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:84.126.221.34 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Semi)

Page: Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.126.221.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

The article is under a community imposed 1RR restriction yet the IP editor persists in edit warring to include incidents that are not even sourced as being committed by the Real IRA. Reverting IP editors is exempt from the 1RR restriction, for the record. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. This article seems to be the target of single-purpose IPs who may be socks. No IP who has changed the article in 2011 has left an edit summary, used the talk page or added a source. This Timeline is a list of attacks that are believed to be the work of a group called the Real IRA. In this kind of a list it is reasonable that the entries should be sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jprw reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 1 week)

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

• Version restored (addition of POV tag) March 9
• Version restored (removal from lead of "unpaid") Feb 27

• 1st revert 09:51 April 8: restored POV tag
• 2nd revert 17:18 April 8: removed from the lead "he took up an unpaid appointment ..."
• 3rd revert 18:16 April 8: removed from the lead "In January 2010 he became a visiting professor (unpaid) at the University of Oxford to teach graduate classes on aesthetics ..."
• 4th revert 05:00 April 9: removed from the lead "In 2010 he was awarded an unpaid visiting professorship at the University of Oxford."

Comments

I would appreciate help in dealing with a long-term reverting problem at Roger Scruton. Jprw is an admirer of Scruton's, and has been engaged in serial reverting at the article for about eight months, mostly removing well-sourced criticism, or adding the POV tag. The reverting isn't taking place while he adds other content: reverting is almost the only thing he does there, and it is halting article development. He was blocked three times for 3RR in 2010 [5]—the second time in Sept for 72 hours for 3RR at this article, then for five days for 3RR at this article and block evasion. But it continues.

One of the issues is that Scruton has not worked much in academia for 20 years; he was a lecturer and professor in philosophy at Birkbeck College, London, for a long time, but left in 1992. Since then, he's mostly worked as a freelance writer and consultant to companies, topped up with some television work; a few part-time minor fellowships in the States; an unpaid visiting professorship giving graduate seminars at Oxford; and a quarter-time research position at St Andrews. But Jprw is determined to present him as a current, major academic, and keeps removing that his position at Oxford is an unpaid one—something that Scruton himself stresses; see here. Now Jprw has removed entirely the details of Scruton's positions from the lead, wanting to say instead (see his recent edit) that Scruton has been lecturing for 40 years, which is false; giving graduate seminars doesn't make a person a university lecturer. I mean no disrespect by that; it's just a fact. Examples of the reverting:

• Removing that Scruton's appointment at Oxford is unpaid: April 9, April 8, April 8, Feb 27, Dec 10, Dec 4, Nov 3, Sept 24.

• Addition of POV tag: April 8, March 9, March 1, Dec 10 Sept 16, Sept 10 Sept 10 (the latter two as 95.27.94.16).

• Removing details of Scruton's consultancy contract with a tobacco company: Dec 4, Dec 4, Oct 12, Oct 12, Sept 8, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 5, Sept 5, Sept 4, Aug 28.

The reverting has been accompanied by personal attacks (only one of the following is recent) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and restoring personal attacks posted by a banned anon. [11] Other editors are subjected to the same approach, e.g. [12]

Any help would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a tissue of distortion, deceit, and exaggeration from an individual who it appears simply cannot stand being disagreed with. One example: One of the issues is that Scruton has not worked much in academia for 20 years Well, I have said [13] that I have put forward a general sample wording to summarise his career as a lecturer (before there was a tedious, long-winded and inappropriate list of establishments he he had taught at in the lead). I'm quite happy for the wording to be changed so that it reflects accurately the new sub-section I created to cover his career as a lecturer. All my other claims regarding neutrality I set out on the discussion page. The editor called SlimVirgin did not respond to these for a lengthy period, quite possibly the reason for this was that my concerns exposed a clear agenda on this editor's part to cast Scruton in a bad light, suppress his achievements, and allot huge coverage to issues that have nothing to do with why he has a WP article in the first place. I have in the past witnessed first hand her dishonest methods; so I am not entirely surprised to see her now hysterically scurrying to Admin with an erroneous/deceitful list of charges, simply because I have continued to disagree with her and consistently point out her POV pushing on the Roger Scruton page. In addition, the 3RR accusation also appears to be bogus as I have reinstated that material only once. Jprw (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of content arguments here from both SV and Jprw. This board is not going to take a position on content. Nonetheless the abusive language from Jprw might be a factor in how this report gets closed. Jprw made a comment at "Response to unhinged leftist" stating that SlimVirgin is a 'quite seriously unbalanced individual.' Jprw was blocked 72 hours for edit warring on the same article per this Sep 2010 report at AN3. That block was later extended for evasion. Jprw has also made three reverts on April 8 at Melanie Phillips. Can either party say whether they have tried any dispute resolution, such as an WP:RFC, or tried to get comments on the content questions from others? EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I offered to work with Jprw in November last year (see here) to improve the article, in terms of building up a description of Scruton's philosophy. I have a background in philosophy, including postgraduate studies, so I'd be happy to do that. But he declined. The personal attacks since then have been so serious that I wouldn't want to do it anymore. I offered you only a sample of them above. Any attempt I make to involve others—e.g. at RfC, or by taking the issue to the BLP board—will trigger more attacks.

Other editors were involved in a discussion last year about Scruton's tobacco consultancy; see BLP noticeboard here. Jprw just ignored their views and continued reverting anyway, and still wants the POV tag on the article in part because of that material; see here for the section of the article about that.

The issue I would like to see end is the constant reverting of well-sourced material and attempts to fix the writing. If material about Scruton's philosophical ideas is to be added, it will have to follow the academic sources, but Jprw will simply revert anything he doesn't like, no matter how accurate it is, so article development has stopped. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to discuss the content dispute, although it is clear that its resolution would benefit from the input of others. The evidence is pretty clear that Jprw has engaged in sustained edit-warring and severe personal attacks; their contribution to this thread and [14] reflect particularly bad form. I am blocking Jprw for a week for edit-warring and personal attacks, and suggest that the next block be of indefinite duration.  Sandstein  21:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Punya6666 reported by User:Indian Chronicles (Result: warned)

Page: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Punya6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: Punya6666 has been continuously edit warring on pager of Vinayak Damador Savarkar. He is indulging in edit warring, introducing POV’s and unsubstantiated information and making personal attacks on me on the talk page of the article. Previous version reverted to: [15] This is the preferred link that I am trying to save.

• 1st revert: [16] 00:44, 3 April 2011
• 2nd revert: [17] 05:10, 5 April 2011
• 3rd revert: 05:06, 7 April 2011
• 4th revert: [18] 04:22, 9 April 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user had previously been warned by me on his talk page for edit warring on the same article. [19] and warned him on the talk page [20] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] He has also indulged in personal attacks against me doubting whether I am on Indian [22] and [23] Comments: This page is often vandalized by Right wingers who want to push their Hindutva agenda and extreme POV. It needs to be semi protected permanently so that only established users can edit objectively.
Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC) --

• Comment(1)As far as I know the 3R rule applies to edits done within 24 hours, Punya6666's edits are spaced over a few days. (2)Punya6666 is a new user who doesnot know how Wikirules well, so when the action is taken against him please consider his newness. (3)Edit warring cuts both ways, please take the content dispute issue and other wiki rules before arriving at decisionYogesh Khandke (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well he was warned. He persisted with his POV and refused to reply to me on discussion page. Furthermore, he may not have reverted within 24 hrs, but his overall pattern is disruptive. I am not asking to ban or block him. I am asking for article protection and a warning to Punya6666 to discuss first.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• CommentThe closing administrator is requested to appreciate the situation that Punya6666 doesn't even have his user page, imo opportunities for dispute resolution on the talk page have not been exhausted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Having or not having a user page has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned the blank userpage to get the point across that he is a new editor.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Warned No formal 3RR warning so far, nothing else to do here.  Sandstein  21:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:122.151.252.213 reported by User:Tintor2 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Gintoki Sakata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.151.252.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]
• 5th revert: [28]

Comments:
When I was trying to clean up the article Gintoki Sakata, the user just started making reverts to all of my edits as well as his own edits without reasons. I left a message on his talk page, but I noted that was previously blocked for the same reasons.Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Total lack of communication, contribs are practically only undos, already blocked 48h for similar warring in March.  Sandstein  21:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tomballguy reported by User:Trasie123 (Result: no vio)

Page: 2009–2011 Toyota vehicle recalls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomballguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]

User Tomballguy is engaged in both original research and edit warring on the 2009–2011 Toyota vehicle recalls page. His first edit to the article took place on February 22, where Tomballguy adds the term "pedalgate" using bold font to the article's heading. [32] He then adds List of scandals with "-gate" suffix to the page's see also section.[33]

Using google one easily finds the term "pedalgate" has not been associated with this Toyota recall by the mainstream media. [34]

I reverted his edit here: [35]. Tomballguy reverts my edit without explanation. [36] Another editor requests a citation, [37]. Tomballguy adds two citations: [38][39]. One is from The Truth About Cars (first result to appear on google) which is a minor automobile website/blog and the other some random blog at blogspot.com referred through using google.

I reverted his edit [40], Tomballguy continues to revert without explanation [41][42], adding the same two citations as before. He immediately changes the second blogspot.com citation to yet another irrelevant source. [43]

I'm bringing this to administrator attention as I've noticed this editor makes other questionable drive-by style edits to pages, such as this one [44]. Trasie123 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2011 (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. --slakr^\ talk / 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:FCTS 142 (Result: no vio)

Page: Talk:Kutless (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above. And there's my own talk page.

Comments:

An IP made a comment/question that Gorlitz found inappropriate. I'd say it was just a newbie making a good faith error, but okay. Instead of explaining the error, Gorlitz simply deleted the IP's message. The IP restored it, he deleted it again. I found that rude and pointless, so I restored the IP's message and added an explanation for the IP that an article talk page wasn't really the place for this. Don't bite the newbies, right? Gorlitz deleted the IP's message AND mine. And when I restored it in an attempt to expand it and explain my reasoning, there was an edit conflict because Gorlitz had already deleted the message I was working on again. And what he accuses the Greek IP of (making up Dutch words) isn't even right, I added a ref to show that. I left a message on his Talk page about all this but he just deleted that too. A discussion on my Talk page went nowhere either. I give up. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Noticed that compared to other reports mine looks pretty messy. Sorry about that, had some trouble with the form. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC) )

Never mind that bit. Links fixed. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2011 (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. Furthermore, talk pages aren't for general discussion about the topic. That said, the one place both of you should avoid edit warring is on a talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 03:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

85.162.27.170 reported by Severino (Result: Rangeblocked 1 week)

Page: Chris Hani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

10 April 2011

• 20:5120:51, 10 April 2011 diff hist −171‎ Chris Hani ‎No edit summary
• 20:4720:47, 10 April 2011 diff hist +619‎ Chris Hani ‎ this one is bulletproof
• 20:1920:19, 10 April 2011 diff hist +426‎ Joe Slovo ‎ →‎Life

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]
• 5th revert: [55]
• 6th revert: [56]
• 7th revert: [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
The different IPs obviously all lead to the same user. I have reported his behaviour already on the incidents noticeboard before i noticed that this one here is more proper. His edits seem to violate Wikipedia:Designated terrorist organizations ,Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) and maybe other rules.--Severino (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked 85.162.0.0/16 rangeblocked 1 week. This appears to be blocked user Giornorosso (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 00:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

it seems that this user continues his work with a different IP ([60]).--Severino (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

220.227.100.59 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan has been blocked one year as an open proxy, per web reports that it has been serving as a proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

seems that he moves to new proxys: [61],[62]--Severino (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe semi-protecting Church Street bombing, Joe Slovo, Umkhonto we Sizwe and Chris Hani is the only way to deal with this. They don't seem to understand WP:NPOV at all and it doesn't look like they are going to stop. I had hoped my saying "2 proper academic sources "The birth of a new South Africa" and "South Africa: A Modern History" don't call it a terrorist attack. they call it bomb blast/attack. do you see ? that's why we can't say "terrorist"in wikipedia's narrative voice" at Joe Slovo would explain where they are going wrong but the revert response "No. It is unacceptable to call terrorist attacks "activities". It was a terrorist attack carried out by terrorist organization (MK)." shows they just don't get it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

especially this IP seems to have a long "history".--Severino (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

...and now Oliver Tambo...there's probably more to come. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected five of the articles mentioned above. Any more open proxies should be taken to WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also been keeping an eye on the pages, although Severino always seems to be a few seconds ahead of me in reverting. ;) - SudoGhost (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:69.142.243.63 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: 31h)

Page: Heat (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.142.243.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This is the version before the edit warring began, though this is two weeks before the present as 3RR had not come into play at the time. I'm assuming the 24-hour limit doesn't "end" at the turn of day, as these span a few hours either side of midnight but are very close together in 'real time'.

• 1st revert: 20:01, 10th April
• 2nd revert: 22:12, 10th April
• 3rd revert: 01:34, 11th April
• 4th revert: 02:34, 11th April

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
This editor has been making these same edits for a number of days now, approaching a fortnight. Both MOS for infoboxes, and consensus reached on the article's talk page, indicate that the starring cast in the infobox be kept to a minimum. Instead of agreeing to, or even addressing, these concerns, the editor has thrown up constant strawman arguments by pointing out other articles which fail to meet the MOS standard. User has already been warned by another editor over this same matter almost a week ago and has only increased activity from then. GRAPPLE X 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 04:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:AlecTeal93 and User:TheRingess reported by User:Cuddlyable3 (Result: Declined for now)

Page: Mandelbrot set (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: AlecTeal93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TheRingess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On-going edit war [65] at Mandelbrot set between User:AlecTeal93 and User:TheRingess. WP:3RR is broken by both. A note [66] I posted at User talk:AlecTeal93. Neither party has brought their dispute to the article talk page. I have posted to both encouraging them to do so. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Declined For now. There doesn't appear to be any disruption since AlecTeal93 was warned, but I'll monitor that article.

AlecTeal93 seems to be unaware of the WP:NOR policy; so I left a note on the user's talk page accordingly. Looks like TheRingess was simply reverting original research. I'd cut some slack in 3RR for that, it's just a step away from reverting vandalism. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Antiviral reported by User:Eraserhead1 (Result: indef)

Page: 2011 Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antiviral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraserhead1 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Blocked as a sock of SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 00:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dlabtot reported by User:Tzu Zha Men (Result: Notified under ARBPIA)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]

The article is subject to 1RR [77] - per this diff: [78], and a clear warning about this is both on the Talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Per the prominent notice on the Talk page, "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

In other words, there was no warning and that's why there is no diff. Dlabtot (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been blocked twice before for edit warring [79] Tzu Zha Men (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply:
Mea Culpa. I did not visit the talk page and was unaware of the 1RR. I would implore you, however, to look at the substance of the edits as well. Also, it should be noted that one of my prior blocks was a 'bad block' as was acknowledged by the blocking admin.[80] The other involved restoring my own comments to a talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Dlabtot (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: I have notified Dlabtot of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. He undid his last revert at Human shield. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem with the well sourced piece? Please do explain what is wrong with it? It is the truth, it happened, it is well documented and reported around the world in reliable sources. I put the piece there in the first place with the sources. So what is the problem?Owain the 1st (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not really the issue here; here it is more about the process and the 1RR restriction. But I plan on continuing to press the points you mention on the talk page, in an RfC if necessary, et cetera. But not tonight I'm too tired. Dlabtot (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:62.178.177.37 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: 24h)

Page: Second Battle of Ajdabiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.178.177.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is how it looked like when I added for the first time in the campaignbox that a Hind was shot down [81]. Later on I added one more source for confirmation that it was a Hind above the city [82] and one more source that it was a russian-made shot down and only one sent in the previous two days [83].

• 1st revert: [84]
• 2nd revert: [85] At this point I added the source with the picture
• 3rd revert: [86]
• 4th revert: [87]
• 5th revert: [88] At this point I added one more source
• 6th revert: [89]

Comments:During the battle, numereous reporters stated that they saw a rebel Hind attack helicopter over the city. Source that it was a Hind (with picture): [90]. Later during the day, rebel fighters said that a rebel helicopter had been shot down during the battle [91], also they confirmed it was a Russian-built helicopter [92] they sent in the previous two days (time when the Hind was seen). Point is - Rebels confirmed they sent one helicopter into battle and they lost it, and news reporters confirmed that they saw a Hind. However, this anonymous user is resisting mixing two sources - one source confirms a rebel helicopter was lost (and was the only one sent that day) the second source confirms a rebel Hind was seen over the city. The anonymous user has made over 3 cancelations of my edit and the article should at least be protected from editing by anonymous users for a period of time or his account should be blocked for a period of time until he cools down.

Would like to point out that the editor in question broke Wikipedia's rule on civility by making derogatory comments (calling me stupid). Source for this here [93]. EkoGraf (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you basically stated everything important above. I edited it because you were making an edit, that was not enough sourced. You took two sources, the first reports a downed Helicopter; the second shows a Picture of a Hind above the city, but does not mention that it was shot down (its a constantly updated blog, and as of now there is still no report of a downed Hind). Also, please show me source that states that the Hind was the only Helicopter in the air that day. Not one of your sources claim it was certainly the only one. So, all your edits on this topic were not sourced information, they were your conclusions. Its as simple as that.

Then I proposed the following: Instead of writing, "1 Hind attack helicopter shot down", we could write "1 attack helicopter, likely a Hind shot down". EkoGraf agreed to this, then changed it all of a sudden. His Argument? He cited another source (as he mentioned above), that clearly states "a Russian-made helicopter was shot down". Well, Mi-2s are Russian-made too and can be used as gunships. So this "new" source was nothing new at all. I edited the page again, because he broke the agreement and failed yet again to provide a credible source that states that a Mil Mi-24 (aka Hind) was shot down.

On a side note, he also wrote that a Algerian "migrant worker" was executed by the rebels. But according to his own source (the Independent webpage) it was "quiet likely" a migrant worker. So (again!) he is trying to bring biased (as you can see in almost all his edits, he is clearly pro-Gaddafi) or false information in the article. Its also quite hard to talk to EkoGraf, because he doesnt seem to understand the concept of sourced information.

Fazit: I do apologize for calling EkoGraf stupid. That was against the rules and I admit that. He is, however, completely unwilling to cooperate with others (see the talkpage), in fact, he was the one that violated the rules by writing unsourced information in the article in two different cases. I would recommend that somebody explains the terms "verifiable" and "sourced" to EkoGraf. Regards 62.178.177.37 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: You're even starting your comments with a lie: There was one picture of a Hind, not "numereous reporters". Jeez...62.178.177.37 (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet you still continue with the insults. I myself am not pro-Gaddafi, I am simply editing the facts and trying to be neutral. Nothing biased or pro-Gaddafi in my edits, everything I have edited was from a neutral stand point. Calling me pro-Gaddafi simply because you don't like some things that are happening in reality on the ground over there shows you are more non-neutral than I am. Simply by calling me pro-Gaddafi and getting upset over it shows you are non-neutral. All of my edits are properly sourced, unlike you who have removed sourced information. Yes I agreed to your proposal, however a new source surfaced and a proper edit was needed. Also, about the migrant worker, the reporter in that source used the term quite likely because he was contradicting a few rebels claims that he was a mercenary. Nobody is innocent in a war, all sides are guilty. And in this war both loyalists and rebels have done certain things. However, once again, the main point is - Rebels confirmed they sent one helicopter into battle and they lost it, and news reporters confirmed that they saw a Hind. But, everything you have been saying 62.178.., is not the issue here. The issue is you violated the 3RR rule and plus insulted another editor. Those are the facts. Period. And if you cann't keep a neutral stand point and get all emotional and start calling editors stupid or maybe something worse than you have no buisness editing on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right place for a discussion. Your information was verly poorly or not sourced, as anybody can see. Check the 3RR site. Reverting poorly or not sourced information is not a violation of the rule. Fact. And your last sentence is pretty much a threat. I'd like to add that you have falsely accused me of vandalism before. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours. A shorter defense might have been more persuasive. EkoGraf should tone down the bolding in his comments; this is not the end of the world as we know it. IPs with no history should be cautious about editing hotly contested articles; this pushes the limits of the IP role. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you getting too emotional and twisting the facts. My last sentance was not a threat at all, at the very least it was advice. Can someone tell me what did I threaten him with in my sentance? Also, I did not accuse you of vandalism. I told you that you removing sourced information can be regarded/seen/constitute as vandalism. And it may be poorly sourced in your eyes, but my edits were properly sourced and were in no moment without a source so that one of those citation needed tags were needed. But, like you said, this is no place for this discussion. What this place is for is for the fact that you violated the 3RR rule, insulted another editor and removed sources. And that's something that can not be disregarded here on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:24.1.69.247 reported by User:Rndomuser (Result: Semi)

Page: IPad 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.1.69.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]
• 4th revert: [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

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

Comments:

This user has been warned multiple times, but seems to ignore/not respond to anything. Temporary semi-protection of the article (requested by me) didn't deter his/her deliberate destructive actions.

Result: Semiprotected one month. See a complaint at ANI about an IP repeatedly adding an unsourced item about light leakage in the iPad2. The choice was between semiprotecting for a bit or issuing a long enough block to the IP. No IP who has added any new content since 1 April has participated on the article's talk page. The inconvenience to the IPs is necessary to stop the problem of unsourced material being re-added constantly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Danjel reported by User:110.174.23.139 (Result: )

Page: Top Ryde City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

• 1st revert: [100]
• 2nd revert: [101]
• 3rd revert: [102]
• 4th revert: [diff] N/A

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

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

Comments:

I have asked user Danger(Moderator?) to assist. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith for someone who clearly doesn't understand, I've tried to fix up some of the above for "110.174.23.139".

Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR...

On other issues, the IP reporting this is a highly WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. I have repeatedly tried to involve him/her in improving the article at hand, but s/he steadfastly holds to the content that he prefers. S/he engages in abuse and ad hominem, visible on the talk page. S/he has previously had issues with WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:NPA at this article. Quite clearly, s/he has an axe to grind in regards to the centre and acts tendentiously towards the article.

The content that s/he is trying to insert has problems with its wording and this has been pointed out. Further, I would argue that it's not noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion on the article, as it has no bearing to the operation of the centre, merely to the financial solvency of the corporation running the centre (but we haven't even got to that point yet). -danjel (talk to me) 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Any previous lack of NPOV has been resolved with the assistance of more experienced editors. The information I am adding is not emotive and reflects informative content. The user danjel insists on removing my edits without any discussion. user danjel removes Bold content without discussion. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That you engage in personal attacks to some degree in almost every single one of your contributions ([[104]], [[105]] and [[106]]) to the talk page suggest that you are being emotive here.

I assume that you're saying the word "Bold" here in reference to WP:BOLD. Well... The process is (1) be bold and add content, which you did; (2) the content is reverted, which I did, with reasons given; (3) DISCUSSION. We're at the discussion phase at the moment, and you haven't taken into account my criticisms of your tendentious actions there and that I have a problem with the wording of your content. -danjel (talk to me) 08:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. My edit is concise, has a NPOV, is relevant and has a cited reference. You have made no mention in the discusssion of exactly what bothers you with the wording - Receivers called in as Top Ryde Shopping Centre runs up $700m debt six months after opening. You only say it is not neutral or lacks relevence but you do not give any reasons to support you contention. In any case this not an appropriate place for extended discussion you could have easily chosen to talk on the article discussion page. I am making this report because I believe you are edit warring. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is concise to the point of being pointless for inclusion. A citation does not make it a good edit, see WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTNEWS.

Your insistence on your edit the way you want it is evidence of acting tendentiously, several of your edits include personal attacks and your reversions go unaccompanied by collaboration. That's the definition of edit warring.

But you're absolutely right. This isn't the place for extended discussion. So, unless there are questions from anyone else... -danjel (talk to me) 09:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:110.174.23.139 reported by User:Danjel (Result: )

Page: Top Ryde City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.174.23.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110] (this time adding just the article heading???)
• 4th revert: [111]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Top_Ryde_City#Financial_Trouble with involvement by myself and User:Worm That Turned

Comments:

The IP has previously been blocked for edit warring at this same article. This latest attempt, together with the ad hominem against me throughout the talk page shows that s/he is editting from a POV and WP:TENDENTIOUSly adding content to the article that presents Top Ryde City in a negative light.

See also the report against me made above. -danjel (talk to me) 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Lisa reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page: Israel and the apartheid analogy (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: [113]

• 1st revert: [114]
• 2nd revert: [115]

Per WP:ARBPIA, this article is subject to a 1RR restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]Unnecessary; user has already been warned about the 1RR restriction[116][117], and the article's edit page has a lerge header reminding editors of this restriction.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

The diff of the "attempt to resolve dispute" (which is nothing of the sort) is after RolandR himself reverted my edit. Note, please, that the first diff which RolandR claims to have been a revert is nothing of the sort, but merely an edit. RolandR himself is violating WP:NPOV by insisting on using "Arab citizens of Israel" to describe people who describe themselves (in direct quotes cited within the section in question) as Israeli Arabs. RolandR claims that this is a NPOV descriptor, which is clearly not the case. I would like to request that RolandR, and not I, be cautioned for edit warring. A look at his posting history will reveal a long standing bias. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:98.113.152.93 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: )

Page: Tempo (chess) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.113.152.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 14:47 10 Apr 2011: User is warned about unconstructive edits on Check (chess): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.113.152.93&oldid=423342818
• 5:21 11 Apr 2011: User is admonitioned about apparent lack of chess knowledge by three different editors.
• 1st revert: 5:32 11 Apr 2011 User reinserts some material that was just reverted by Quale.
• 2nd revert: 4:52 12 Apr 2011 Reverts Quale's edit with comment, "Why?"
• 3rd revert: 5:12 12 Apr 2011 Reverts Bubba73's revert AGAIN with comment, "Face it, kings always stay on the board in chess."
• 5:13 12 Apr 2011: User is warned about nonconstructive edits to both the Tempo and Promotion (chess) articles.
• 5:59 12 Apr 2011: User is warned about 3RR
• 4th revert: 8:18 12 Apr 2011 Reverts Quale's revert with comment, "Quale, you suck. 3RR only applies when the info is a hoax."
• 8:32 12 Apr 2011: User takes argument to the WP:Help Desk to seek intervention
• 8:55 12 Apr 2011: User is informed that 3RR doesn't only apply to hoaxes; is warned again regarding 3RR.

Only after the war had passed a total of 6 reverts by both sides did Bubba73 take it to the talk page: other discussion had been relegated entirely to the edit comments.

Comments:

The same sort of warring involving the same players has been going on over at Castling.

So, basically, what we have in the Tempo article is:

• Two or more editors (Bubba73 and Quale) who have had a consensus on the article since 12 Dec 2010
• An IP address editor (98.113.152.93) who keeps introducing material against consensus
• Another editor (212.68.15.66) who came by, saw the brouhaha, and made another revert
• A fourth editor (Jsharpminor) who came by, saw the brouhaha, and templated three people for excessive reversion and 3RR,
• An article that now stands correct by consensus.

It seems that the obvious thing, then, is to leave the article the way it is. However, according to User:98.113.152.93's pattern, he is active from about 4:00 server time to about 10:00 server time. I am concerned that tomorrow we'll have another repeat.

In my unprofessional opinion, a simple look at User talk:98.113.152.93 merits at least a short block for

• violating consensus,
• edit warring,
• introducing factual errors against the warnings of others, and
• name-calling and other aggressive behaviour.

I chose to stay completely out of this edit war. The only contributions you'll find from me are on usertalk pages and the Tempo article's talk page.

Jsharpminor (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Hilderich (Result: )

Page: A Word to the People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miacek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123]

Comments: