckUser tool, then I will apologize. I just feel there is sufficient evidence to justify and SPI case being opened. Tiptoety ^talk 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Victor Chmara reported by aprock (talk) (Result: )

Page: History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:59, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "rv: what's your source for "paid advertisement"; according to Gottfredson, op-ed editor David Brooks agreed to publish it; there's a similar quote from APA report") undoes revert
2. 22:46, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* 1960-1980 */ restored NPOV") undoes revert
3. 22:49, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* 1980-present */ restoring sourced content")
4. 23:03, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "rv: the interview was published in Kuukausiliite, which is an affiliated but separate publication from the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat") removes restored wiki-link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
User:Victor Chmara started a flurry of editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy at 18:53, 1 August 2010[35]. Some of these edits restored typos, added references and otherwise improved the article. On the other hand, several of the edits shifted the POV of the article. Several of these edits were reverted, and attempts were made to open a constructive dialogue: [36], [37], [38]. Instead of discussing his proposed changes, Victor Charma took a combative position on the talk page [39], while admitting that he was making changes without checking sources "I didn't have access to Winston's article. It looked like synthesis..."[40]. Instead of actively participating in discussion, he has restored many of the reverts, and declared that his edits should stand until others take them to talk, putting the responsibility of checking and discussing sources on the shoulders of other editors, not himself. He has also falsely accused me of reverting him wholesale: [41].

It may (or may not) be worth noting that User:Victor Chmara, myself, and other users active on the talk page are actively involved in an open arbitration case related to this article. [42]

—aprock (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there have been some misunderstandings here and this ought to be settled appropriately and not through yet another ANI? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Victor has started to discuss constructively, and stopped edit warring, both of which are good things. aprock (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is ridiculous and unwarranted. I have been ready to discuss constructively from the outset, and I have not made a single edit to the article after aprock complained about my (wholly justified) reverts on my user talk page. Bizarrely, aprock decided to start this ANI process while we were in the middle of discussing the issues on the talk page. The problem was that aprock deleted lots of my sourced edits and falsely claimed that I had removed content from the article (he has admitted to his errors here[43]). He also did not discuss his reverts beforehand on the talk page even though I had specifically asked for comments on my edits there. However, the situation seems to be okay now, and I think everybody should get back to editing articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Aprock filed this report only 38 minutes after warning Victor Chmara about edit warring on his userpage, even though Victor Chmara did not revert the article again after Aprock’s warning. I also see from the discussion about these edits that Victor was attempting to discuss Aprock’s reverts with him, and that Aprock himself admitted there that he was failing to clearly justify them: “I'm just on a very small laptop, which makes the comparisons difficult when the diff goes awry (as they appear to have done). So yes, I do admit that I didn't read those diffs correctly, and I again apologize…” (and in another comment) “I misread the original edit. I did not see that the red text had been replicated below the references you added. My apologies.”

If I’m to assume good faith about this report, which is difficult, the best I can assume about it is that it was a mistake. Reports for edit warring are meant to be for dealing with editors who are aggressively adding or removing material instead of engaging in discussion about it. They should not be made by an editor who (by his own admission) is himself failing to justify his edits, as a substitute for discussion with other editors who are trying to engage in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:CenkX reported by Takabeg (Result: Both users edit warring, article protected)

Page: Bumin Qaghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bumin Kağan

1. 08:48, 2 August 2010
2. 08:52, 2 August 2010
3. 09:03, 2 August 2010
4. 09:26, 2 August 2010

He/She removed information with Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both users were edit warring. I'm not going to take sides on the underlying content dispute, but the right answer is not to continue to revert. Because this report is stale, I won't block either party (and recommend against anyone else blocking) but I have protected the page for three days. Try and hash things out on the talk page. If you cannot come to an agreement, seek a third opinion or some other avenue for dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Binksternet reported by User:BS24 (Result: )

Page: Susan B. Anthony List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Susan B. Anthony List#Dispute about Anthony's views

Comments:
User continues to add ridiculous and biased information. He insists on using the term "Academic history experts" to describe pro-choice authors and uses a citation from a biased pro-choice source to try to prove their "expertise". User did the same at the Susan B. Anthony page and was rebuked. The edit war has been going on for several days now. User has a history of edit warring as evidenced by his talk page. Please advise. BS24 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This report appears to me to be the wrong venue for the concerns of BS24. There is no edit warring involved—I added things, I changed things and I discussed both wording and sources on the talk page. BS24 visited the talk page only once to add a brief thought about the choice between calling angry Anthony scholars "pro-choicers" (BS24 wording) or "academic history experts" (wording of the Susan B. Anthony Museum). Discussion is still open, still in progress. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Musashi miyamoto Reported by User:Weaponbb7 (Result:)

Page: Amish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Musashi miyamoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 92.10.208.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

1st Revert [44]

2nd [45]

3rd [46]

4th [47]

Comments:
Talk page discussion of lengthy Discussion with IP User talk:92.10.208.209 Warned about 3RR Warring and User:Jmlk17 Semi-Protects page and then user in the 4th Revert is Quacking with a megaphone like a Sleeper account. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: IP had previous edited in a 3RR the Same content and article two weeks ago Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• My first question is, why are you using rollback in an edit war? Is the disputed content vandalism? Protonk (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider, going way against consensus to repeatedly add content is vandalism in my book. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well I consider what is under WP:VAND#NOT to not be vandalism. Which specifically includes adding content against consensus. My second question is, why was there not an attempt to come to a compromise with a shortened section covering the disputed materials? Protonk (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG moment here It occurred after i posted i'd better check that, Any mention of such material is unnecessary. One Family of 5 people is a major violation of WP:UNDUE in a population of 249,000 Amish people in the united states. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to local editors to determine whether or not any mention is necessary, but my suggestion is that discussion and compromise are almost always preferred over blocking and protecting. As for the ROLLBACK/VAND#NOT issues, I don't think it will hit you too hard. :) I just want you to be mindful of when and where you use rollback--rollback is a specialized tool which can be easily used and misused. I'll look into what to do about the article, but my preference is discussion, protection and blocking in that order. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion with the Editor on the talk page (s)he refuses to listen. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Amish#Amish in Europe Section Contains three seperate editors spelling out how it violates policy Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that discussion on the talk page. I'm not convinced it "violates" policy, as that implies an action against, rather than a preference (which is what UNDUE effectively is). Tell you what, if the material gets inserted again by an account attached to this IP (not 100% sure the named account is a sleeper, but about 70% sure) then I'll block the account and the IP. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sturunner reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Catholic sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. July 16
2. July 23
3. July 23
4. 01:34, 24 July 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Farsight001 identified as vandalism to last revision by Richiez. (TW)")
5. 04:26, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Inaccuracies */ deleted POV section. Jenkins has NEVER published ANYTHING in a scholarly publication on these issues, He is simply an apologist for bishops' covering-up the the transfer of serial child rapists.")
6. 01:13, 3 August 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nagle; Keep trying--you "WP' trolls have a pro-pedophilia bias, & it is being exposed as we speak. . (TW)")
7. 01:21, 3 August 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 376702859 by Sturunner; I will always remember to only quote Glen Beck in the future. You are just absurd.. (TW)")

• Diff of warning: here (July)
• and here (May)
• and another unofficial warning for same edits earlier in May

Comments User is also edit warring on a number of other similar articles and has been warned elsewhere numerous times. His edit warring also goes back further than listed above.

—

Jess

_talk
edits

01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:74.101.108.117 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: )

Page: Audi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 74.101.108.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

First edit: 16:52, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

together with 16:53, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

and 16:55, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

Second edit: 21:09, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

together with 21:10, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

and 21:12, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

Third edit: 22:07, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

Fourth edit: 01:31, 3 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

together with 01:33, 3 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here. Please also see the discussion with this contributor on my talk page here.

—Thank you, CZmarlin (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Dodo19 reported by User:Miacek (Result: both blocked 36h)

Page: Peter Sichrovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dodo19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

• 1st revert: [49] (note the personal assault in his edit summary! baselessly accusing me of racism)
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51] (note that he wrongly accused me of vandalism in his edit summary)
• 4th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53] (he reverted 4th time a few minutes before I managed to post it, but he was aware of 3RR and wantonly broke this since earlier today, he himself posted me a 3 RR warning.

Comments:

Please block him for impudent 3 RR violation and vile accusations of racism against me, where there was no racism. (Peter Sichrovsky is a Jewish politician of the controversial Freedom Party of Austria. Some believe they are using his Jewish origin to 'pacify' the potentially critical Jewish electorate).

The user has been following me since today, when I edited the page Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt (he reverted me 3 times there, too! [54], [55], [56]). That's how he found the page on Peter Sichrovsky. I reverted him 2 times at Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, but gave up, waiting for more opinions by others. Based on serious arguments I had found on talk page, in my opinion I removed the political propaganda that this user pushed. I am waiting for more opinions at talk, having asked for comments from a constructive user, who has commented on the issue before (Dodo19 has been edit warring there since 2009, pushing the theories from obviously biased or even fringe authors). In my opinion, Dodo19 belongs to that group of authors from German Wikipedia, who believe they are entitled to censor everything from the 'politically correct' left-wing POV, which more often than not leads them to violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have informed him on that report. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:222.125.199.240 reported by User:mahjongg (Result: )

Page: dingoo
User being reported: 222.125.199.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And many other anonymous users (sock-puppets ?)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

• 1st revert: [58]
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]
• 5th revert: [62]
• 6th revert: [63]

and so on and so on.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

There seems to be an edit war going on (in which I have no stake and have not contributed) on whether the dingoo (handheld game system) is made in Hong-kong, or mainland China.

The object of the edit war is to change the link to the "official website" to one or the others websites. It has going on for a long time, between many different anonymous users. I asked the contributors of the edit war to stop edit warring, and discuss the case on the talk page, but this was ignored, and the edit war continues unabated.

Mahjongg (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Alessandr79 reported by User:JD554 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: The Cure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alessandr79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]
• 3rd revert: [69]
• 4th revert: [70]
• 5th revert: [71]
• 6th revert: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

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

Comments:

The user has also been warned regarding the repeated addition of spam links on his/her talk page: [75][76] and again following the most recent revert [77]. --JD554 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Asik5678 reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Popular Front of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asik5678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]
• 3rd revert: [81]
• 4th revert: [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

He has also been doing the same on the article for Saffron Terror.

• • [84]
  • [85]
  • [86]

I opened up a discussion on the talk page after the first time he put the info in the article to discuss if some of the info can be put in, if references can be found. I also notified him about it, but he gave no response and continued to add in the information, as shown in the links I gave above. After we kept reverting it, he just went to the Popular Front of India page, as the nom showed, and other articles to make changes there, mainly redirects. In some of these, I would have assumed good faith, but the lack of discussion on the part of the user when they have been notified time and again shows that this is very likely just a vandal. Silverseren^C 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week He has been blocked by another admin. I just want to remind you that rollback is not supposed to be used except in cases of vandalism. You kinda crossed into a grey area using it here. -- tariqabjotu 10:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Teeninvestor reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: Declined)

Page: Military history of China (pre-1911) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit-warring despite ongoing ANI and RFC/U:

• Edits by Arnoutf: [87] (20:51, 2 August 2010)

• 1st revert by Teeninvestor: [88]

• 1st revert by Athenean: [89]

• 2nd revert by Teeninvestor: [90]

• 1st revert by Arnoutf: [91]

• 3rd revert by Teeninvestor: [92]

• 2nd revert by Arnoutf: [93]

• 4th revert by Teeninvestor: [94] (20:13, 3 August 2010)

• Edit by Gun Powder Ma: [95]

• 5th revert by Teeninvestor: [96] (21:41, 3 August 2010)

Comment on how to read diffs:
Teeninvestor's 1st to 4th revert refer to the paragraphs containing these quotes:

• By the time of the Ming, gunpowder weapons were so ubitiqious that a battalion in the fifteenth century Chinese army had... (only slightly reworded in 4th revert)
• The Song Dynasty's official military texts described the crossbow thus...
• The use of the crossbow is also described...

His 5th revert refers to my edit, the paragraph beginning with

• However, in the conquest of China, the Mongols also adopted gunpowder weapons and thousands of Chinese infantry and naval forces into the Mongol army..

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see ongoing ANI (started 00:38, 3 August 2010) below

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see ongoing ANI (started 00:38, 3 August 2010) below

Comments: Teeninvestor has breached the 3rr, although he is fully aware that his edit pattern on the article is currently subject of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing and other issues during RFC/U by User:Teeninvestor. Teeninvestor's edit behaviour is also currently subject of a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor, and was recently of another ANI complaint about his removal of tags. A more complete account of the dimension of the problem with the editor's behaviour is given by Outside view by User:Athenean. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM's portrayal of the above edits are completely fallacious. This user has been ignoring the discussion page of the article, in which I was constructively discussing issues with fellow editors 1 and 2. He also counts an addition of info as a revert 1, 2. He has misrepresented greatly the series of edits that went on here. The first three diffs were removals of POV and copyright violations which another editor (User:Arnoutf) mistakenly reinserted and reverting removal of quotes which he thought was not attributed. When I pointed this out, he acknowledged this and stopped reverting, as shown here. The fourth "revert" consists of me reintroducing material that Arnoutf objected to it in quote form, but had no objections in paragraph form; hardly a revert. The fifth "revert" is an even bigger representation, as I merely modified the quote because said editor was misrepresenting his source. This user has been disruptively forum shopping after getting negative replies by trying to discredit Robert Temple, a known sinologist, as shown here and here, after his disruptive POV edits were rejected by other editors besides myself. 1 and 2 34. This disruptive forum shopping and misrepresentation of other editors need to be stopped.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this report. The edit history of Military history of China (pre-1911) [97] says it all. Teeninvestor seems to display strong WP:OWN behavior. He has embarked on unilaterally re-writing the article, while at the same time taking it upon himself to police every single edit by other users. This has brought him in conflict with multiple editors, and resulted in him reaching and breaching 3RR so many times in the last few days that I have lost count. His claims that he constructively discusses things in the talkpage is disingenuous, with this [98] as a particularly egregious counterexample. He feigns consensus, then re-adds the disputed material when he thinks no one is watching, edit wars over it, and then taunts me [99], and in textbook example of psychological projection, accuses me of POV-pushing [100]. For the record, I have little interest in this article, I am mostly goaded by Teeninvestor's intrasigent, WP:OWN behavior. Athenean (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined There may be larger issues here, but edit-warring does not appear to be the primary and sole concern. Further, GPM shot himself in the foot with his remarks below that demonstrate he doesn't understand the concept of edit-warring. I'm not acting upon this; please resolve the dispute here via other avenues. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tedickey reported by User:Daven200520 (Result: Stale)

Page: Charles County, Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tedickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [101]
• 2nd revert: [102]
• 3rd revert: [103]
• 4th revert: [104]
• 5th revert: [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• My Warning: [106]
• Another editors warning(NOT 3RR): [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No need for a diff:

• The articles talk page
• The mediation page
• Reliable sources board
• WQA

Comments:

For the record, User has seen and subsequently deleted the 3rr notificationPhoon (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Stale It's been about two days since the edit war was going on. Will try to keep an eye on it, though. I have removed Daven's rollback rights, though, due to his use of them in an edit war. -- tariqabjotu 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just curious but what is the rationale for admin inactivity in this case? I am not sure whether it has occurred to the admin that stale verdict in general actually favours the user who is more willing to revert, since it is his version which prevails, and that the other, more cautious user who deliberately restrained himself from taking things too far is actually punished for exactly his restraint. I believe the unwanted lesson from stale is that one needs to continue to revert even beyond 3rr so that the admin does not forget to take action. Pretty counter-productive this stale in that it fuels edit-warring. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to challenge this verdict because at the time of reporting the edit war was still in progress but the report simply sat on the page and the war cooled down however this verdict doesn't solve anything it just creates a larger tension about the subject.Phoon (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Stale is like waiting inactively until the house has burnt down and then pointing out that there is no need for firemen anymore. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Dave reported this, as the timestamp shows, at 8:55 this morning. It was stale when he reported it, and stale an hour and a half later when I fulfilled the request. And, no, it's not like waiting until a house a burned down. We are a bunch of volunteers; no one's life is on the line, and we don't let requests sit here just for our amusement. -- tariqabjotu 22:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I missed the time gap. I was under the impression that "stale" means that there was no edit-warring after the report was filed: because this rarely indicates that problems were solved meanwhile, but rather that one side sits back and awaits an admin reaction. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your excused.I did not report this at 8:55 this morning (I was simply adding more evidence) I reported it a 23:08 UTC and it was answered 11 hours and 18 minutes later. I wholeheartedly agree with Gun Powder Ma and his brilliant analogy of how this case has been neglected and in a final act of disrespect labeled as stale. Its an injustice and no one should have to be treated in such a harsh and cruel manner. Phoon (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If the edit war is no longer going on, a block won't prevent anything. Blocks aren't given to punish past behavior, only to prevent ongoing behavior. Yworo (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No one in this report has mentioned blocks up until now. Blocks are not the only solution that can come out of this report. Besides, one needs to wait over 11 hours to actually get an admin to notice so its basically impossible at times to achieve a "Preventive" block on this noticeboard. Phoon (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Then it took 11 hours until this was addressed. But it took you 30+ hours to bring this to the noticeboard (at which point, by the way, it was -- again -- already stale). That's what happens on a volunteer project. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, there is a logical fallacy in your reasoning. Remember that in a one on one edit war, even the more moderate side will have reached at least 3 reverts at the point the other has broken 3rr. So if the admins are still unwilling to take action at this point, they put the more reasonable user at a dilemma: if he keeps by the rules and stops reverting, the edit warrior will have saved his version, and thus he and his revert-style has 'won'. But if he continues to revert to prevent that, he will commit a 3rr himself. So, admin inactivity is clearly inducing a situation in which either no action is taken at all (3/4), or against both users simultaneously (4/4 and more). This is hardly ideal and actually creates favourable conditions for the more reckless reverters. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Posts like these never cease to amaze me. Your definition of "moderate side" and "reasonable user" is the one who reverts second. The one who starts the edit war is an edit warrior. The one who is so generous and honorable to defend the article, Wikipedia, and the world by continuously reverting the person who started the edit war is also an edit warrior. It doesn't matter that our gracious defender might only have three reverts, while our aggressive and stupid offender has made four. They both are equally culpable, and they both should be treated equally. The point of the 3RR and our edit-warring policies is to convey that disputes should not be resolved by continuous reverting. You, however, seem to think disputes are resolved (or, "won", as you put it) by reverting over and over. So, no, there's no logical fallacy; you just don't understand the meaning of edit warring. Please re-read WP:EW as ignorance of the rules, having been pointed to them, is no defense. -- tariqabjotu 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot refer to my post because you didn't seem to have understood a bit. If "both are equally culpable, and they both should be treated equally", as you erroneously believe, then why should people still bother to report here, if both will get indiscriminately a block? This isn't rocket science... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Bllasae reported by NuclearWarfare (Result: )

Page: Hussein al-Yemeni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]

Discussion on the talk page was attempted but proved fruitless. NW (Talk) 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave up anyways because this guy's a bitch.Bllasae (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:71.97.210.117 reported by User:Jemiller226 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bryan Fowler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.97.210.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112]

• 1st revert: [113]
• 2nd revert: [114]
• 3rd revert: [115]
• 4th revert: [116] not by the same IP address

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117] Yes, I was unnecessarily short with the first comment. It's unlikely to be read anyway as it's an IP address, not a user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above link

Comments:
This will likely continue to be reverted by multiple IP addresses as long as it sits on Art of Trolling. I imagine that website has to be a headache for admins here. --Jemiller226 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page and blocked one of the IPs for vandalism as a bonus. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)