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:Bharat42 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: page protected)

Page: Sant Nirankari Mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bharat42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: The Encyclopaedic Version

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've tried to work with another editor to sort this page out here. There is a suspicion of Sockpuppets. Discussion on user talk page here, where he refuses to engage.

Comments:

There is s suspicion that these suspect this user is in effect this and this user who are trying to block evade. They seem to be readding the same info again. I have worked with this user to clean up Sant Nirankari Mission SH 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The link doesnt show an atempt to resolve the conflict, it just says you are reporting him 6 minutes before posting here. Thats not helpful. Alhough the link on MatthewVanitas' page of an admission for sockpuppetry is interesting indeed. But you need to more actively engage him, or show that youve tried.Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a case of sockpuppetry because Bharat42 has only confirmed that this IP address belongs to him. He might have edited without logging in first and later on he just confirmed the same. Thanks --TruthDivine (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See the talkpage now, but a valid point made. ThanksSH 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected The page was protected by another administrator; I will note that both parties appear to have crossed the 3RR boundary. Kuru (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:JournalScholar reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: No action)

Page: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JournalScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: NA, the reverts are deletions.

• 1st revert: [6], 30 June 2012, 3:04
• 2nd revert: [7], 30 June 2012, 6:43
• 3rd revert: [8], 30 June 2012, 6:47
• 4th revert: [9], 30 June 2012, 23:06

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reason for removal was valid. Nomoskedasticity has falsely claimed no reason for removal was given. Valid reasons were given at each time of removal. This is a biography of a person not a journal. The line removed was discussing a journal not the person. The line removed was also incorrectly attributed and completely out of context. Nomoskedasticity argument for inclusion in talk had nothing to do with how the line was worded and failed to suggest a rewording. After reading the source to see if his argument in talk applied, the line was reworded to this context. Nomoskedasticity has unfortunately chosen to pursue this method instead of making a valid argument by revert comment or wording the line to fit the context of his argument. I find this disappointing.--JournalScholar (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Also this reporting was done after talk was initiated. The original line said,

"Real Climate, a prominent blog run by climate scientists, asserted in 2011 that her journal once published a paper that claimed that the sun is made of iron."

His argument, "It does not merely mention her -- it discusses her direct involvement in the decision to publish that paper (against the recommendations of the reviewer, even)." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewording to correct context of the source and his argument in talk, "Gavin Schmidt alleged that Boehmer-Christiansen published a paper against the recommendations of a reviewer." - This can be verified via the original source, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat

I find his reporting of myself here frivolous as I take correctly citing sources in context very seriously. This can be verified by all my recent changes to this article as an additional 16 sources were added. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What this response amounts to: "I'm exempt from the requirement to adhere to 3RR, because my edits are right." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And why are you exempt from this requirement? This appears to be more about politics then the accurate representation of information on Wikipedia.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not exempt, and so I did not violate 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The way you are trying to use the rule, no inaccurate information could ever be removed from Wikipedia. The rules are not there so you can ignore someone's valid argument to bully your position.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem a bit punitive to block a beneficial contributor twenty hours after a report - Youreallycan 18:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

An edit-warring editor is not a "beneficial contributor". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war as you well know Nomo , you are here at this noticeboard often enough. Youreallycan 19:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, reporting people who violate the rules, like our friend JournalScholar. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Rules are made to be broken WP:IAR - Youreallycan 19:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clear in my opinion that since he reported this after talk was initiated his use of the reporting feature is to bully those he disagrees with. His revert comments said nonsense like "restore after unexplained deletion" - when my removal of the line explicitly said, "Removed RC line and cite, was discussing a journal not the person" - this is explicit with a valid reason given. I am not the only person who has made a similar argument in Talk relating to this line. I can see how this sort of behavior will discourage valuable contributors who have not studied these "rules" in detail from participating here. I am only seeking the accurate representation of information that is cited and in proper context.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You were advised of the rule and subsequently violated it anyway. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You are not an administrator and were not addressing my argument but instead trying to bully your point using Wikipedia bureaucracy. Administrative review of my explicit comments and arguments will confirm this.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any signs of enhanced understanding here, nor an intention to avoid this sort of problem in the future; rather the opposite, really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Update: the reverting is continuing, and the result (if it is allowed to stand) will be a change to the long-standing version of the article accomplished via edit-warring. The core of the issue involves removal of content source to the Guardian; JournalScholar is confident that he is "right" — WP:V and WP:RS be damned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No such revert has been done, this is a completely different argument. Nomoskedasticity continues to apply The Guardian's editorializing to Gavin Schmidt when Schmidt is directly quoted on the source and does not make any such claim in quotes. I have asked repeatedly in talk for him to provide me with the quote and he has failed to do so. In seeking a resolution I have substituted a primary source - the actual title of the paper for The Guardian's editorializing which was falsely attributed to Schmidt for a NPOV.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No such revert? Here's one: [12] (despite verification of content here). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional violation

JournalScholar has now exceeded 3 reverts again today:

• 1st revert: [13], 05:10 (removes "claiming that the sun was made of iron" and the RealClimate affiliation of Gavin Schmidt)
• 2nd revert: [14], 05:30 (again removes "claiming that the sun was made of iron", while adding other stuff)
• 3rd revert: [15], 14:46 (removes citation to article by Oliver Manuel)
• 4th revert: [16], 21:15 (undoing edit by Stephan Schulz)

• Diff of warning: [17], at 15:22
• Please note that JournalScholar is now reverting at least two different editors. — Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• The subject did not claim the Sun was made of Iron - the source is being manipulated to avoid attribution that is the reason its being removed - any removal of that misrepresented and undue claim is a good edit - especially in a BLP - its important not to misrepresent the subject as is being done here- JournalScholar deserves a barnstar for their contributions developing and attempting to create a neutral and policy compliant article. As per Nomo's comment, "JournalScholar is now reverting at least two different editors" - More editors will be coming to add the Sun is made of Iron claim - since, Nomo posted IMO a not very neutral request for assistance on the WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force for assistance - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force#Sonja_Boehmer-Christiansen ... Youreallycan 05:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to discuss the merits of the edit here? I didn't realize that's what this board was for. If you want to discuss the content: at least do so with a minimum of reading comprehension. The edit in question does not claim that the article subject said the sun was made of iron. It says (on the basis of this source) that a member of RealClimate asserted she published a paper [written by someone else] asserting that the sun was made of iron. So there's no difficulty at all with attribution, and your claim is false. If you're going to meddle, at least try to do so effectively. Back to the topic at hand: two episodes of >3rr in less than 48 hours. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Two editors , yes you and Stephen Shultz , a regular user at the climate change project page, responding to your far from neutral request for assistance - The focus of this board is like the rest of the project - NPOV policy compliant and quality content - especially in relation to living people - people that oppose the belief that climate change is connected to human activity have been attacked before here with opinionated attacking additions as you and Stephen Shultz are well aware - Youreallycan 07:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about me (I'm not "Stephen Shultz"), I am not aware of any "request for assistance", neutral or not. I don't exactly know what you mean by "climate change project page", but I have never contributed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate and the last (and first, and only) time I did so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force or its talk page was in January 2010. I don't think that makes me a "regular user". I strongly request that you withdraw your wrong claims, and in the future are more careful when making claims about others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw your name there on the talkpage and assumed (through your histroic involvement in the topic area) you were a regular there and had come from there to comment - I will happily withdraw that claim that you are a regular contributor there and how you came to the article to contribute is up to you to know/declare - You are historically involved in the climate change disputed topic area here and are well aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions as per this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Stephan_Schulz_edits_and_admin_actions - as per that position I don't think I overplayed your historic involvement. This article is also a BLP and as per JournalScholar we should be very careful not to missrepresent partisan comments as facts - as per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - and WP:V also - Regards - Youreallycan 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This comment from Nomo is how he attacks and belittles experienced and new contributors all the time "at least do so with a minimum of reading comprehension" and "If you're going to meddle, at least try to do so effectively" - are typical of his calling cards in his constant disputes. Youreallycan 07:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I also note that the summary of the Sun is made of Iron of the paper the subject published is also a ridiculous opinionated summary made by a partisan - presenting the detail as is being attempted to be edit warred into the BLP is imo totally undue - and the reason this edit war exists is because the disputed content is being edit warred back in , by Nomo and anyone else he can muster the troops with his not neutral climate change task force requests for assistance.Youreallycan 07:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Schmidt is not quoted at the source as saying "a paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron." It is very important to carefully read your sources so you do not misquote or apply claims to someone that cannot be verified. What is directly quoted and what is editorialized by the author are two different things. The attribution of this claim to Schmidt violates WP:V. Outside of this it is not a NPOV representation of the paper. He continues to want to promote real climate instead of just saying Gavin Schmidt (the actual source of the claim) which is very odd.--JournalScholar (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1st "claiming that the sun was made of iron" was removed because it was incorrectly attributed to Schmidt WP:V and is not a NPOV regarding the paper being discussed. Schmidt's blog affiliation is as irrelevant as stating that Fred Pearce is an author, this information can be found by following their Wikilink to their page.

2nd The "other stuff" was the actual title of the paper not the disparaging editorialization made by the Guardian for a NPOV.

3rd That was MY source I added in my previous edit to support that Dr. Manuel has had his theory published in the peer-reviewed literature. When my previous line was reverted that this supported this source was not removed. Since my previous line is no longer there this is absolutely irrelevant to the current content, which is why I removed it. This is absolutely amazing you are attempting to try to use this against me.

4th This was valid. Schultz mischaracterized my source and use of this source, the author is a scientist and only the appendix was cited since it was a table of contents of the journal issue in question and not a political position. This has since been further clarified. My edits are crucial for a NPOV as The Guardian source mischaracterizes the content of the paper and implies that it was published as peer-reviewed against the will of a reviewer. Knowing that it was not but published only as an opinion piece for debate which are not sent to reviewers completely changes the context of the claim and important for a NPOV. In my opinion there is no question that those seeking to keep these mischaracterizations in this BLP are doing so to disaparage her.--JournalScholar (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm very interested to see how this is going to go. It's quite clear that JournalScholar fervently believes that 3RR does not apply as long as he is confident that his edits are "right". On this basis we can surely expect to see further edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. I don't see any 3RR violations. If you have disagreements about the quality of a source, consider WP:RS/N. This article falls under WP:ARBCC, so please use caution. Admins could impose a 1RR restriction on the article if it turns out to be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. The 3RR violation seems to be very obvious (just check the 4 edits at the top of the report). There may be an argument about BLP (although I think that would be spurious), but it seems to be clear that there are more than 3 reverts by one editor in 24 hours here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is possible there were four reverts in 24 hours on June 30, but there are BLP concerns as well, which might exempt some of them from being counted. We need to ensure the correctness of any negative information about a living person that is included in our articles. Since no admin looked into the June 30 edits within 24 hours of their being made, I am not planning to pursue the matter now. But if the reverting by all sides doesn't stop, full protection should be considered. If anyone thinks that some admin action still ought to be taken about the June 30 edits, feel free to ask for review at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Eddie Blake reported by User:Freikorp (Result: page protected)

Page: Nintendo Magazine System (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eddie Blake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Comments: I have removed a large section of data on the grounds it is unreferenced and incredibly overdetailed and I have explained my actions. Eddie Blake has reverted my edit 3 times in just under 25 hours. His first two reversion did not give any reason. After his 2nd revert I asked him on his talk page to explain why he was reverting my edits on the articles talk page. He deleted my message and reverted my edit for the third time, solely on the grounds that he put a lot of time into adding the data I deleted. Freikorp (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Freikorp did not discuss this large scale removal of material on the article talk page. I think Freikorp should considered doing this before his/her initial deletion on Revision as of 13:13, 17 May 2012.

2. Freikorp then repeated his deletion on 11:11, 30 June 2012 and 13:26, 30 June 2012, again without any discussion on the article talk page.

3. Then Freikorp made a complaint here.

Freikorp's edit summaries state that the information he/she is deleting is redundant, and demanding that the other editor justify its inclusion on the talk page. Why was Freikorp not initiating that discussion on the talk page? Once Freikorp understood that the edit he/she was making was controversial, he/she should have used the article talk page to discuss the edit, so that a consensus could be built up.

As for the claim that the information he/she deleted was unreferenced, this is not true. The article states the name, issue number and date of the magazine for all the information in question.

Suggest Freikorp is the one who deserves a block.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected As noted by Toddy1, edit summaries are not a substitute for the article's talk page or dispute resolution. I've protected the page for a week; the protection can be removed as soon at there is a discussion and a consensus on the material. Kuru (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was I not initiating that discussion on the talk page? I asked on the edit summary if anyone wanted to debate it on the talk page twice, and I asked the other editor on his talk page to state on the articles talk page why he wanted to keep the data. I was ignored all three times, and this led me to believe that asking again on the articles talk page would have only resulted in me being ignored again. That's why. I apologise for not being aware that asking someone on both the edit summary of the article and their personal talk page to discuss the issue was not a substitute for writing the exact same word for word information on the articles talk page. Freikorp (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User:FrankAndProust reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bitcoin#External link

Comments:
To deal with the spam that was being inserted into the article's External Links section, I replaced the section with a DMOZ link per Wikipedia:SPAM#Dealing with spam. User:FrankAndProust apparently didn't like that his external link was removed, so he's responded by continuously spamming the page with his link, despite identical links already present on the DMOZ link, and despite an attempted compromise by placing an alternative but identical purpose link in the article. The editor is attempting to promote his website through external link spamming, which is vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES: Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. - SudoGhost 09:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand what the problem was. The link that Frank posted was to the wrong page on the site, and was therefore fairly useless to the casual user. I have fixed this, so now the link goes to a more useful page. When you see the right page, its use is immediately obvious.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you do understand the problem, since you see DMOZ as "that link site that should be removed". I can see where the confusion would be if you don't understand what DMOZ is or haven't read Wikipedia:SPAM#Dealing with spam. - SudoGhost 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, I can't believe you keep insisting on this. My intentions matched my actions, and they are clear. I tried to keep the status quo up, because the link I proposed fulfills the requirements of WP:ELYES. And as I already said in the Bitcoin Talk page, I don't know the owner or have any affiliation with that website. It just gives complete real-time information of the Bitcoin network and it also provides historical charts which are appropriate and necessary for the article.

There is no point in discussing this further. Please let the administrators give the final answer. All that needs to be known are in the Wikipedia logs. --FrankAndProust (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You tried to keep a "status quo", by spamming your link? You inserted your link, and it was reverted. Edit warring to keep your spam in the article is the opposite of a status quo. If it was truly a "status quo" you were interested in, you'd have reverted it back to the pre-DMOZ version. Instead, you inserted only your link, even when an identical-in-purpose link was used as a compromise. Nothing short of this not-significant link being in the article suffices, even when identical links are offered to be used (and are already present in DMOZ). When your bottom line is "my link need in the article" no matter what, even changing your arguments and contradicting yourself when those reasons are refuted, that is spamming. - SudoGhost 15:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following to try and solve this issue. Let's roll back to the status quo before all these edits and counter-edits started. This is the version I am referring to: Also, let's start a new section in the Bitcoin talk page and let's all of us propose which external links are proper and which are not. How do you feel about this? --FrankAndProust (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That belongs on the talk page, not AN3. - SudoGhost 09:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:SudoGhost has made an offensive edit summary - "Rv external link spamming. It is vandalism and will be reverted. Establish a consensus for inclusion. WP:SPAM#Dealing with spam replaces *all the links*, not *all the links except for spammed links*" in his edit of 15:44, 2 July 2012. Describing good faith edits by other people trying to resolve this dispute as vandalism is not OK.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDTYPES: "adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning." If you have an issue with the way that's worded, discuss it at WP:VANDALISM. The edit was not directed at you modifying the link, but at the editor who inserted the link again, and again, and again. - SudoGhost 09:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protected — Five days. Regarding the link, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. There is also an external links noticeboard. The link to http://blockchain.info does not appear to be conventional spam as mentioned in the WP:VANDAL policy. It seems intended to assist the reader by showing them the worldwide stream of bitcoin transactions as they happen. It is up to the consensus of editors whether the link should remain. FrankAndProust does *not* have a pattern of adding this link to multiple articles. It seems he has been adding content at Bitcoin since February. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arcandam reported by User:Bidgee (Result: No action)

Page: Justin Bieber on Twitter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcandam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:LauraHale#WP:POINT snd User talk:Hawkeye7#Revert

Comments:
Arcandam is alleged (in the edit summaries) that I was canvassed, I was not asked to revert by anyone. Bidgee (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not necessary. See Laura's talkpage for more info about the canvassing. Without canvassing it would be 1 vs 1 (meaning only 3 links instead of 6). Arcandam (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask anyone to revert. I'm not clear where the canvassing accusations are coming from. --LauraHale (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to provide explicit instructions for it to be canvassing. You must've read your own talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Again where was I canvassed? I was not asked to revert your edits by any editor, such allegations are false and bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

On your talkpage. I repeat: You don't have to provide explicit instructions for it to be canvassing. Arcandam (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee: It is probably not a good idea to tell me to fuck off. Arcandam (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And editsummaries like "Don't fucking remove my comment's on another editor's talk page" don't help either. Arcandam (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)That is only a notification of the AfD (which I've yet to support or oppose) in which a number of other editors got, I only noticed the dispute on my watchlist after the bad faith comments you made on LauraHale and Hawkeye7's talk page. Cease the false allegations. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed my comment from another editor's talk page and making false allegations, what am I meant to say? There is no policy stating we can't swear. sigh Bidgee (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We had an editconflict, duh. Something went wrong and my reply was there but your message wasn't. You should probably take a look at your own comments and list the things you accused me of. Then you should take a look at WP:NPA. Arcandam (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish, you can't remove another editor's comment in an edit conflict, Wiki software prevents it. Bidgee (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That means you have to go back and copy-paste the text. While doing that I must've missed that sentence. Are you trying to make people believe it was intentional? Even though my reply to the comment that disappeared was there? Funny. Arcandam (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam, you are a very quick study for someone who's been here for such a short time. I've been here for over 4 years, and I can tell that you know a lot more than many new editors already. Is this, by any chance, your first account? Doc talk 06:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. Look at my earliest contribs. Arcandam (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The two edits in March of this year? You didn't truly start editing until April 26th of this year. Am I missing something? That's not long ago for someone of your knowledge. Doc talk 06:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is: people who are new don't welcome themselves. People who are new don't use AWB when they've made less than 100 edits. Arcandam (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching the events at the Justin Bieber on Twitter article today with some dismay. While there are always going to be possible improvements, the approach demonstrated by Arcandam is inappropriate, condescending, and unlikely to convince (let alone encourage) other editors. Arcandam's edits have included the following inappropriate edit summaries: "canvassing", "Laura canvassed Bidgee to come here", "I wish this was a joke", "worst article ever", "omfg", "oh please", "how super-duper interdasting", and (the bizarre) "basically anyone who is someone has received one or more death threats. I am 25 and I am not famous and I have received several, even onwiki". When faced with dissent, Arcandam's approach has been to assume bad faith in accusations of canvassing; and then to violate 5RR. It should be obvious to Arcandam that the Justin Bieber on Twitter article is not an article on a civil war, technical medical procedure, or esoteric financial indicator, and accordingly it should be allowed a little leeway in including (sourced) material that is likely to be relevant to the readers it is bound to attract (at the rate of almost 500 visits per day). Could someone here please attempt to demonstrate to Arcandam that: having a condescending attitude to editing at WP is a sure-fire way to repel and discourage other editors, and that when faced with (inevitable) dissent, the appropriate procedure to resolving disputes is on the article's talk page (and not via the revert button). GFHandel ♬  06:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You may want to check the actual edits, not just the editsummaries. You'll see I improved the article. Also it would be a bit more fair if you would've looked at both parties instead of just one. Arcandam (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It would've been better if you mentioned this. Arcandam (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone logged out to revert again. Fine, have it your way. I am not going to ask my cabal to support me. Arcandam (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

@Bidgee: saying stuff like: "Are you dumb or just playing dumb?" is not helpful. Arcandam (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice try in taking this EWR off topic, you very well know why I said it, since you claimed that my reverts were from canvassing but then tried to deny it. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't do that again. I was drinking Coca Cola when I read your message and I laughed so hard that I needed to clean my monitor and keyboard before I could type this comment. Hats off to you for having a sense of humor, I appreciate that. Arcandam (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• All of this chatter is superfluous to the clear fact that Arcandam reverted five times within half an hour... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the text here is offtopic, indeed. Maybe you should've mentioned this in your edit, so people can understand why you wrote what you wrote. You were trolling a user that was feeling down, I reverted you. Arcandam (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that an Admin (User:John) whom is involved ([36][37]) is willing to allow Arcandam off the hook. Someone who hasn't had any part in the article and the AfD should take the action needed. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Arcandam has indicated they will not continue to edit-war. Any block now would be punitive. On the other hand, there are other users (see just above) whose conduct probably needs to be examined. I will obviously leave this to someone else to close. Bidgee, AN3 is not meant to be a "hook" but an aid to collegial editing. --John (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since Arcandam has promised to stop. It does not seem that this particular war is continuing. The last edits by Arcandam, Bidgee or LauraHale are all more than 24 hours ago. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arcandam‎ reported by User:LauraHale (Result: No action)

Page: Justin Bieber on Twitter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcandam‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38] This was good version.

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]
• 4th revert: [42]
• 5th revert: [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:
This appears to read to me like the user will continue to engage in edit warring over the article. As this happened AFTER they promised an admin they would work more collaboratively, and as the user has cast non-good faith aspirations on another user for their WP:GAN review with out providing any evidence to support this claim, can some one look into their editing and again warn them? --LauraHale (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You are pretty desperate to get revenge. Do you have a difflink that shows I ever promised an admin I "would work more collaboratively"? I never promised that and no admin ever asked me that. I think you just made that up. Do you have a difflink that actually says I "will continue to engage in edit warring over the article" instead of one that appears to read that to you, but to no one else? I think you just made that up too. I tried to give you the chance to explain yourself in a constructive discussion without any personal attacks, but unfortunately that was a waste of my time. Your response to my post on your talkpage proves that communication between us is rather useless. I would like to ask you to stay off my talkpage until you feel ready for a constructive discussion, I'll return the favor. Arcandam (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. A careful observer would notice the quote about the GA review was written by user John.

Please redact the revenge statement. This is not a WP:AGF statement. I am not seeking any form of revenge and you have zero diffs to support this claim. This diff cited by john appears to indicate that you would avoid edit warring, which broadly construed means "work more collaboratively", which is the purpose of Wikipedia. I promise to stay off your talk page, having only ever made 1 edit to it, to warn you of 3RR. Anyway, I patiently await the redaction. --LauraHale (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should I redact that statement? Please read WP:DUCK and reread your own comment above dated 12:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC).

You may want to start by redacting the following claims you made, I will patiently await the redaction:

"I am not seeking any form of revenge and you have zero diffs to support this claim." (Actually I just posted a diff that proves just that)

"promised an admin they would work more collaboratively" (This never happened, and no admin has ever asked me this)

"has cast non-good faith aspirations on another user for their WP:GAN review with out providing any evidence to support this claim" (You are talking about someone else, and you are falsely accusing that person)

It would also be a good idea to stop claiming I am not acting in good faith.

When you've done all that please respond to the most recent message I left on your talkpage by leaving a message here, I have watchlisted this page. Arcandam (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
p.s. Please follow WP:BRD from now on. You made very bold changes on 30 June 2012‎ and 1 July 2012‎. You have been reverted. Now you have to discuss. Instead you chose to editwar. John (who is an admin) didn't really like the article, but Fluffernutter (who is also an admin) did some major copyediting before I saw this article for the first time. Lets see what Fluffernutter had to say about it: "(copyediting before my eyes pop out. come on guys. missing words and everything, and this is a FAC??)" & "more ce. seriously, guys?" & "more ce. Seriously, it horrifies me that this passed a) a quick look-over and b) GA".

I don't see what Fluffernutter's comments about a content issue, have to do with your edit warring? Why would comments by someone else on article content, justify you making the multiple reverts listed in this report? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

GFHandel said I used "inappropriate edit summaries" in an edit made on 06:42, 2 July 2012 one section above this one. Fluffernutter made a proposed rewrite BTW which is 50k instead of 91k. Arcandam (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Arcandam has stopped reverting. See also the closure of the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:94.169.156.204 reported by User:Jeffwang (Result: 31h)

Page: Danaus genutia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.169.156.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Comments:

• Vandalism; I was using igloo so I did not notice I violated 3RR by accident. --J (t) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 31 hours for vandalism. Consider reporting this kind of a problem at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ansob reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: List of sovereign states by date of formation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ansob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert: 00:06, 29 June
• 2nd revert: 00:17, 29 June
• 3rd revert: 00:27, 29 June
  • Blocked 00:31, 29 June by FisherQueen for 24 hours
  • Continued reverting on List of sovereign states at 04:35, 30 June
  • Blocked 04:43, 30 June by SarekOfVulcan for 48 hours
• 4th revert: 02:06, 3 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Believe the two previous blocks were sufficient warning...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't discussed or edited either article in recent history.

Comments:
Note: Joe Decker full-protected List of sovereign states on July 1, which may be why Ansob didn't revert on both articles. Note that this is an edit warring report, not a 3RR report.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Two weeks. It seems this user's only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to edit war about the status of Bosnia-Herzegovina, according to his personal theory. This is his third block in seven days. It is unclear whether his presence here is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [53]

1. 3 July 13:16, blanket revert to this version from almost a year ago, removing over 10,000 bytes of text from multiple intermediate edits
2. 3 July 15:00 (same rv)
3. 3 July 16:55 (same rv)
4. 3 July 17:57

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] (warned now, but I saw this situation only when the 3RR violation was already complete

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Not from me; I'm not involved in this dispute.)

Comments:
A particularly disruptive form of revert-warring: blanket reverts to very old versions, without indicating what in the intermediate versions the editor actually objects to; vague handwaving edit summaries claiming "POV" and "per consensus", but no actual participation in any talkpage discussion. These blanket reverts are a persistent pattern with this editor: same kind of conduct quite recently on Goumenissa ([55]) and Byzantine Iconoclasm ([56]). Even a brief look at the editor's contribution history will confirm he has a long history of contentious editing and revert-warring; prior block in August 2011 related to this ANI thread. Unfortunately I can't find any official WP:ARBMAC warning yet, but I recommend a block well longer than the customary 24 hrs in this case.

The other party involved in this edit war, Jingiby (talk · contribs), who also has quite a long history of disruption, has gone up to but not beyond 3R at the time of this writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I admit it wasn't a perfect handling of the situation from my part, but Jingiby (talk · contribs) is responsible for the edit warring, by constantly stalking not only me, but many others. I just don't allow cyber-bullying. I always try to builf consensus, but unfortunately can't tolerate infantile nationalistic POV, or the deletion of referenced info, as Jingiby (talk · contribs) does. AngBent (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned - closing this as stale, but the editor is warned of likely sanctions if misbehavior continues. Statements above about fending off a POV-pusher show worrisome signs of WP:MPOV and Angbent is encouraged to read that article and shape up accordingly or face sanctions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Protected)

Page: Mark Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Comments:
No violation of 3rr. This user has a long history of combative edit warring. Check his talk page history. Recently off a 1-week block for warring. In response to my EW warning, he removed the warning and reinstated his change to the article.

The different between EW and 3rr have been explained to the user repeatedly, but he still can't or won't understand the difference, and nearly half his edits are edit warring without discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it that you accuse me of edit warring after one revert, but you think it's okay to make three reverts yourself without edit warring? Why did you [me for violating 3rr] after only two reverts? Two is less than three. And why is it okay for you to add original research but it's not okay for me to revert it? Read WP:BURDEN. If you want to add material, the onus is on you to cite it. You can't accuse me of edit warring if you're going to ignore policies that apply to you. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The "first revert" you list isn't a revert. It's my initial edit. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As I, and others, have explained repeatedly, "edit warring" is not the same as "the 3 revert rule". You can edit war without violating the 3rr. I warned you for "edit warring". I even went so far as to explain this in detail on your talk page after the warning, but you removed that too. Then you templated me and came here to complain that you hadn't violated 3rr. Please calm down, listen, and take your concerns to the article talk page. I've already posted there. You have a substantial history of edit warring, and it needs to stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mark Phillips.". That looks like a 3rr warning to me. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the difference between edit-warring and WP:3RR? You know that you can be blocked for edit-warring after a single edit? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while for me, but wouldn't edit warring include reverting against the consensus of many other users, running up to 3rr as if it ain't no thing, and then reporting other users if they run up to 3rr? I think it would. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". How can a single edit count as repeated? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protected - One week, by User:Bwilkins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mann jess reported by User:89.100.207.51 (Result: protected)

Page: Mark Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mann jess (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: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments: User is repeatedly readding original research to the article

89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR states that the other user has to make more than three reverts. You're about as guilty as Mann Jess, and as other editors have reverted you and none have supported you on the talk page, you've also been ignoring WP:BRD. Running up to 3 reverts and then reporting someone else for reaching 3rr does not make you right in this. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ehm... I didn't "Run up to 3 reverts and then report someone else for reaching 3rr". He reached three reverts before I did. And accused me of edit warring after my first revert. And accused me of breaching 3rr after my second revert. I can't assume a lot of good faith on his part. He's been ignoring WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN.89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Page already protected one week. See above report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:98.234.134.32 reported by User:Jprg1966 (Result: declined)

Page: Martyre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.234.134.32 (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]

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

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

Comments:

User has been warned about precisely this problem before in just the last couple of weeks: diff --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined - there was almost no misbehavior here, except by perhaps Jprg1966. Adding a reference is always encouraged, and vandalism templates are only meant for vandalism. Please be careful to stop biting the newbies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Always seems more important at the time. Mea culpa. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Swifty reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: 24h block)

Page: Tomorrow (The Cranberries song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swifty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [76]
• 5th revert: [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:

Do to edit patterns, I suspect the editor reverted the article three previous times as IP editor 174.102.31.108. Last edit summary was, "I am going to ANI everyone who is has been reverting this." Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I stepped in because what was being reverted was wrong! There is nothing wrong with page strolling and seeing a conflict and I'd like to point this out and I'd appreciate it if Bgwhite would take it there. Thank you. Swifty*^talk 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was the 4th editor to revert you. A discussion was also taking place. No reason to revert somebody 5-8 times. Your conditions are not on your user page or talk page. Please make them visible so others can see. The Worm is aware of this discussion. I'll leave it upto the Worm on what to do with this discussion. You've also put up a retired sign. Bgwhite (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking into things further, I've blocked Swifty for 24 hours for edit warring. I do not believe he is the same as the IP, partially AGF, partially due to Swifty's editing habits not matching an in depth comparison. I can elaborate more if required, but I think I've said enough there. As to the subject of the edit war, whether or not a link is spam, I agree with Bgwhite's interpretation on his talk page - not only does a link's content matter, but also it's position on the page. I'll unprotect the page in question now. Remember, please do try and discuss things on the talk page. Worm^TT(talk) 10:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Vibhijain reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd
• 3rd revert: 3rd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd
• 3rd revert: 3rd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Page: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: 1st

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Page: User talk:Smsarmad (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: Partially previous version

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Comments:
Editor edit warring on multiple pages, and on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 reverted probably without even reading the related talk page discussion and the source cited that the content he was adding was massively POV, source falsification. And also edit warred on my talk page. --SMS ^Talk 14:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As of I Protest, first diff is of 30 June, the second one of 1 July, and the remaining of today. The thing was editors were reverting without discussing on the talk page. Same is the case with Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. As of User talk:Smsarmad, you termed one's claims as false, just because the discussion was getting his way. This page is not for content disputes. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm on 1RR and the editor is also clearly baiting my restriction, first following to an article he never edited before and reverting my edit and then reverting again often without good reason or discussion (in atleast one case failing to follow BRD). Also at SMS's user page, an editor is allowed to close discussions on his own user page.. ironically Vibhijain changed the heading of a 3RR warning on his own talkpage once before to "false warning" even where there were diffs of hard evidence. [84]. It is funny that he objected at SMS's talk page closure and editwarred on it which could merely be taken as a categorization of discussion on false claims. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@Vibhjain: How were they "not discussing" on the talk page? I'm looking at the talk page, and I sure see discussion. If, by "not talking", you mean "they didn't come up with a conclusion which I felt was viable," then you need a severe correction in what the term "not talking" actually means. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, as a note, please do not let this page become a proxy for this edit war stupidity. I will personally hat or remove discussion if it turns into unproductive bickering. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• @TopGun Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War is on my watchlist. And there is already a discussion at I Protest, which is there before you started editing there after your block got finished. As of the talk page, one may have the right to close his talk page discussion, but he/she does not possesses the right to term someone' claims as false, that too without any proof. @MTO The issue is they are reverting, without the discussion getting over. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Are you seriously that unself-aware? Do you not see you're doing exactly the same thing? Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Observe it again. I have reverted only when an editor has put or removed the controversial part of the article. I have taken the revision at the time of the start of discussion as the stable revision. Also I will like to ask TopGun that he has been making controversial edits, citing the B of WP:BRD, and when the page watchers revert him, he cries foul and says hounding. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment - I've locked all three pages for a day. I will leave this open, and any other admin is free (and even encouraged) to take corrective action, give out warnings (on top of the protection), seek a larger solution for the problem on another board, etc. as they see fit for the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. It is the right thing to do at this time. Also, I don't see any 3RR violation, so why is this being kept opened? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Because there was still edit warring. 3RR is not a license to revert at will up to three times per day: it is a bright red line that will definitely get you blocked, though you might deserve and get a block for less. Also, on your part, unhatting a discussion on a user talk page closed by that user is not acceptable at all, and edit warring to do it is beyond the pale. At very very most you should have changed the section title (although frankly not that either): certainly not unhatted the section. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [85]

• 1st revert: [86]
• 2nd revert: [87]
• 3rd revert: [88]
• 4th revert: [89]
• 5th revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Talk page topic
diff showing opening of topic
diff advising editor of Talk page topic

Comments: Even if you don't count the first edit as a revert, the editor has exceeded 3 reverts. As shown above, I did everything to warn and advise editor of the problem. The editor did participate in the Talk page discussion but then stopped without reaching any consensus for inclusion of the material and went back to reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23's accusation links 5 revisions. The first is the initial edit that added a new section. I don't see how this can be described as a revert. The second one was the first revert, I reverted collect's blanket revert of my edit. The third was my second revert, I reverted Bbb23's blanket revert of my edit. The fourth was my third revert, I reverted Bbb23's second deletion of the new section.

So Bbb23's contention rests on the fifth revert...

The fifth is no revert at all. The only change I made is the addition of two references to articles. As per the discussion in the article's talk page I added links to media articles discussing Rubio's appearance on the daily show showing the notability of his appearance, and the notability of the things he said on the show.

Not only is Bbb23 hostile with reverting, Bbb23's also overeager to get innocent editors blocked.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR says the editor must revert more than three times, not be reverted more than three times. This is unusual for Bbb23 from my experience. TeeTylerToe, you should assume good faith though, and not accuse editors of maliciously wanting to get editors blocked for no reason, especially when edit warring has been a problem for you before. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My response is technical and complex, but bottom line is TTT has been edit-warring despite being advised to stop and discuss, even if he hasn't performed more than 3 reverts. The addition of the material initially by TTT, for some, fits the definition of a revert - for some, it doesn't. The 5th revert is more complicated. It counts as a revert technically because there was an intervening edit. However, that last sequence was confusing because I think that Fat&Happy mistakenly restored the wrong version and then corrected that after TTT added the last part. So, in a sense TTT's last two edits could be construed as only one revert, not two (I didn't realize that until after TTT posted the above response). As I said, we're still left with edit-warring, no matter how the sequence is interpreted, and an unwillingness to find consensus on the material. The hostility and "innocent editors" accusations are just silly and distracting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding references does not meet the definition of revert laid out in the 3rr page. I would like to ask what definition Bbb23 is holding me to.

Now I'm being attacked for "accusing myself" of being innocent of something that I'm demonstrably innocent of...

As for the accusation of edit warring, how is there supposed to be productive discussion on the talk page of a section that was never part of the article more than an hour or so? Assuming that Bbb23 and I have to agree on some fraction of the section to be reinstated so that people can discuss it, Bbb23's stated proposal in the talk page discussion is that the content of the section on the daily show interview should be integrated into the article, and that the statement that there was a contradiction in two statements rubio made in the interview should be removed. That said, how can this be discussed productively if the article shows no indication of any form of it?

And regarding Ian.thomson's comment about the "problem"s in my past, what burden do I carry for defending edits made in good faith from hostile reverts by editors that were made in demonstrable bad faith, particularly when in each case I was vindicated? Not only did the revert overeager editors harm the articles in question, but they wasted their own time, my time, and they created a fair amount of conflict, when all they needed was the restraint to add a citation needed tag, instead of revert an edit hostily, showing that they did not treat my edits in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result: )

Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.0.254.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Article before reverts: [92]

• 1st revert: [93]
• 2nd revert: [94]
• 3rd revert: [95]
• 4th revert: [96]
• 5th revert: [97]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mabel Simmons#Reversions
Cresix (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Cresix admitted on the talkpage here [99], that material from my edit was accurate and his reversion was inaccurate due to being unsourced. Basically, he argues that information from my edit is interpretation. Basically, what I did was remove inaccurate characterization of Madea as "argumentative" (which is equally interpretative) to "overreactive" because the entire article describes her as going overboard. One section even talks about her murdering her husbands. So I basically tell Cresiz that his same arguments can be made for trying to reinstate "argumentative" and that my characterization simply restates the same thing the rest of the article has stated into single words. I tell him that describing someone who's willing to go to jail and use guns for perceived offenses as "Argumentative" is not an accurate description. Mind you, I had to initiate this talkpage discussion because Cresix decided to revert 7 edits with no edit summary. That's what he's left out in the above! 173.0.254.242 (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is edit warring, not what is the "correct" interpretation of what should be in the article. You should not edit war even if you think you are right', especially after you are warned. Now, let an admin decide this. Cresix (talk)