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: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: [1] (20:51, 2 August 2010)

• 1st revert by Teeninvestor: [2]

• 1st revert by Athenean: [3]

• 2nd revert by Teeninvestor: [4]

• 1st revert by Arnoutf: [5]

• 3rd revert by Teeninvestor: [6]

• 2nd revert by Arnoutf: [7]

• 4th revert by Teeninvestor: [8] (20:13, 3 August 2010)

• Edit by Gun Powder Ma: [9]

• 5th revert by Teeninvestor: [10] (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) [11] 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 [12] 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 [13], and in textbook example of psychological projection, accuses me of POV-pushing [14]. 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)

I am impressed. It took you three full minutes between lecturing me on the guidelines below and reviewing the full case above and writing the decline. So it took you 180s/14 provided links = ca 12s for looking into each link, provided that you wrote your decline text in 0 s. Did you actually bother to look into the case at all or is this just about making a point? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM, I responded to both the request above and the request below around the same time more than twelve hours ago. So, I obviously noticed this one was here. I read some of it, but it was a more through and less timely case, what with links left and right.

No, I didn't read through all or most of the links. In fact, secret's out, I almost never read threads like this. Edit-warring is a basic thing that can easily be checked in the history; I really don't care about the back story or the long-term problems, or who started it and how this guy is a nationalist or a long-term POV warrior. If it's medium-term (slow motion edit-warring over a week or two), I'm interested, and I'll see there's a discrepancy in the history and I'll check what's here. But if it's some long-term problem that requires an FBI investigation into the history of all parties with more than a dozen links, it's not appropriate for this noticeboard. And you seemed to know that; hence, why you went to WP:ANI first. That's where this issue belongs.

So, once again, declined. -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us an interesting insight into how you do things here. And I am sympathetic to your quite fitting analogy of an FBI investigation required. However, I have to say that there is no such investigation necessary, I merely tried to give more background information which was probably a mistake in hindsight.

You say "Edit-warring is a basic thing that can easily be checked in the history". Well, we are dealing here with such a clear case: 1, 2, 3, 4, reverted within 24 h (22:29, 2 August 2010 to 20:13, 3 August 2010). Clear breach of 3rr. So why no action? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So when did reverting another editor's mistaken introduction of copyright violations and POV material (which he later acknowledged and apologized for), another editor's mistaken reverts based on a misunderstanding, and reintroducing information originally contained in a quote but objected to by other editors in that format as a paragraph count as edit warring? GPM, you lack even a basic understanding of wikipedia's policies, and a basic decency, or else you wouldn't be blatantly misrepresenting diffs and lying here. The other editor has already rejected your forum shopping, stop wasting time and please go discuss the actual issues on the talk page and stop trying to abuse this edit warring board, and actually get things done.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed at much you are telling lies in the face of the admin. Athenean and me have already gone on record above, and the third user you disingeniously 'interpret your way', Arnoutf, has also long told you the same: "Temple has none of those, so there is no reason to quote Temple". And you still wonder why you have been involved in an arbcomm case, in a RFC/U and why you are a regular guest at ANI... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are from standard histories and Needham, GPM. If you even bothered to read the talk page. Yes, I have been in an ArbCom Case, so what? It was to do wikipedia a great service by restricting one of its most problematic users. I'm a regular guest at ANI? Your posts at ANI exceed mine several times (even including your forum shopping reports) and you've been blocked 4 times. Again, the pot calling the lamb black.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor. Wait a second here. You are confusing issues. Yes you took out copyvio's introduced by one of the editors, but in the same series of edits you introduced (over several edits) a whole lot of quotes. My apologies were about blanket reverting your stuff. I did not consciously reintroduce any text, I should have been more careful, but since this was the first time you deleted instead of added problematic stuff to the article, I just did not consider the possibility. That does not say I agree with the quotes, and I have argued on the talk pages repeatedly that they were/are problematic with regards to WP:MOS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Arnoutf (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request 2nd opinion

It's interesting to note that Tariqabjotu's just stopped to contribute when I pointed out to him that he missed a clear violation of 3rr (01:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC). From Arnoutf's post above it has also become clear that Teenivestor has misconstrued both his acts and intentions and that of other users. Therefore, I would like to hear the second opinion of another admin who is willing to spend more than a few seconds for the whole case. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't just [stop] to contribute then. I stopped to contribute after 01:15 (UTC), and then edited a few times several hours later. What is the mysterious reason for this several-hour break in editing? It's called sleep, GPM. You may not know this, but when it's 01:45 (UTC) in August, it's 2:45am in London. -- tariqabjotu 14:53, 6 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: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]
• 5th revert: [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• My Warning: [20]
• Another editors warning(NOT 3RR): [21]

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 either both will get indiscriminately a block or none? This isn't rocket science... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I understand exactly what you said, and it's obvious your set of conceivable edit-warring situations is very narrow. The only valid cases are when one person is edit warring against multiple other users. X reverts, A reverts, X reverts, B reverts, X reverts, C reverts, X reverts, B reverts... X probably gets blocked; A, B, and C probably do not. X reverts, Y reverts, X reverts, Y reverts, X reverts, Y reverts... X and Y both probably get blocked. Y doesn't get off easy just because he happened to be second. As you see, both X and Y are engaging in the same disruptive actions -- reverting. Still, there are many editors -- you included, apparently -- who think they are absolved because they have one fewer revert than their adversary. They come here to complain about said adversary and end up getting blocked along with their opponent. As you said, it's not rocket science, and they should be capable of foreseeing that outcome. Certainly, had this request been made earlier, as I have already suggested, both Daven and Tedickey would have been blocked for the same edit warring. -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What a truly inefficient system, especially when I was (in this case) the editor who played by all the rules(and policies) and attempted to satisfy all of Tedickeys requests for better sources. I posted on the reliable sources board and even made an RFC on the article all of which he ignored. wow no good deed goes unpunished. Whats the point of having this noticeboard if nothing gets done? If the administrators fail to properly handle cases in a timely fashion? It may be a volunteer project but you (as an administrator) took the pledge to devote a portion of your life to the cause. So the more I tried to satisfy his needs the further he upped the ante, at which point I had to resort to reverting his edits, and he responded, I don't understand how this case is "stale" when truly the tension remains and is evident in over 100 paragraphs of dispute located on the articles talk page, the WQA and now here. So if blocking is a preventive measure then indeed maybe to prevent a further escalation of the dispute a few blocks will needed to be handed down. Phoon (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of a stale report is given in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Administrator instructions#Stale reports. Though he was not blocked this time around, User:Tedickey may be sanctioned for edit warring if he continues to revert the article regarding 'largest arson claim.' Since his point has been extensively discussed with other editors, and nobody else supports his view, we expect him to follow the consensus from here on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What is really stale about this case is the way tariqabjotu immediately declined my case (less than 3min later) above after I dared to disagree with him here. Most admins do admirable work here but those who like to play Lord of the Buttons in such a high-handed manner, don't serve the project and thus don't deserve respect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see this. Also stale(?) Can't it be worked out? Go easy... cripes... Doc9871 (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:79.151.189.17 reported by Ost (talk) (Result:Page Protected)

Page: List of Mario series characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.151.189.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 07:00, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 10:51, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 12:35, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 12:53, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
5. 14:07, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
6. 14:39, 5 August 2010/14:39, 5 August 2010 (edit summaries: "/* External links */")

• Diff of warning: here
  • User has not explained edits in summaries and has not responded to invitation to discuss.

—Ost (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Freakshownerd reported by User:Meand (Result: )

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

I'm not following the strict format here, since the 3RR hasn't strictly been broken, although I believe edit warring is fairly clear.

• Original version of article before warring: [22]
• Freakshownerd's first edits: [23]
• Second: [24] (this diff includes a partial reversion by User:John)
• Third: [25] (less controversial, but still against consensus)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• From myself to Freakshownerd: [26] (I used a template, which was probably a bad idea. Mea culpa.)
• From Freakshownerd to myself: [27]

I attempted to bring Freakshownerd onto the Talk page by leaving a comment on his userpage. There's now some limited discussion on the talk page, but the edits are ongoing.

Comments:

I've been involved in the past in conflicts over this article, and I believe Freakshownerd has also from looking at his user talk page, although (to my memory) we have never previously disagreed directly. From the time of this report, I intend to avoid making anything but WP:FAIRY updates to the article until the dispute is resolved, and stability once again reigns supreme, although unless specifically requested otherwise, I may use Template:Request edit to request more controversial changes. --me_and (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Other editors have also commented on FSN's activities on that page (though not edits to the lead), see the second half of this section of the talk page (starting from LiteratureGeek's original comment "I followed this conversation from..."). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: You may wish to try dispute resolution, or consider making a report at WP:ANI if the dispute starts getting out of hand. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:George McFinnigan ie reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result:No Violation)

Page: Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George McFinnigan ie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]
• 5th revert: [32]
• 6th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34], [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:
Recently this editor has removed material on Aragonese and paella, e.g [37], [38], [39], also removing the correct name A Coruña from a caption [40], replacing Ourense with Orense [41], there are earlier instances than these in the last few days. This editor also does not leave edit summaries. I have invited him to discuss at Talk:Spain and warned him about edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Consider making a report at WP:ANI if the dispute continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have reported at WP:ANI as the editor has acted in a similar manner on other pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:75.128.15.231 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: warned)

Page: University of Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.128.15.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 06:06, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "that's better")
2. 06:18, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "more facts")
3. 06:21, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 06:41, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 06:57, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Oxford is the 1st English speaking institute in the world, Cambridge is the 2nd English speaking, here's the verification.")
6. 07:18, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision by (talk) facts have been provided for verification, Oxford is an institutional and 1st speaking educational speaking university")
7. 08:02, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377442618 not a grammer issue, the facts say it is the 1st English speaking institution, + acedemic sources!")
8. 08:17, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "removed oldest")
9. 18:33, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Oxford is an educational institution - acedemic sources provided, Also is the 1st English speaking institution -acedemic sources provided. The facts say this what it is, use talk to dispute")
10. 18:34, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
11. 18:40, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, this IP's edits are increasingly disruptive and ignoring the clear consensus on the article's talk page against his/her changes. Bencherlite^Talk 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Not a technical violation counting consecutive edits as single edits, and the discussions do not seem to have reached WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet. 75.128.15.231 seems to be willing to discuss the matter, and has participated on the talkpage since the last reversion of their preferred content. I have protected the article for three days; please come back here if the issues continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Beg to differ, it was a violation

1. 06:06, 6 August 2010 - 1st revert
2. 07:18, 6 August 2010 - 2nd revert
3. 08:02, 6 August 2010 - 3rd revert
4. 18:33, 6 August 2010 - 4th revert

Codf1977 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was counting the first one as a normal edit rather than a revert. Checking the geolocate on the recent history, though, I think that the similarity in edits and locations is conclusive enough to downgrade this to semi-protection. Thank you for checking this. I still think that they have shown enough interest in discussion that a block would be more punitive than preventative, but I will go request that they wait for consensus before adding any similar content. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well a block Codf1977 sounds a little cynical when you have really ignored providing consensus on acedemic sources then Codf1977 undoing edits. I have provided 4 acedemic sources and 2 media sources for terms on "first" "institution" and "Oxford University" and "English speaking" to verify the edit upgrade. I have asked already 4 times to Codf1977several questions on the matter of sources to provide for the article should stay as "oldest" university to "first English speaking institution" yet Codf1977 is not a student of Oxford University or former student and has admitted never been to Oxford either in anyway to enlighten his experience to the discussion with providing some objection sources I may ask for in return. It seems more of an argument that Codf1977 likes the article more than the facts to change the words "first" "speaking" and "institution" overriding "oldest". I am yet to wait for his responses to the questions I have asked Codf1977 and he has gone silent on the matter. Shall I just wait ever 24 hours to revert rule to edit back and let Codf1977 make another complaint of me reverting edits yet he refuses to census the facts on what he specifically is rejecting with providing no acedemic sources? I am clued to Codf1977 is stirring trouble more than discussing the issue of correcting the history on Oxford University I have provided than saying nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Codf1977 reported by User:75.128.15.231 (talk) (Result:see previous)

I am reporting this matter on the merit of the facts from acedemic sources but user Codf1977 is undoing edits creating misleading information on the Oxford University article page. First I have made the case that the words "oldest university" to "first speaking institution" providing the fact down below. Yet according to Codf1977 Codf1977 claiming the facts which are acedemic used for education purposes is denying the facts presented, saying it is not an institution and it is not the first but the oldest.

What defines "first" to "oldest"? The facts say Oxford University is an education institution and the word university is already in the "Oxford University" or "Oxford of University" adding the sense what the facts say that is an an "institution: and the "first institution in the world to speak English". I mean what institution was before Oxford Univesity as an english speaking institution? None. I am taking the facts and using those fact to support the claim is still a "university" and it is still an "institution" and instead of "oldest" it is the "first" of its kind as an "English speaking institute". Please view acedemic sources below.

The facts about Oxford University, Oxford, England:

1. First English speaking institution - StudyEnglishToday News by M. Boyanova 2007 "Oxford University is the 1st English speaking institution":[42]

2. Oldest: [43]

3. 1st English-speaking institution: [44][45]

4. Oxford University is an education institution[46][47] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

<bangs head against wall> "Institution" is not synonymous with "university", "first" does not mean the same thing as "oldest", and you continue to misquote the first source. It's quite simple, really. Please read your talk page and the article talk page rather than claiming that anyone reverting your ill-informed changes is edit-warring and should be blocked, a threat you have now made to four editors including two admins. Bencherlite^Talk 19:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bencherlite Codf1977

Well what hand of experience do you have on Oxford University then? What is your knowledge about the institution? Do have anything other than arguing the issue to speak of your experience of attending Oxford University to bring to the table?

I am rather confused? You are promoting "oldest" university instead of "first english university" or even the word "first" and your promoting "university" over "institution". What says your right?

What level of knowledge do you have to state that your are 110% right? I would like you state to me what you state is correct, then I will ask Oxford University the same question as I have several professors will reply back. Please provide acedemic sources so I am not reading a blog or something.

Have you have any facts that state Oxford University is not an institution? Do you have any facts that state Oxford University is not the first university or institution?

Do you have any facts that state "first English speaking"? Before disagreeing instantly, send the sources not the same on the Oxford University page but sources to your denial. I suggest you take a trip to Oxford University on one of the tour guides, you ask the guide for the tour guide books to refresh the what is Oxford University? First, Institution, University and founded when.

When you refer oldest to first, please think about that again. First is also the same defination category as oldest. Your mis-phrasing the argument on the terms of first with Oxford. I had tour guide books that are printed in 1930, 1980, 1997 that all state Oxford University is an institution and the first of its kind to speak English, not England but in the world. Shall I take imageshot to state the fact to reference the facts more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected see previous. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadija reported by User:lontech (Result: 4 days)

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

has violated 1RR per week on kosovo by adding split temp

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

• (cur | prev) 21:46, 6 August 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) rv
• (cur | prev) 20:59, 6 August 2010 Lontech (talk | contribs) (113,802 bytes) rv
• (cur | prev) 13:19, 2 August 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (113,865 bytes) (split)
• (cur | prev) 16:34, 26 July 2010 Bobrayner (talk | contribs) (113,276 bytes) (Split template removed, in line with talk page consensus.)

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

• 1st revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=376753737&oldid=376465354
• 2nd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=377549219&oldid=377542096

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo

• Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
• All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see [1]

1RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Tadija

• 14:33, 16 July 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) unblocked "Tadija (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Procedural unblock: User was not given adequate warning. Sanction lifted as well. Consider this a strong final warning.) ^{(This is completely unrelated to this subject, procedural error by admin.) --Tadijaspeaks}

-- LONTECH  Talk  22:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

---

This is false report. First edit pas proposition of the split that is still undergoing, as you may see on article talk page. User Longtech removed tag without completed consensus, that will last until 15 august. When i explained that to him, he was rude to me, and now he filled this false report. --Tadija^speaks 23:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

---

It is very clear that he added split temp after Bobrayner removed-- LONTECH  Talk  23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

---

• it appears we are once again headed for a split, then. - {{split|Republic of Kosovo|Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija}}, by User:Dbachmann
• Split template removed, in line with talk page consensus.) - {{split|Republic of Kosovo|Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija}}, by User:Bobrayner
• split - {{split|Kosovo|Republic of Kosovo|Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija}}, by User:Tadija Different proposal, still ongoing!!
• disruptive edit / rv.per consensus ? Disruptive? How tag of still going vote can be disruptive? - {{split|Kosovo|Republic of Kosovo|Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija}}, by User:Lontech

As user:Lontech had previous "notifications" against this kind of personal attack without reason, and he apparently just want me blocked, then i am asking for some admin help regarding this subject of dispute. --Tadija^speaks 23:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

---

This is not a dispute this is violation of rules-- LONTECH  Talk  23:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

just look how he is manipulating the report, by removing and adding text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=377565326&oldid=377564414 STOP EDITING MY REPORT-- LONTECH  Talk  00:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of four days This should have been submitted to WP:AE, however. -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Susanne2009NYC (Result: Malformed)

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

I'm trying to make progress on the above article while user:Off2riorob is engaging in endless reverts, etc. Is he perhaps attempting to provoke an edit war and a violation of the 3RR? He's contributed nothing I'm aware of to the article but simply engages in reverting contributions, making progess difficult. This is tiresome, disruptive, and unproductive. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanne2009NYC (talk • contribs) 2010-08-07T3:43:18 (UTC)

Yeah, no. When an editor "reworks" an article, as you are: you should definitely expect some "feedback" from other editors. Talk out the planned revisions on the article's talk page to get consensus for your edits, as Off2riorob has suggested. Cheers, and Happy Editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Links for report (I am passingly familiar with some of the editors and will not be acting here. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)):
Page: Chelsea Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. -- tariqabjotu 07:28, 7 August 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.

User:AndeanThunder reported by Pfainuk talk (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 07:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 10:08, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377338139 by Pfainuk Uncited deletions")
2. 13:24, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377459143 by Justin A Kuntz Do a little reaserch before deleting")
3. 13:47, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Reverting unsourced, unfounded deletions.")
4. 23:54, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* 20th century */ To use the very words of the New York Times article")

• Diff of warning: here

Note in particular the repeated addition of the phrase "thus cutting off contacts between the islands and the outside world" - a claim that is false and not backed up the sources provided.

—Pfainuk talk 07:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:71.234.119.12 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Talk:William Lane Craig (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.234.119.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 04:38, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377056475 by Bill the Cat 7 (talk)")
2. 00:09, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377084460 by Bill the Cat 7 (talk)")
3. 12:09, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Richard Dawkins Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig */")
4. 12:10, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Richard Dawkins Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig */")
5. 04:49, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377291843 by Johnuniq (talk)")
6. 06:51, 7 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377500380 by Theowarner (talk)")
7. 14:51, 7 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377623910 by Johnuniq (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here
• Subsequent warning here.

Comments: Note, the 3rd and subsequent reversions were a {{hat}} on the section, explicitly linking the two relevant policies against his behavior. Clearly he's seen those as well.

Jess

_talk
edits

21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours -- tariqabjotu 01:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hope&Act3! reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Protected)

Page: Church of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hope&Act3! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 12:35, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377099819 by 82.17.238.199 (talk)wp is not RS")
2. 13:26, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377181026 by 209.118.181.16 (talk)was occupied then annexed by Jordan")
3. 14:34, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377477255 by 209.118.181.16 (talk)not o.p.t never was Palestinian, illegally annexed by Jordan today in Israel")
4. 06:39, 7 August 2010 (edit summary: "accurate location")
5. 21:37, 7 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377680669 by Jmlk17 (talk)until it's beamed away")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#israel

Comments:
The first edit was a few days ago, only included to show this has been going on for a bit. On the talk page there are 4 users and 2 IPs agreeing that the article should not say the Church is located in Israel with Hope&Act3! and one other user arguing (without sources) that it should. Hope&Act3! is edit warring to retain language that is both unsourced and against the views of most editors on the talk page. nableezy - 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There's something fishy at work here with the edits against this user being made by anon. IP with less than 30 edits many of them reverts. 209.118.181.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is clearly hiding his true identity and could very well be a banned/blocked editor (possibly related to the topic banned editor making this complaint). I see them making 5 reverts against established editors on the article in question while the other 2 editors are not hiding behind an IP. Hope&Act3! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an almost clean block log for his 4 months here (I can't make out the 12 hour block but it seems unrelated to edit-warring). I'd suggest a block to the IP and a notice on Wikipedia:ARBPIA notifying Hope with a warning that next time he crosses the 3RR line -- even if its a sock puppet IP -- he'd be sure to be handed some time out to think about things with a nice little smudge on his block log as a sign for future edit-war violations. Just my 2 cents. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protected The IP does look very much like a blocked/banned user. However, unless Hope&Act3! can present concrete evidence clearly marking it as a sock, reverting so vigorously is not acceptable (and, to be clear, if there's concrete proof of sockpuppetry, one should use one of the noticeboards to bring the matter to an admin's attention). So, this should have resulted in a block. However, I think there are a number of users from a couple angles reverting on this article, so I think protection is the best route right now.

If evidence can be presented, a request should be made at WP:SPI. -- tariqabjotu 01:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nascar1996 reported by User:NoseNuggets (Result:24h protection )

Page: 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series
User being reported: Nascar1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I used the format on the "TV/Radio" section from 2010, and did a do not show on the 2011 schedule until it is officially announced on August 18th, but he reverted them back.

Comments: He needs to "grow up". I told him that I have more experience, but he thinks I'm a smart-a**. Maybe a block is needed to make him think about his actions. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:54 PM US EDT Aug 7 2010.
Comments: Please preview both of our talk pages before your decision. To NoseNuggets, I don't think your are that, but how does experience help you here? I have also asked for some help with this. NoseNuggets and I have never agreed with each other. I would hate to be blocked around this time becaus eI will get behid on editing the race articles, which have to be finished within five days. I know what ever you decide will be better with Wikipedia. I think someone should delete the articel until 2011. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 03:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Comments: NoseNuggets, I'll say one thing: telling someone to "grow up" is hardly the way to go about it. Airplaneman ✈ 03:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• You're both engaging in edit warring. You can either discuss this like reasonable people, or both get blocked. Nascar1996, I think you're right at 3RR; NoseNuggets, you're not immune because the other party started the reverting. Page protected 24 hours (I accidentally set it for 5 days to begin with), and if the reverting resumes there will be blocks. This doesn't exist to hold WikiProject banners, please use it. Courcelles 03:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Norcalal reported by Ginelli (Result:No Violation)

Page: San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Norcalal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 4th revert: [53]
• 5th revert: [54]
• 6th revert: [55]

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

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

Comments:

I have attempted to have a civil discussion with this individual without success. Norcalal repeatedly makes accusation that I am biased towards San Jose. Given that I am a Bay Area native and he is not, I feel that my factual contributions should be respected even though Norcalal may not agree with them. He seems to be intent on asserting his San Francisco bias on the page. Norcalal will not even admit that San Jose is the center of Silicon Valley, despite the fact that both within and outside the Bay Area San Jose is known as the Capital of Silicon Valley. Ginelli (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

41.132.178.5 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: blocked)

Page: Bulgars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Cuman people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.132.178.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Massive revert-warring on several pages combined with incivil edit summaries. Please just check the obvious situation in the article histories. Note: this is a cross-posting of a report I've also filed for enforcement at WP:AE#41.132.* to get a more permanent solution under WP:DIGWUREN, but I'm filing here too because the response time at AE is too slow to stop the revert war. For more detail please see the AE report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours AE can do what it wants, but we have a clear 3RR violation going on here. If he IP-hops, the articles will be semi-protected until AE decides what to do. Courcelles 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles reported by User:FactStraight (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Anne Marie d'Orléans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

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

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

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

Comments:
I made several efforts to resolve disagreements and avoid edit-wars; see diffs:

• Diff [66] Third Opinion concurring with the objections I've repeatedly enumerated on the talk page and affirming that they should be deleted, which I proceeded to do.

• Diff [67] My comment on user's talk page

• Diff [68] My reply to user's latest comment on my talk page

Repeated efforts to negotiate type of content notable enough for historical bios on talk page ignored or rejected. User defends his input and reverts, immediately or gradually, any changes I make, and won't dialogue on talk page unless his edits have been reverted -- then he defends, but won't compromise. He is now ignoring both my pleas for compromise and the Third Opinion which agreed with me entirely that some of his input is too trivial to be included in Wikipedia. He dismissed my 3RR warning with mockery. FactStraight (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)