Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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:Gangwonackr reported by User:Kusunose (Result: 48h)

Page: Gangwon Provincial College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gangwonackr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As the user in question is the sole significant content contributer, I have explained relevant guidelines in his/her talk page.

Comments:
This report is for edit waring, not 3RR. User:Gangwonackr has been changing reference to the Sea of Japan to "East Sea", ignoring guidelines (WP:NC-KO) provided in the edit summary and the editor's talk page. He/She has never explained his/her edit in edit summary and did not responded in talk pages. --Kusunose 07:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a very slow-moving edit war. Anyway, I've reminded Gangwonackr about having to use an edit summary for any reverts, since he/she has never used it before. I don't think any action is needed here. Minimac (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Gangwonackr created this article a few months ago, and he insists on reverting certain names in the article to his own style preferences, which contradict the ones generally used in Wikipeda. For example he insists that Sea of Japan be called the East Sea. Since he rarely edits anything but this one article, and he is here less than once a month on average, we face the seldom-used need to issue a long block just to get his attention. If he will partake of any reasonable discussion, the block could be lifted. I suggest three months just so that the block will not escape his notice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be interesting to see what Gangwonackr does next after I've reminded him about not using any edit summaries. It would be harsh to block him now before he edits again. After all, he's only a newcomer. Minimac (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours for long-term edit-warring. After being here seven months, he should not still get credit for being a newcomer if he shows himself unwilling to follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:99.231.241.146 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Protected)

Page: Sriracha sauce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.231.241.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article is the site of an edit war by a contentious IP on one side, and myself and two other registered editors on the other. IP removes information because the company website (not an RS) claims something different, and dubious. IP then screams vandalism. Several times this past hour, so our rollbacks will appear as 3RR, when in fact we were returning the article to its previous state.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• Result - Article fully protected by TFOWR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: stale, but advice)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

Editor Esoglou has been following me through various Eastern Orthodox articles I have contributed to in the past and rewritten them to in ways that I have objected to. I however have not revert warring with Esoglou in quote sometime. Now it appears that Esoglou has a fellow Roman Catholic friend he has found who will now tag team with him to take out information that Esoglou does not like and can not refute with valid sourcing. However the information I have posted is valid (or was said to be so far) and sources involved directly in the issue. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note If I were going to block anybody here, it would be the filing editor. But it seems better to let this play out a little longer before intervening. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Advice needed: Both Esoglou and LoveMonkey have been at this board in the past. They specialize in similar topics, but they appear to be scornful of each others' work. They have been advised about WP:Dispute resolution, but neither party has tried any of the steps so far as I'm aware. Should the 3RR board be accepting unlimited return visits from people who find it inconvenient to follow policy? Here are some past reports:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive130#User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: No violation) (Filioque, May 2010)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Not blocked / stale) (Filioque, June 2010)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive136#User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: protected 1 week) (July 2010)

Does anyone have any ideas of what to do? Possibly a 1RR restriction for both parties on all religious topics for six months? A 1RR would have prevented the series of reverts detailed in this report. Thanks for any comment by other editors. I moved this report to the bottom of the page for more visibility. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston has asked me personally to add comments here. I am sorry that I can offer no advice. Bringing others in has been tried. They don't persevere in their efforts, doubtless find them fruitless and frustrating. The present dispute is between LoveMonkey and another editor, LoveMonkey blames it on me. See his opening comment above, in which he suggests that Rwflammang is editing the article because of being, LoveMonkey says, a Roman Catholic friend of mine. And I see that LoveMonkey, when protesting against Rwflammang, has used the same exclamation that he recently used against another editor (again, not me): "How Roman Catholic of you!" I have had absolutely nothing to do with Rwflammang's effort to improve the article, and I hope that neither EdJohnston nor anybody else has been misled by LoveMonkey's outburst into thinking that I was in some way behind it. To this dispute I am totally extraneous. I have even held off my efforts, which I would otherwise be continuing in these days, to overcome by dint of patient arguing LoveMonkey's systematic reversal of my edits. You can see, in the subsections under Talk:Filioque#Edit warring and policy abuse (the heading is LoveMonkey's), how I set about discussing separately each of the seven items that he reverted in the same way as he is systematically reverting Rwflammang's edits. Of those items I have so far solved only one, with the removal of the statement, "The Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans", which LoveMonkey falsely attributed to two sources that said nothing of the sort. Instead of rephrasing the statement or producing a citation to support it, you can see how he preferred to write at length of the ill-treatment meted out by Westerners to the Greeks and Russians over the post-Frank centuries, down to Mussolini and Hitler - as if that showed that the Franks were called Western Romans! An intervention by me at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard brought above an unusually speedy solution to this argument, and I was planning to make, if necessary, a similar intervention to solve the one other item on which active discussion between him and me had begun, with a view to then tackling the remaining five. But I judged it much more pleasant to be a spectator of the LoveMonkey-Rwflammang dispute, rather than to pursue my own dispute for now. I am watching the discussion on the present dispute with interest, but with little hope that it will be more successful than those on the LoveMonkey disputes in which I myself was involved. Esoglou (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Ed Johnston I will comment as well. I will say that the reverts here were blanket deletes, large deletes with no conversation about them before they where done on the article talkpage. No consensus. I did not see any indication of any of the edits until after they were done. As for the example from Esoglou that is a red herring as User talk:Andrew Lancaster clearly told Esoglou go back and attempt to compromise and when Esoglou did the end result was a collaboration and resolution. [13] To the administrator Looie496 how wikipedia administrator of you, shot first and then ask questions later. If you have the desire to dig in do so please. The articles can use all the help in the world but what you posted does not sound as if you are approaching this deductively you appear by your comments to have already made up your mind. Also since everyone is so trigger happy could they confirm why no Eastern Orthodox editors or administrators here have been asked to contribute to the discussion or is it that Ed and Looie496 have already made up their minds and are only now dealing with formalities? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward - this report is stale now, but EdJohnston raises a very good point. Looking at this in the context of the previous reports, LoveMonkey appears to be using this board as a weapon in content disputes, which is unacceptable. There also appear to be significant concerns regarding their use of sources. LM appears to be a major contributor to the topic area, and I would not be comfortable restricting them on this basis alone, but a request for comment may be in order (please let me know if anyone starts one). I would, however, caution LoveMonkey to be cautious in filing future reports to this board to ensure beforehand that adequate attempt has been made to resolve the dispute at the relevant talkpage and that their own editing practices are above reproach. I would also like to request that all involved parties avoid reverting each others' edits more than once (at most). This is merely a request, but it appears that this series of disputes is in danger of growing personalized and partisan, and that never ends well for anyone. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User: InaMaka reported by User: Stonemason89

NOTE: This is a notice of edit-warring, not 3RR violation.

User: InaMaka has been acting in a disruptive manner during and after the recent United States midterm elections. In a span of ten minutes he made the following six reverts ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), all of which were on candidate BLPs and all of which were reverts of edits made by User: Arbor832466, against whom InaMaka appears to have a personal vendetta: [20]. He also inserts his own personal opinions into edit summaries, for example: [21] [22] [23]. Finally, he unilaterally deletes articles about candidates, claiming they are non-notable even though they received widespread media coverage: [24] [25] [26]; it's not up to InaMaka to decide what is notable and what isn't; and he expresses a very defiant, bullheaded attitude toward other editors: [27] [28] [29] [30]. He has been repeatedly warned about such behavior on his talk page (and blocked three times in the past for edit warring), but doesn't seem to ever learn. This behavior is quite long-term and I think it's time it stopped. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The politicians that have never held political office are not qualified to have articles about them in Wikipedia. Krystal Ball has never held elective office. Under the defined terms of having an article about a politician, Krystal Ball does not meet any of those requirements. The election is over and article was deleted. The same applies to Stephene Moore. Once again, she has never held political office and she does not qualify as a politician.--InaMaka (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The standard for notability is not whether they win. We have an article on Jim Clymer, who has never won an election in his life. He does pass the notability standard, though, because many media outlets have written about him. Again, you by yourself are not the arbiter of what is notable and what isn't. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that despite InaMaka edit-warring over a notability tag on Stephene Moore, he has not elaborated on such concerns despite being invited to do so at Talk:Stephene Moore#The notability tag. Drive-by tagging without justification is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of these edits are also BLP violations. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Ezzex reported by User:Jiujitsuguy

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

• First revert 3 November 2010 @20:33 Edit summary: “Remove POV”

• Second revert 3 November 2010 @20:40, No edit summary

• Third revert 3 November 2010 @21:24, No edit summary

• Fourth revert 3 November 2010 @22:52, No edit summary

• Fifth revert 3 November 2010 @23:27, No edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User: Ezzex has now violated 3RR by making 5 reverts and reverting four editors in a span of less than 3hrs. He fails to discuss his reverts on the Talk page and offers no explanation in the edit summary. He has also been given a previous 48hr block for edit warring[31]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Recent and rapid edit-warring. The warning came late but as he/she has been blocked previously for edit-warring a warning is unnecessary. Will also notify of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Mkativerata (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami and User:Medeis reported by User:DavidOaks (Result: Protected)

Page: Folk etymology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

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

Reporting a dispute at Folk etymology over the inclusion of material on the term as used in folklore; two editors will admit only material relating to linguistics. I have not been able to get either to address the actual issues, and indiscriminate reversions have been done. Additionally, there has been canvassing. One of the disputants is an admin, and is ruling there that my sources are non-RS. S/he has also placed a message on my talkpage accusing me of 3RR violation -- demonstrably untrue. Between them they may have done 3RR, but the overall behavior is what amounts to edit warring. The article is not improving, the atmosphere has soured; the effect is to exclude others from editing and controlling the article.

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [32] [33]

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

Wow, I really screwed up the format, but don't know how. Sorry -- don't do this much. DavidOaks (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC) DavidOaks (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology is a very well defined academic concept in linguistics. This has been demonstrated over and over with multiple refs to standard textbooks and linguistic encyclopedias and dictionaries on the article's talk page. The above editor seems to have a good faith interest in folklore and urban legends, which can easily be handled under separate articles with whatever names. He has been repeatedly invited to do so.

But he responds to well intentioned comments with incomprehensible run on objections, inappropriate personal accusations, and what at best amount non-sequiturs, topped off by multiple reverts and assertions that unless refs can be provided denying his exact POV it must be accepted as fact. This shows little understanding of the topic or of wikipedia policy. In frustration, and rather than report him for edit warring, which was my first thought, and which I could easily have done, I sought the advice of an editor, User:Kwamikagami, whom, although I have often disagreed with him elsewhere on specifics, I know to be well versed in linguistics, and asked him which discussion board I should refer this matter to. He suggested a discussion board and I posted the article there requesting attention. This is what User:DavidOaks describes as canvassing.

This is a technical subject. The attention of editors knowledgeable on the subject would be helpful, but simple adherence to WP policy, like deferring to standard textbooks and encyclopedias rather than Snopes as a reference will suffice. If DavidOaks cannot edit under those conditions he should, perhaps, edit elsewhere, voluntarily or not, as is warranted.μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the texts of refs from DavidOaks most recent reversions 321 of the article, including a personally addressed command in the text of the article that I produce a ref for material he has added. My emphasis is in bold:

^ "The frequently encountered interpretation of this technical term of historical linguistics in the sense of a mere amateur etymology is itself a wrong conclusion from the word elements. By folk etymology is known always a specific phenomenon of language change, not a merely false etymology." Medeis, this is your source, so you'll have to supply the rest

^ from Snopes.com: "A constant of folk etymologies seems to be that the odder a word sounds to us, the sillier the story we invent to explain its origins...." sv pumpernickel; "I'm not quite sure what to make of this folk etymology..." ("red light district" so-named because railmen left their lanterns at the door of the brothel; hardly morphological re-analysis; note the causalness of the usage, earmark of the established phrase, as linguists usually take it). "Pluck Yew" is aid to be a folk etymology; the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette treats of the folk etymology of "Lord Love a Duck."; “folk etymologies” are explicitly treated as equivalent to “etymological myths” in a course a U-Ontario [3];Sir James Fraser equates the two in note 1 p. 91 of his ed’n of Apollodorus (cites C.G. Heyne); David Wilton “Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends”. Oxford UP 2004

I request that DavidOaks be notified that his actions are inappropriate.μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I came into this because of an edit war. Medeis' side is well sourced, David's may not be. One of his sources is the Snopes web page, which I doubt constitutes a RS; another (a PDF file posted on a course website) made no mention of the term 'folk etymology' he claimed it supported. Perhaps his other sources are better, but this is not a promising beginning. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(Just so no one waits around for me to weigh in) Said my piece; beyond that, will let the article's revision history and talkpage (where I have addressed these very points by both editors repeatedly) speak for themselves. Thanks. DavidOaks (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no edit warring going on at Folk etymology except on the part of User:DavidOaks. There is a clear majority of editors on the Talk Page who agree that his edits to the article are inappropriate--Medeis, Kwami, myself. If Medeis had not reverted DavidOaks' last edit, I would have. He is pushing his POV without building a consensus. While he may have a valid subject that needs coverage in Wikipedia, he has provided no reliable sources to support that POV, nor why his topic must be covered in a linguistics article rather than in its own article. --Taivo (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought productive conversation had commenced, and certainly I made strenuous efforts to fulfill requirements laid down, even though I repeatedly asked according to what policy the requirements were made; what came in response was simple WP:Ididn'thearthat. To me, this is tag-teaming, abusive editing, and one of the disputants is simultaneously acting as an admin. Evidence is ignored, arguments are ignored, positions are simply re-asserted. The admin needs to choose one role or the other, and another admin needs to rule on several questions that have been identified on the talkpage. The behavior has effectively locked the article. DavidOaks (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected two weeks. If consensus is reached on talk, protection can be lifted. There may some question as to whether DavidOaks' sources meet RS standards, but if so a posting at WP:RSN might be considered. Use {{editprotected}} to get changes made which have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome review of these sources for WP:RS. The claim is that the term "Folk etymology" has a defined meaning in folklore. Those are simply three field encyclopedias treating the term discretely. Within linguistics, a different usage prevails. The first source, by the most prominent of living folklorists, author of the key textbook in the field and the discoverer of urban legends, significantly acknowledges the competing usages. It has been my position that the article should do likewise, and resistance to that claim has occasioned the conflict -- and considerable unpleasantness.

Additionally, on the talk page, a very large number of examples of actual usage were brought forward in order to illustrate the currency of the folkloric sense (including them here would clutter this page unhelpfully). These included specialized web sites and juried articles in multiple scholarly disciplines, including numerous telling instances of linguists clearly using the "folklore" sense (important because the claim had been consistently that the term had a very strict meaning within linguistics); however these examples were not intended ultimately for inclusion in the article, merely to document and to illustrate discussion. They were not offered as WP:RS for article purposes, and should not be evaluated as such. DavidOaks (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:JPMcGrath reported by Hamitr (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Gun laws in the United States (by state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:55, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 392121879 by SeanNovack (talk) See Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Maps")
2. 03:03, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394495193 by Mudwater (talk) See Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Maps")
3. 20:55, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394537838 by SeanNovack (talk) Further edit warring will be reported")
4. 02:35, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394671724 by Hamitr (talk) restore status quo before edit war")

• Diff of warning: here

—Hamitr (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Thanos5150 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result:1 week)

Page: Charles Hapgood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Thanos5150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 17:06, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Hapgood is an accredited scholar and we have no reason to doubt the letters are genuine.")
2. 19:21, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Restore edit by DougWeller")
3. 22:32, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Hapggod is specifically referring to only Queen Maudland in relation to the Piri Reis map. See Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings p72-75. He is not "mistaking" S.America for Antarctica as is implied here")
4. 23:03, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "He clearly says he believes Queen Maudland was incorrectly connected to S.America by omission of separation of water. He does not say the mass as a whole is Antarctica. Read it yourself.")
5. 00:20, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "You have reverted my edit 3 times. Do not do it again. Go to discussion if you have a problem. It clearly says what Hapgood actually thought, but also that it is generally thought to be S.America.")
6. 01:57, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "YOU have been warned about 3 edits and have been asked to go to discussion. A discussion has already been opened. STOP reverting this edit. IT IS YOU who is the problem.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:
I'm not sure who is right here (but will look into it later) and it is being discussed on the talk page, but the editor has been blocked for edit warring recently and should know better by now. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week However you define revert there are more than three of them within 24 hours and coming so soon after the last block nothing shorter than a week off is warranted. Mkativerata (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Geoff B (Result: )

Page: A Prophet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]
• 5th revert: [40]
• 6th revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments: All plot summary related. Ring Cinema at first resisted a new plot section with reverts, then set about editing the new plot to resemble the former plot.

Geoff B (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You both violated 3rr in that article, page should be reverted to the version prior to the edit war and protected. Secret ^account 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Anaxial reported by User:117.195.211.24 (Result:wrong area)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:
Here is the case... I'm an Anon, and a responsible Wikipedia user. I see a mistake, I correct it. I don't login. Period.

I went to the Siula Grande page today and found, a curiously incorrect statement about first ascent of the peak: 1936 July 28 North Ridge by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Erwin Schneider from Germany. I'm like, ok that's not true, may be some one did a mistake or it's a case of vandalism. So I go to history and see that yes, the edit 22:40, 1 November 2010 168.156.43.239 replaces the word Awerzger with Schwarzenegger. So I undo that edit to revert the article back to the previous version which looks fine. I come back to the page after watching Touching the Void (film) to check a fact, voila... I have a warning on my Anon talk page from User:Anaxial for seemingly vandalizing the article.

Is reverting any anon edit without reading a norm these days? It wasn't so when Wikipedia was new! I did write a strong-worded note on the user's talk page and undid his/her changes. But then I went to the user's talk archive and found this has been going for a long time. There are many such reports of incorrect accusations of vandalism.

My question is what action, if any, can you Admins take against this user?

Or no action will be taken as it doesn't matter because Anon edits are bullshit anyways?

Regards,

A fairly pissed off long-time Anon contributor... AND I won't goddamn create an account again to login! --117.195.211.24 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can show some sort of pattern for this user reverting IPs at random, I doubt you'll see any action taken. WP:AGF. They made a mistake. You already commented on their talk page. Did you consider waiting for a response before coming to the (edit warring) noticeboard and asking for action to be taken? --Onorem♠Dil 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said read the user's talk page for similar cases. Moreover, I had 5 extra minutes, I told you guys about it. You are fine with people reverting anon edits without reading, fine... I stop making contributions, and let Arnold Schwarzenegger climb the goddamn mountain! If anon edits are not tolerated, c'mon make a policy change and make the site read-only for anyone who doesn't login. Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit is all hypocrisy! --117.195.211.24 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I did miss the part where you mentioned the users archives. It would still be nice to have some specifics. I've looked over the archive and don't see the many such reports. --Onorem♠Dil 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll admit to a few other instances, but I don't think there's many (the records are, of course, available, to see whether or not you agree with my assessment). I've made some mistakes, and reverted any warnings I may have given on their User page when I've been alerted to them. I don't think its accurate to say that I automatically revert all anon IP edits I come across, since there are a great number I don't - fairly difficult for me to prove that, though, AFAIK. Anaxial (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong area, no edit warring. Secret ^account 02:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by 109.186.253.85 (talk) (Result:Page protected )

Page: Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 11:26, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv edit by what is clearly a sock of a banned user (check the edit history)")
2. 14:35, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Per talk & input of other (non sock) editors")
3. 20:26, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv sock")
4. 21:23, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Per NPOV per talk")
5. 13:09, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "per talk")
6. 19:19, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Comment on talk if you like")

Comments:
Number 57 received a 12 hour block for 3RR earlier in the week at this page, but does not seem to care less and comes back to blindly revert all other editors who disagree with his evident POV WP:OWNership of the page and decision pick and choose the sources he deems worthy. The above six edits occurred after his block was lifted, the last four violate 3RR again. All four edits seem to rv an entirely different editor and the edit war is purely being waged by Number 57 against others. The editor will claim that one of the rvs was a sock, fine, still should have taken a step back. --109.186.253.85 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page was protected, though it won't really help because he's an adminstrator. I would prefered a block in the case for edit warring after 3rr at the same article, but haven't been editing the article since protection so. Secret ^account 02:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

TAKE THAT PROGRESS (Result: both warned)

Progress (Take That album) is being constantly reverted by User:Yids2010 claiming "you have no reason to keep changing this. its the same as the other version but without mentioning irrelevant artists. i will continue to revert until you understand that.", violating 3RR rule.Reqluce (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're both equally guilty here. Is that not true? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is severe edit warring with personal attacks throwing in, I recommend a block for both. Secret ^account 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) is on top of this, so I will refrain from blocking both editors to see if they discontinue edit warring. If either editor continues, I think a block would be in order anyway. Reqluce, I would appreciate if you were to moderate your tone. For the most part, there is no need to address other editors in your edit summaries, and especially not in such a manner as might drive them off. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:HighSpeed-X reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 31h)

Page: Senkaku Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HighSpeed-X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]
• 5th revert: [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First told about rule at:[49], officially warned at [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since the editor appeared to be new (although now that I check, user has edited sporadically since March), I brought it to their talk page rather than the article's talk (as I wasn't sure if they were aware of how article talk pages work, but at least a personal talk page produces automatic warnings).

Comments:
User is making nationlist edits to a contentious article by removing names from one side of the dispute. As pointed out to the editor, this very issue is not only being discussed on the article's talk page, but is also the subject of its own article, Senkaku Islands dispute. Editor was asked to stop reverting and join our conversations there, but refuses to do so. Editor needs a temporary block to prevent continued edit warring on the page, and to hopefully convince the user to discuss the issue rather than just warring about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Also, user has repeatedly ignored WP:CONSENSUS amongst other editors, refuses to engage in discussion regarding the matter on the talk page, and continues to revert those who undo his edits. His edit summaries show that he is only intent on pursuing his own POV, and has no intention of compromising towards an NPOV. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours And I consider this lenient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Greyshark09 and User:Lisa reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: both G and L cautioned)

User:Greyshark09

Page: Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Judaism#"Mosaic Law"

Comments:

Not necessarily four reverts in 24 hours, but edit-warring nevertheless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lisa

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Judaism#"Mosaic Law"

Comments:

Clearly a 3RR violation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You could have combined for both users you know, but it's a clear violation of 3rr by a person who should know better, see the last dif. I don't think Greyshark should be blocked because he stopped edit warring after Lisa's "warning" and it wasn't four reverts during 24 hours, but Lisa should. Secret ^account 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sections combined, as these need to be treated in tandem. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Lisa is over the line by my count, but has also made substantial efforts to engage in discussion and attract the attention of other interested editors. The violation is only by an hour or so, so I do not think that a strict reading would be beneficial here. Greyshark09 has been repeatedly inserting substantively the same material, but as Secret notes has not done so after being appraised of WP:3RR. They have also been advised on usertalk to avoid WP:OR, so hopefully this can proceed to productive discussion without further delay. User:Lisa: please be more careful in counting your reverts and more patient in waiting for outside input. User:Greyshark09, please wait for consensus before reintroducing material with which another editor disagrees. There is no deadline. If you return your edit to that article without a clear and active consensus at Talk:Judaism, I will block you for edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by Shuki (talk) (Result: Page protected)

Page: Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 11:26, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv edit by what is clearly a sock of a banned user (check the edit history)")
2. 14:35, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Per talk & input of other (non sock) editors")
3. 20:26, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv sock")
4. 21:23, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Per NPOV per talk")
5. 13:09, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "per talk")
6. 19:19, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Comment on talk if you like")

Comments:
Besides violating 3RR yesterday, Number 57 coming off a block at the beginning of the week continues his crusade to ensure only his POV appears in the article. In this case, he manages to revert multiple and different editors to prevent any balance being inserted into the article. As an admin, he should know that it is better to back off and let cool heads prevail. On top of that, to ensure his POV, he gets the page protected though there is no vandalism, only a content dispute. --Shuki (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the "multiple and different editors" are sockpuppets and aggressive reverting IPs who didn't use the talk page. Not sure whether facilitating those guys by backing off and letting them prevail is really in the best interest of the project. Having said that, I'm sure you 2 can figure it out on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) As noted in some of the edit summaries (and by other users) the page has unfortunately attracted some sock puppets, hence the multiple reversions and my request for page protection. I have also requested input from WikiProject Political Parties, as despite the comments of three editors on the talk page (myself, Mashkin and Zero), Shuki is unwilling to accept he is in a minority, and instead resorts to repeatedly reporting other users when they have reverted his edits to get his way. The most helpful thing anyone can do is to comment on the talk page because at the moment it is just deadlocked. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting sock puppets is an exemption to 3RR, and besides the page is now protected. I don't think we need to take any further action here. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sean and Phil, if they are all socks bring then to SPI to probe them, until then different editors with different IPs. 57, I don't know what WP policy or guideline you are referring to by claiming that the editors who edit in mainspace but don't add anything on the talk page can be reverted blindly making you immune to 3RR. --Shuki (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"The two users listed here are extremely Likely to be the same person as each other; they share the same useragent data, and Shen, Then? (talk · contribs) was using a proxy which is now blocked." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)