Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:GageSkidmore reported by User:Magog the Ogre (Result: warned)

Page: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GageSkidmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries:

• Original change (by me): [1]
• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012:

• Original change (by me): [7]
• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]

This is not a 3RR violation, rather a slow moving edit war against multiple users and not discussing. This user has a history of edit warring, and has received many comments and warnings on his talk page asking him to stop (just scroll across User talk:GageSkidmore). There is also consensus on the talk page that the map version he is using is a bad version: see link and link. Also perhaps factoring into your decision: he edit warred at Commons as well: link. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

He's gone and done it again [11] [12] (note the ingenuous edit summary stating that the map is incorrect because he only bothered to update the one map on Commons). Is anyone going to take a look at this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see above explanation (i.e., look at user's talk page)

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

Comments:

Warned. The next time this happens, they will be taking a 24 hour break. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:98.247.37.38 reported by User:Sergecross73 (Result: )

Page: List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.247.37.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

• 1st revert: [14]
• 2nd revert: [15]
• 3rd revert: [16]
• 4th revert: [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19],[20]

Comments:

I explained myself in some of my edit summaries to him as well: [21], [22]

• Well, I'm not sure how I managed to do a good enough job that I didn't get chastized for going about things wrong, but not do good enough job to garner any sort of help or response to this, but I've taken other measures to get results. (The page has been protected for 10 days.) So that probably takes care of things for now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:76.4.248.139 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24 hrs)

Page: Pounds per square inch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.4.248.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]

This appears to be a misunderstanding of a NASA website [27] to the extent that the IP editor has created a WP:NEOlogism of "human pressure" (humans can't effectively independently regulate their internal pressure - they track ambient pressure) and also such strange phrasing as "(Internal psi equals Earth gravity)". This is nonsense.

Reverted by two independent editors, but repeatedly re-added. Given the attacks in their edit summaries and on their talk page, further discussion appears unlikely to achieve anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours They were warned (although perhaps it could have been escalated better), and additional reverts happened after warning (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Saint Jimmy reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: 24 hrs)

Page: The Amazing Race 20 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saint Jimmy (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]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I see appropriate warnings, and I see additional reverts even after they asked the question on the article talkpage. No real choice here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Arabwords‎ reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)

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

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

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The article is subject to 1RR per WP:ARBPIA.The user made 3 reverts and was reverted by 3 different users. Probably should be notified of WP:ARBPIA sanctions too--Shrike (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I will also issue an ARBPIA notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Benutzer reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: blocked 31 hrs)

Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Benutzer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 16:14, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
• 16:30, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
• 17:07, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
• 18:48, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
• 19:15, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "")
• 19:35, 18 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477581935 by Harizotoh9 (talk) I have not removed any existing content, only added a new section referenced with sources. The only reason for removal is censorship of facts.")
• 06:48, 20 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477585602 by GimliDotNet (talk)")
• 09:30, 20 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477842244 by Squiddy (talk)")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:
Note this page is under a 1RR rule at the moment. User has not entered into any discussions and seems to be a 1 POV push based on his/her edits all revolving along the same lines.

Actually, I don't think it was under an 1RR rule -- that was imposed under the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, which was superseded by the WP:ARBCC case. This is still a clear case of edit warring, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours, as Benutzer returned to edit warring as soon as they started editing today. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:Fsol (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [40]

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]
• 4th revert: [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Comments:

This is not a content dispute, the user just deletes tags and requests for citations dated since December 2011. -- Fsol (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, Somedifferentstuff is removing tags on lots of specific sentences in favor of a single tag at the top of the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean the above edits are not considered reverts? -- Fsol (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. So yes, they are reverts. - SudoGhost 07:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: No action)

Page: Sleepy Hollow (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.193.114.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 24.185.14.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)67.83.174.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)68.193.115.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]
• 5rd revert: [50]
• 6th revert: [51]
• 7th revert: [52]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:
I'm writing about an article that is currently up for AfD. There's been an edit war concerning several anonymous IPs that have been insisting upon the band's notability and have been adding sources that are considered to not show notability for the band and some of which are not about the band at all. Other things that have been reverted are OR claims about the band's notability. The discussion on the AfD page is starting to get a little nasty, so I'm reporting that to the admin board as well.

The issue here is that on the AfD page we've listed reasons as to why the various sources in the article cannot be used and what would be considered a reliable source showing notability. I've left a comment on the article's talk page warning about reverting the article too many times and when I came back on Wikipedia today I discovered that there's been multiple revisions where other editors have had to undo the bits done by the random IP addresses, which is why I'm bringing it here. At best I'd like to have the article protected in some format to avoid the revert warring. There have been no comments on the talk page as far as the revert war warning goes, although there's been some mention of it on the AfD page.

I'm not sure if any or all of the IPs are from the same person or are several people who know each other. What I can see is that the IPs all seem to be doing the same thing, so part of me wonders if they're campaigning elsewhere or if they're part of the same group. In any case, the reverting is all done by IPs. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Cancel. An admin closed the AfD as delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Result: No action required, since the disputed page has been deleted at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

User:GimliDotNet reported by User:Benutzer (Result: no violation)

Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GimliDotNet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Malformed report hatted...

10:29, 20 February 2012‎ Vsmith (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Reverted to revision 477842244 by Squiddy: WP:SYN ..... (TW)) (undo) 07:02, 20 February 2012‎ Squiddy (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477840885 by Benutzer (talk)) (undo) 19:37, 18 February 2012‎ GimliDotNet (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Reverted edits by Benutzer (talk) to last version by Harizotoh9) (undo) 19:16, 18 February 2012‎ Harizotoh9 (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477581751 by Benutzer (talk) This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation.) (undo) 18:56, 18 February 2012‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477577563 by Benutzer (talk) After being reverted the FIRST time, you should open a TALK page discussion, see process at WP:BRD) (undo) 17:21, 18 February 2012‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Reverted edits by Benutzer (talk) to last version by NewsAndEventsGuy) (undo) 16:51, 18 February 2012‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477556715 by Benutzer (talk) uh.................. no) (undo) 16:24, 18 February 2012‎ Squiddy (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477554170 by Benutzer (talk) - crap) (undo) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Reverts of my added content have been made by all of above users without any attempt to talk on the talk page. Comments: Censorship by promoters of AGW On Saturday February 18th, I added a new, perfectly legitimate section to this page together with reputable references (one from the FOIA Climategate site and the other from the IPCC itself). This is in order to bring balance to this page, which, like many others on the Internet is censored to only show the AGW side of the picture. I did not delete or modify any of the existing text. However, within minutes my change got reverted. Then I reverted the undo, and it got undone again. It is true that I reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, but that was because I am new to Wiki editing and unaware of the 3-revert rule. So I got legitimately warned by another editor. Then this morning, I undid the deletion of what I added on Saturday. It got reverted. I undid again. I aimed to stick within the 3-revert rule per 24h. Yet another editor reported me (despite myself not breaking the 3 revert rule today). Obviously the intent here is to censor any alternate view to the page. Unless I am advised otherwise, I intend to continue adding my section to the page, but if reverted, I will make sure I will not undo the deletion of my content by other editors determined to censor, more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Consensus is obviously hard to achieve on a subject where one side is determined to present their view as the absolute truth. I have, nonetheless, added a section to the Article's Talk page for any suggestions of an appropriate compromise. Below is the addition I posted only. I am open to moving this content to another part of the page, but I am not ok with censoring what the Climategate emails reveal, simply because the pro-AGW lobby intends to paint only one side of the debate. Climategate Revealations However, the climategate emails show clearly that the IPCC has not been honest about the claim that 97% of climate scientists have proven anthropogenic global warming. In fact these emails show that climate scientists were incensed at the IPCC portraying their work as proof and suppressing the many caveats that they had documented: [1] "Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced "greenhouse effect" of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence. Many researchers most intimately involved in the search are still far from sure how the probabilities balance. And some of the sharpest concerns are coming from the places where the original early warnings of global warming emerged in the mid-1980s. Places such as Briffa's base at the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that "the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world". If they are they "might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case." Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated "the detection of climate change and attribution of causes". It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. "We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter," says Barnett. "We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in." Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline "Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming. The statement from the IPCC that 97% of climatologists have proven anthropogenic global warming is, therefore, clearly untrue. In addition, a read of the IPCC Third Assessment report clearly shows that many of the predictions in the early 2000s, simply have not come true. An example is the prediction on the predominance of ice storms replacing snow: [2] "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. The ice storm of January 1998 (see Section 15.3.2.6) left 45 people dead and nearly 5 million people without heat or electricity in Ontario, Quebec, and New York (CDC, 1998; Francis and Hengeveld, 1998; Kerry et al., 1999). The storm had a huge impact on medical services and human health. Doctors' offices were forced to close, and a large number of surgeries were cancelled (Blair, 1998; Hamilton, 1998). One urban emergency department reported 327 injuries resulting from falls in a group of 257 patients (Smith et al., 1998b)." Thank you, Benutzer

A quick glance at the article's history reveals that you're the one edit warring. The one who does the constant reverting is the edit warrior, not one of the many people who restore an article to a previous state. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• No violation SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:108.206.222.228 reported by User:Davejohnsan (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Two and a Half Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.206.222.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] and [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None; the editor has ignored my requests to open a discussion on the article's talk page.

Comments:

This is also happening on The Big Bang Theory, but I have not reverted anything there. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] from me, also warned here by another editor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:
Andrzejbanas appears to have gone from a simple content dispute on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) to a full-on WP:POINT attack on another article, based on a narrow definition applied by him to the epic genre - he apparently refuses to listen to a growing consensus against him, as seen in this discussion. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Warned User:Andrzejbanas. Too late to block, since his last revert was on 20 February. He made five reverts altogether. Andrzejbanas is arguing for his own specific definition of 'epic' films. (Unfortunately this is reminiscent of music genre wars). Reverting the article is not the way to go. If he is determined that the article should reflect his definition of epic then a WP:RFC is one option to bring in other opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I have talked about it on the talk page, it's clearly visible and doesn't require a link. Reverting me adding cited material is not vandalism and I continued to clean my version of the page after users have reverted my edits, even after attempting to discuss with them on their talk page and on the articles talk page here and here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your attempts to start a dialog are a good idea but nothing you've said entitles you to break the WP:3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Bakersdozen77 reported by User:Athenean (Result: Warned under WP:ARBMAC)

Page: Thessaloniki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bakersdozen77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Several different versions, see below

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69] partial rv of my reverts my removal of ("Thessaloniki became the birthplace...Slavic dialects spoken in the city") [70]
• 3rd revert: [71] partial rv, undoes my removal of "Macedonian Sklavinia" [72]
• 4th revert: [73] reverts the following change in wording by Alexikoua [74]
• 5th revert: [75], same as above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments: 3 full reverts and 2 partial reverts in 24 hours and 10 minutes. The user participates in the talkpage but is highly incivil [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] (putting words in my mouth that I never said) [83] [84] and mostly uses the talkpage to try and get under his opponents' skin rather than attempting in good faith to resolve the dispute. I warned him about both his incivility and edit-warring, to no effect. I have the distinct impression that this user will not stop reverting (I knew this was bad when I saw "Racist edits???" appear on Talk:Thessaloniki). In addition to a block, I believe a warning of ARBMAC sanctions is in high order. Athenean (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Each edit that I performed was different as I was trying to find a compromise with users and was in no way a "revert" as defined by Wikipedia. I have reason to suspect that the User:Athenean was participating in racially-hate motivated edits as I explained here in the Talk:Thessaloniki page here: [85]. I also tried to reach an agreement with this user in the talk page as seen here [86] but the user did not respond and was not constructive at all and instead was keep changing the subject, being provocative, and also what I view was being a troll. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

user: Athenean also made a threatening statement against me here [87] where he says: "Do you really think you can brusquely edit a page mostly watched by Greek editors..." which I found was racist because he implied that non-Greek users were not allowed to edit Greece-related articles. The user was also racially intimidating me for using the word "Macedonian" as you can see here is what he said: "So what if some Byzantine authors referred to the region around Thessaloniki as "Macedonian Sklavinia"? Why is that important? Because it contains the word "Macedonian"? [88] Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I've tried to calm things down by presenting additional material, well cited and quoted, Bakersdozen77, continued nearly trolling comments in order to promote his pov. A typical example of battleground mentality: he reverts a version although it it supported by a newly brought reference (obviously a blind rv) [[89]], when the sourced pat is restored he performs some minor rewording with a partial rv, again contrary to the reference [[90]]. I though that things have somewhat settled, but all of the sudden, his comments at the talkpage are far from considered civilized [[91]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is now clear that Alexikoua is a sock puppet of Athenean. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems unlikely given they have both been editing here for years, perhaps you should withdraw your personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Bakersdozen77 warned under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Vamsisv reported by Ramcrk (talk) (Result: Protected)

Page: Hyderabad, India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 06:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 05:03, 21 February 2012 (edit summary: "There is no reason provided by author for inclusion of same. While discussion is ON and no with no consensus, it cannot be mentioned.")
2. 05:07, 21 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478020625 by Ramcrk (talk). Please read the definition of vandalism.")
3. 05:16, 21 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478021419 by Ramcrk (talk). I don't understand your definition of Childish. Looks like it is to fight vandalism and propoganda.")
4. 05:41, 21 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478023591 by Ramcrk (talk). The discussion to justify your inclusion of the same. Hence, without that coming to a conclusion it is premature to add it here")

—Ramcrk (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for three days. I'm sorely tempted to just block both of you for participating in an impressively lame edit war, but I'll protect it instead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Request you to extend the protection for the article till the discussion comes to a conclusion since the reporting user has even after several requests made the edits and caused my reverts. Vamsisv (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:24.246.24.194 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Fred Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.246.24.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [92]

• 1st revert: [93]
• 2nd revert: [94]
• 3rd revert: [95]
• 4th revert: [96]
• 5th revert: [97]
• 6th revert: [98]
• Number 7 : [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100] Also told of 3RR by user Madman2001 in this edit summary [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Comments:
Now on 7 reverts, any chance of a block to get his attention? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected. This is a BLP article under WP:ARBCC, and this IP has made seven reverts there over four days. This is not the only IP editor reverting the article lead. It is relevant that this is a BLP article and there are reports that at least one of the Heartland documents is a forgery. If warring continues among registered editors, admins can impose a WP:1RR restriction on the article under WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:HWWilson reported by User:Meco (Result: Already blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104] (05:38, February 19, 2012‎)
• 2nd revert: [105] (17:55, February 20, 2012)
• 3rd revert: [106] (03:22, February 21, 2012‎)
• 4th revert: [107] (06:09, February 21, 2012)
• 5th revert: [108] (17:34, February 21, 2012)
• 6th revert: [109] (19:23, February 21, 2012)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kip Noll#Unsourced entry about living status of Kip Noll

Comments:

I'm not involved in the current edit war, just reporting the party with what I see as the most troublesome behavior since there's a BLP issue involved. __meco (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Garycompugeek reported by Jakew (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

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

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

Time reported: 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 19:27, 21 February 2012 (edit summary: "no consensus for this change, please do not move or modify, ongoing rfc - see talk")
2. 19:46, 21 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478120398 by Avraham (talk)you are mistaken, please check the history, why do you thinks this is version one and not two?")
3. 20:03, 21 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478123961 by Avraham (talk)incorrect, I added to the top of the medical associtaion summary on 2/3 and Jake removed it from the lead on 2/9")
4. 14:23, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478252143 by 74.78.81.111 (talk)revert terms to wp:NPOV")
5. 16:47, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478266285 by Jayjg (talk)your're right there is no consensus for this change per rfc - stop ignoring the history - this addition has never had consensus")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Gary has received several warnings in the past, and has indicated awareness of 3RR (eg., here). —Jakew (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also asked him to revert himself on his talk page, but with no response so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

He did apparently self-revert (which I missed prior to placing the block) but even not counting that he was up to four reverts. --Chris (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:59.180.165.67 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Arora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 59.180.165.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:59.180.165.67 - the entire page.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Flag Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kitchen Knife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

• 1st revert: [118]
• 2nd revert: [119]
• 3rd revert: [120]
• 4th revert: [121]
• 5th revert: [122]
• 6th revert: [123]
• 7th revert: [124]
• 8th revert: [125]
• 9th revert: [126]
• 10th revert: [127]
• 11th revert: [128]

This is quite lengthy and complex. The disruptive behaviour by User:Kitchen Knife started at Merseyside, with a dispute with User:Owain over whether the article infobox should show a flag claimed to be of the former county of Merseyside - history here and discussion here. Kitchen Knife was warned here. The focus of the pointy edits then moved on to Flag Institute, which KK seems to see as some sort of front organisation for the Association of British Counties - see long list of edit warring diffs above, covering several closely related points. (Incidentally, it's no secret that User:Owain is a supporter of the ABC, but so far as I can see has behaved with notable restraint on this matter, even when I (wrongly) templated him early in this saga.) The focus for the edit warring has now moved on again to Historic counties of England - I warned Kitchen Knife here and he reciprocated here. There have been copious other points raised in discussions with Kitchen Knife at User talk:Owain, User talk:Ghmyrtle, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England (on a separate but related matter to do with the status of "historic counties") and no doubt elsewhere.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[129] for Merseyside
[130] for Historic counties of England

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
[131], [132], [133], by User:Martinevans123 at Talk:Flag Institute
[134], [135] by User:Ghmyrtle at Talk:Historic counties of England

Comments:
This unwillingness by User:Kitchen Knife to address the comments of other editors, pointy edits, and blatant edit warring on several articles has gone on long enough. Several other editors and I have tried but failed in all attempts to find a way forward by consensus. I suggest a temporary but quite substantial block for this editor, with a close eye being kept thereafter on his edits in this topic area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. There are several people currently warring on that article (Martinevans123 is also at, but not over, 3RR), but Kitchen Knife has done far more than anyone else. Hopefully this will prevent someone having to lock the page down for a week; we'll see what happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:71.235.90.74 reported by el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) (Result: No violation)

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

User being reported: 71.235.90.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

—el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2012 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User:John Denlop reported by SmartSE (talk) (Result: Indef)

• Page: 1-800-GET-THIN advertising campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: John Denlop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Time reported: 00:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 20:10, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478303484 by AndyTheGrump (talk) What hype - Check sources")
2. 20:27, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478305245 by Smartse (talk) check sources - both neg and pos. -no original content deleted")
3. 21:07, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478311593 by Smartse (talk)looking at neutrality your POV is overtly negative")
4. 23:12, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478317282 by Smoothg0 (talk)What advertising?")
5. 23:38, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478336917 by Smoothg0 (talk)Edits were not neutral")

• Diff of warning (4 days ago for edit warring on the same article): here SmartSE (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 reported by User:Alarbus (Result: 1 month)

Page: Flag of Rwanda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of Flag of Rwanda

• 03:34, 23 February 2012
• 03:30, 23 February 2012
• 03:24, 23 February 2012
• 03:03, 23 February 2012

two more a couple of days ago:

• 18:28, 21 February 2012
• 02:34, 21 February 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of User talk:Fry1989

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Flag of Rwanda#File:Presidential Standard of Rwanda.svg

I also asked User:Amakuru to visit the article talk.

Comments:

This began about an hour ago at User talk:Frietjes#Removal of images from templates, where User:Fry1989 had been edit waring with User:Frietjes with whom I've worked a bit re navigation templates. A week and a half ago much the same occurred at Template talk:Governors of Massachusetts#Image placement and the use of hardcoded colors with Fry1989 aggressively editwarring over flags in templates. Plastikspork warned Fry1989 then. Alarbus (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm going to leave his seal there until Amakuru has a chance to comment. Alarbus (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Naruto82 reported by Chikazuku (talk) (Result: )

Page: T-ara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Page: Park So Yeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Naruto82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

T-ara:

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

1. 17:20, 19 February 2012 (edit summary: "/* Current */")
2. 03:44, 20 February 2012 (edit summary: "/* Current */")
3. 15:37, 20 February 2012 (edit summary: "/* Current */")
4. 19:31, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "/* Current */")
5. 01:32, 23 February 2012 (edit summary: "/* Current */")

Park So Yeon:

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

1. 18:40, 21 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478062832 by Chikazuku (talk)")
2. 03:23, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478138483 by Chikazuku (talk)")
3. 13:26, 22 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 478243340 by Chikazuku (talk)")
4. 01:30, 23 February 2012 (edit summary: "/* Biography */")

—Chikazuku (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136] for Leader timeline [137] for Park So Yeon on their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [138] for Member positions by an uninvolved contributor. [139] for Leader timeline on their talk page. [140] for Leader timeline at the Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Comments:
They are a long time edit warrior, but I have resolved an issue with them before. It seems that they are determined to keep the member positions and timeline ordering as it "originally" was. I have tried to resolve the table ordering dispute at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but they've refused to respond even after two messages were sent. On the issue at Park So Yeon, they keep copy and pasting text from allkpop.com and removing the Template:Copypaste I've added. Chikazuku (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Eschoir reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )

Page: Origin of the Eucharist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]
• 4th revert: [145]
• 5th revert: [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user reported for edit warring on very same article here [147]. Additionally his talk page is littered with EW warnings from various editors.

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

Comments:

Editor is very active at the article edit warring against multiple editors and ignoring consensus. Many more reverts can be seen in the article history--although the editor is careful to watch the 24 hour limit (WP:GAME). His behavior on the talk page is not much better... He is posting this text over and over (7 posts last count) demanding editors to respond:

“ Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal). ”

Editors at the article are exascerbated and he is wearing them down. Here an editor expresses his frustration::

“ History2007 has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist. The problem is again as acute as ever. Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing. I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Wikipedia rules would give advice. One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously. Esoglou [148] ”

I am an uninvolved editor. Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Silar reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

Page: History of the Germans in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Silar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

• 1st revert: [150]
• 2nd revert: [151]
• 3rd revert: [152]
• 4th revert: [153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

The user inserted text copied word for word from several sources [155] [156] [157] without attribution - not just a copyvio but straight up plagiarism. I tagged the sentences with 'citation needed' because they seemed strange and out of place. S/he put the sources in, I checked them and it was obvious that these were copied verbatim, hence copyright violations. I think my edit summaries were abundantly clear, as was my comment on the user's page. But Silar has continued to edit war and reinsert the copyvios into the article, calling the edit warring "button sport". Note that removing copyright violations is exempt from 3RR, especially when the copyvios are this blatant. I also notified User:Moonridden girl about this [158].VolunteerMarek 11:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Silar (Result: )

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]

Comments: