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: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: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

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. [7] 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)

I understand, I agree and accept and your points are good and duly noted 2/0. Thank you for your time and your observations are welcome. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User: InaMaka reported by User: Stonemason89 (Result: 1 week)

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 ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), 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: [14]. He also inserts his own personal opinions into edit summaries, for example: [15] [16] [17]. Finally, he unilaterally deletes articles about candidates, claiming they are non-notable even though they received widespread media coverage: [18] [19] [20]; 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: [21] [22] [23] [24]. 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)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week More on user's talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you did a thorough job in checking his contributions. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:10, 5 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] [25] [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [27] 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:Ring Cinema reported by User:Geoff B (Result: no action)

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: [28]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]
• 5th revert: [33]
• 6th revert: [34]

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

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

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)

• Not blocked If I'd caught this 24 hours ago, you'd both have been blocked. Too late, move on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 6 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)

User:Hehest reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: 24h)

Page: B. K. S. Iyengar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hehest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

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

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

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

Comments:

Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:221.130.18.185 reported by User:Ophois (Result: semi)

Page: Rain (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.115.214.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 221.130.18.185 (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
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: This is the blocked user User:InkHeart, who has on numerous occasions come back through anons to start edit wars. Ωphois 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

All I did was add change the headers sizes. I did not want to start an edit war. 111.161.3.220 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that changing the headers was exactly one of User:InkHeart's antics in creating edit wars, and look, a new IP address to respond here? oncamera^(t) 01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't start edit wars you guys do because you won't leave me alone. I just want to edit like everyone else. And actually its the same IP it just changes when I edit different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.161.3.220 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Semi-protected by Tcncv (talk · contribs). - 2/0 (cont.) 04:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

97.77.103.82 and CAtruthwatcher reported by User:DC (Result: 48h)

Page: St. John's University (New York) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (most likely the same person)

Previous version reverted to: 5:42 11/3

• 1st revert: 2:44 11/4
• 2nd revert: 0:33 11/5
• 3rd revert: 3:35 11/5
• 4th revert: 6:12 11/5
• 5th revert: 7:59 11/5
• 6th revert: 8:13 11/5
• 7th revert: 7:31 11/6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP warned CAtruth warned

Discussions on talk page herehere and here.

Comments:
I took it here instead of ANI since it's most likely one person doing all the editing. Users both like to use the term "vandal" in their edit summaries, and refer to the three editors who've disagreed with them as sockpuppets. DC T•C 08:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The two users are confirmed to be the same editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jasepl reported by User:Stepopen (Result:User warned. )

Page: Tbilisi International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: 11:41, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "revert (yet more) nonsense from this IP")
• 2nd revert: 15:23, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 119.155.37.2 (talk); NOT a destination for PrivatAir. (TW)")
• 3rd revert: 17:00, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394391636 by 119.155.37.2 (talk)")
• 4th revert: 03:42, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394663960 by Inspector123 (talk) as before")
• 5th revert: 09:09, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Inspector123 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Jasepl. (TW)")

This report is for edit waring, not 3RR. This user keeps removing a Privatair flight with a tech stop in Tbilisi from the article. One might argue whether this is a sensible edit or not, but what is not acceptable is the slow edit-warring without any discussion on the article talk page or the involved editors talk pages. Problematic is also the labelling of edits as vandalism when they are clearly not vandalism.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past. Furthermore, [45] shows that User:Jasepl is familiar with the 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
WarnedUser is warned and I will watch the page for further violations. Hopefully we can avoid a block. JodyB _talk 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Nsk92 (Result: 12h each)

Page: Georgy Malenkov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]
• 5th revert [51]
• 6th revert [52]
• 7th revert [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

See the article talk page discussion in the thread that I started: Talk:Georgy Malenkov#First Secretary for more details. Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
I should say that I myself am also guilty here - I actually have 4 reverts on the Malenkov article. I did not realize that I was in a breach of 3RR when doing the last revert. I did stop, and continued the discussion at the article talk page. However, User:Trust Is All You Need did not stop, but continued to edit-war and to revert another editor, User:Str1977, even after having been given a 3RR warning. Still, whomever reviews this report may want to block me as well, in the interests of fairness. Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Str1977

Page: Georgy Malenkov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
, but exhibiting similar behaviour on related pages. User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:08, 30 October 2010

• 0th revert: Revision as of 12:49, 6 November 2010 (just outside the 24h period but still noteworthy)
• 1st revert: Revision as of 13:02, 6 November 2010 (on a second issue)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:07, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
• 3rd revert: 13:18, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
• 4th revert: Revision as of 13:49, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
• 5th revert: Revision as of 14:00, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
• 6th revert: Current revision as of 14:32, 6 November 2010 (first issue again)

• User has been blocked for 3RR before, hence he knows about the rule [55]
• He also mentioned it to me in an edit summary (in a false accusation) [56] - I then pointed his error and his violation out to him in my edit summary [57]

So its false when i say you have breached the 3RR rule, but when you do it to me its okay??? Am i missing something here? --TIAYN (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something here. At the time you reverted an edit by User:Str1977 with an edit summary accusing him of having broken 3RR [58], he only had 2 reverts on you, whereas your edit was something like your 6th revert, and done already after you received a 3RR warning at your talkpage. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussions on talk page here, involving two different users trying to reason with the user.

Comments:

I came into an already existing conflict (partly about another issue) and started my report, not knowing that the user had already reverted that often. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. Unbeknownst to me, User:Nsk92 reported the same case as well. I therefore make this section a subsection of his report. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I said to you early on stop and lets discuss this, why are you blaiming me??? Come on, I mean seriously, you are blaiming me for everything here. Secondly, saying that I contined the edit war is false, I never started removing information from the Malenkov article, you did.... When a person is First Secretary and you remove the information it is called "vandalism". Instead of actually trying to solve our problem you have been stuborn the whole way through, even claiming that Stalin and Malenkov were not First Secretaries, which they both are seeing that the General Secretaryship was abolished in 1934.. Just as i wrote on the Malenkov talk page, I'm beginning to become exhausted.. This discussion is going nowhere, and you won't listen, which makes it even worse!!! I won't denie it however, I did break the 3RR rule, and for that i'm sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This page is for reporting your behaviour violating Wikipedia's rules. No more, no less. I will not discuss content issues with you here. Please read what Vandalism actually is. I will not respond here anymore. I advise you to do the same. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Nsk92 reported by User:Trust Is All You Need

Page: Georgy Malenkov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
, but exhibiting similar behaviour on related pages. User being reported: Nsk92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 13:41, 6 November 2010

• 0th revert: Revision as of 13:41, 6 November 2010
• 1st revert: Revision as of 14:02, 6 November 2010 (on a second issue)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:03, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
• 3rd revert: 14:11, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
• 4th revert: Revision as of 14:43, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
• 5th revert: Revision as of 14:59, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
• 6th revert: Current revision as of 15:26, 6 November 2010 (first issue again)

The user does not want to discuss the future of the article, instead he edit wars.. Its simple (see above for more info). --TIAYN (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm new on posting others at 3RR, so if i did anything wrong... sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you provided above involve edits by two different users, User:Nsk92 (me) and User:Str1977. Are you saying that me and User:Str1977 are the same user?? Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked All three blocked for 12 hours for a 3RR vio and a tag-team edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:NeutralityPersonified reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: warned)

Page: Coffee Party USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NeutralityPersonified (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original insertion of disputed text

• 1st revert: 00:14, 5 November 2010
• 2nd revert: 00:57, 5 November 2010
• 3rd revert: 02:09, 6 November 2010
• 4th revert: 03:01, 6 November 2010
• 5th revert: 20:54, 6 November 2010
• 6th revert: 21:13, 6 November 2010

Diff of previous edit warring / 3RR warning for the same article: One of several warnings

See the article talk page discussion in this thread: Discussion for more details.

Comments:
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthfulPerson/Archive for more information on this editor's history. This editor has been previously warned and blocked several times, and is quite familiar with policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Warned There are definitely some ducky concerns, but the SPI was inconclusive. I have notified the user that edit warring is not on, which may hopefully solve the issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:LokiiT (Result: )

Page: Russian Census (2010) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62] (reverted wording and removed unreliable source tag)
• 4th revert: [63] (reverted wording and removed unreliable source tag)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] (He responded with a "no you are" response [65])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page discussion ignored; Discussion on both our talk pages, amounted to him calling me a conspiracy theorist for questioning the validity of a self-published blog.

Comments:

LokiiT (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note he added a fifth revert, after warning editor should be blocked. Secret ^account 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here are the diffs for Lvivske on this article as generated by the 3rr.php tool:

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

1. 23:20, 5 November 2010 (edit summary: "revert removing of cited material; Paul A. Goble is an award winning expert in this subject field and is very much a reliable source")
2. 23:22, 5 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ another source on the subject")
3. 00:40, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
4. 04:23, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 395085074 by Lvivske; I don't care if you have a personal vendetta against him, KyivPost and Eurasia Review are RS. using TW")
5. 22:07, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ + ref, not just Goble but Globalsib.com also confirming")
6. 22:14, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
7. 22:48, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "KP is a reliable publication and news outlet, don't remove. This is reliable news, not Goble's opinion, adding a journal article on the topic. good grief.")
8. 08:36, 7 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv. please use talk page before section blanking, this content is being discussed anyway")

The diffs on the same article for LokiiT are as follows: Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 22:03, 5 November 2010 (edit summary: "Paul Goble's blog is not a reliable source")
2. 04:06, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "I don't care what "awards" he's won, his blog is not a reliable source. WP:RS")
3. 04:09, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:48, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "for now")
5. 21:49, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
6. 22:02, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
7. 22:03, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
8. 22:36, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ still an unreliable source. Perhaps it should be removed in favor of the new one you found?")

I've pointed Lvivske to the discussion here and asked him to respond. It seems that both users should be blocked for edit warring, unless they will agree to settle the dispute in a way that accords with policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:87.114.90.86 reported by User:Dmol (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Qantas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.114.90.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

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

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

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

Comments:Several users have explained that this incident is not notable, but the user continues to edit war

--Dmol (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Note - I knew this looked familiar: this exact edit is cited by a recently retired user less than 48 hours ago[73] as an example of why they left the project. 87.112.207.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is pretty clearly the same user as the reported IP, so it would be 5 reverts instead of 4. I fixed the diffs in this report, as they were off. Doc talk 05:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and fixing my links. I suspect the user is experienced as edits are properly formatted and show previous practice. He is even trying to issue warnings against me.--Dmol (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected two weeks. The 87.* editor clearly broke 3RR, and it is hardly worth it to block a dynamic IP, so we need to semiprotect for a while, while apologizing for the inconvenience to the good-faith IP editors. Parties on the other side of this dispute did not break 3RR but Dmol is pushing the limits of the edit-warring policy. I suggest that nobody revert again until consensus is reached on talk. Use WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Bijuts reported by User:Binoyjsdk (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Reverts from the first to last. The latest reverts are listed down:
29 September

• 1st revert: [75]

15 October

• 2nd revert: [76]

24 October

• 3rd revert: [77]

25 October to 29 October

• 4th revert: [78]
• 5th revert: [79]
• 6th revert: [80]
• 7th revert: [81]
• 8th revert: [82]
• 9th revert: [83]
• 10th revert: [84]
• 11th revert: [85]
• 12th revert: [86]
• 13th revert: [87]
• 14th revert: [88]
• 15th revert: [89]
• 16th revert: [90]
• 11th revert: [91]
• 17th revert: [92]

04 November

• 18th revert: [93]
• 19th revert: [94]

03 November

• 20th revert: [95]

The user seems to have a strong and biased POV towards Kochi. His edit patterns are similar. For instance, He wanted to remove the sentence "second largest city behind the capital", as he do not want it to be told as second behind another city. He even tried to change the Thiruvananthapuram article (which is the larget city in the state): [96], and was edit-warring in that article also for some time.

He wanted to remove the negetive images of Kochi:

• Line 329: [97]
• Line 501: [98]

He has not shown interest in Article talk pages and never participated in the discussions there :[99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [100]
• [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Discussions on User talk page: [102]
• Discussions for Article improvement in Article talk page: [103]
• Advising the user:Bijuts to use WP:3O or WP:DISPUTE to handle content disputes: [104]

Comments:

BINOY ^Talk 08:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Fully protected by SpacemanSpiff. Try to reach consensus on the talk page. If reverts continue after protection expires, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Das Baz reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: )

Page: September 18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Das Baz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

• 1st revert: [106]
• 2nd revert: [107]
• 3rd revert: [108]
• 4th revert: [109]
• 5th revert: [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

The above two fields are really irrelevant here; this editor has been warned in the past about edit warring and blocked for the same. Editors have tried to discuss it with them, but they have refused, they haven't even used any edit summaries. As they have seemingly learned nothing since last time they were blocked for edit warring, I would ask that this block be made longer, as they are doing exactly the same thing as the first time; slow edit-warring and refusing to talk about it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Going back over the article history, I count about 19 attempts to add this in the last 14 months. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified Das Baz of the discussion here, and invited him to participate. In my opinion the best option is a long block, which might be lifted if the editor will agree to follow Wikipedia policy. He hardly ever edits his own talk page except to remove warnings and comments by others. The problem may be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope that his cooperative response here will avert the need for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Wayne Olajuwon

• Previous version reverted to: [111]
• 1st revert: [112]
• Revision history of the page, includes four more reverts: [113]

• Warning to user: [114]

This user reverted my series of edits five times in total under the pretense of "reverting vandalism." The edits in question were clearly not vandalism, and I made edit summaries to that effect; he made no attempt to discuss with me. They were, I admit, controversial, but they clearly reflect what the cited sources say. I am willing to engage discussion with this user, but not to condone censorship on his part. Regardless of this dispute, he has clearly violated the 3RR.128.151.26.110 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Complaint is frivolous, and complainant may well be blocked for bringing this here. Wayne Olajuwon was quite correctly removing unsourced negative material, per WP:V. I see no discussion of this from the complainant on the articles' Talk pages. Rodhullandemu 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to look at the materials more clearly. They were sourced, just that they appeared in the original sources and I didn't add any new sources.128.151.26.110 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)