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:HeslinJ reported by User:Qworty (Result: Page protected)

User has reverted sourced information more than three times today, despite warnings on his talk page from different editors:

[1]

• Malformed report, but Page protected because there's too much edit-warring from multiple editors. Develop consensus on the talk page, please. For the record, I protected because the article is under warring from multiple sides (reading the history of Marsha Mehran), so evidently discussion needs to take place. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:88.104.5.244 (Result: Both blocked separately for 48 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
User being reported: Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

(Sorry, I didn't get them all; there's loads more)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion in above-linked sections

Comments:

Both editors blocked - IP by Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Joe by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), both for 48 hours. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Festermunk reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: 1 week)

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Festermunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [12] wholesale revert to a version previously rewritten as too POV by two editors]
• 2nd revert: [13] Revert of material he didn't like, though after I explained the POV of his revert in WP:DRN discussion he agreed to change it back but insisted he'd change more of it; I'm not touching it myself right now.
• 3rd revert: [14] Removal of important NPOV Stephen Cohen sentences explaining that despite the pro-government slant, “any intelligent viewer can sort this out.(i.e., propaganda from non-propaganda).
• 4th revert: [15] Removal of much discussed historical info about person chosen as editor; he only wants it in the criticism section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]. Note that I mention here Festermunk's recent block on this same article for 3rr but obviously Festermunk did not take heed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit history shows efforts to engage Festermunk, mostly ignored by him until after he made all these changes today. These include: [17]; [18]; [19]. I then filed a Dispute Resolution case notice after he mentioned "Arbitration." See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#RT_.28TV_network.29 discussion with volunteer.

Comments:
User: Festermunk has constantly added negative information and opinion to this article and deleted neutral and positive information. His basic view is such positive information is just a minority opinion and doesn't belong. After his first block on this article another editor and I cleaned it up to add more neutral or positive info, deleting some WP:Undue negative info and especially primary source opinion. As soon as Festermunk returned to this article he reverted most of our changes in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor to our more NPOV version. After WP:Dispute Resolution, where Festermunk largely retained his previous views about adding criticism and removing neutral/positive material, he again reverted back to his version of the Controversy section which I reverted here per the previous editor's revert.

Meanwhile as part of the edit warring behavior, Festermunk has been quite uncivil. The Volunteer at Dispute Resolution told him on his talk page he was being uncivil in the Dispute Resolution. (I complained at length about incivility in my original WP:DNR notice.) I then complained at his talk page about two more new incidents of incivility here and mentioned a possible Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. But then I saw he'd done 3rr again so decided to complain here.

Frankly his POV against RT (TV Network) is so overwhelmingly strong, I don't think he can be allowed to edit this article or he will constantly revert to uncivil edit warring behavior. CarolMooreDC 05:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Frankly his POV against RT (TV Network) is so overwhelmingly strong, I don't think he can be allowed to edit this article" I hope all the administrators dealing with this case read this sentence carefully and then think about the kind of opposition I've had to deal with in editing the RT article. As per this edit, I tried directing the user's attention to Wikipedia editing guidelines that would disprove her battery of charges, namely thatWikipedia articles (with properly referenced sources) need not be written from that viewpoint are "consequently objectively true", but written in a way that "describe debates rather than engage in them.", that the NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. and that Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. but unfortunately this was all to no avail.

Generalities aside, I'lll deal with the specifics

• 1st issue- As per the DNR on RT, there are at least two occasions in which a third-party observer (user Nolelander) has said that the lede for the criticism and controversy section is not needed

a) under the, "RT (TV network) discussion" sub-section, in which the user writes (as the discussion is lengthy, I suggest using the control F function to find the specific text being referred to), "3) Lead for controversy section seems like a convenience, but not critical."

b) under the , "Threaded discussions of 8 issues" (point 3) sub-section, in which the user writes, "Turning to the issue of an intro paragraph within the Reception/Issues section: It is best to omit it"

User CarolMooreDC made no response/no relevant comment to the user's suggestion, so as per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, I removed the intro paragraph.

• 2nd issue - I don't understand her argument, how can I be guilty of something I haven't done?
• 3rd issue - I removed the Cohen quote because it (seemed - admittedly, that is subjective) wasn't relevant information constituting a defense of RT, though if editors have qualms with this edit they are within their Wikipedia rights to rever this as per WP:BRD. However, aside from an allegation of NPOV, I don't see what Wikipedia editing guideline I am violating.
• 4th issue - We established on the DNR on RT that a paragraph on Margarita Simonyan and that fitting that paragraph in a supra-section entitled, 'RT Staff' can be appropriate (see the "Changes to the RT article" sub-section of the RT section on DNR). As all of the content in that paragraph renders the information that User CarolMoore put about Simonyan in the history otiose, I removed the information as per Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. Festermunk (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, for convenience I mostly described the reverts in question because the reverts usually were hidden in a mass of new material. I complained about his reverts early in the day and then disabused User:Festermunk of his blind notion that we agreed on all points at the end of the the WP:DRN discussion at this diff. So there was no excuse for his going into a 3rd and 4th set of reverts, given his previous 3rr block and my previous 3rr warning to him about edit warring. CarolMooreDC 15:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course you won't find the 3rd and 4th set of reverts in DNR that's because we didn't talk about them in there! (at least, not directly anyway) Festermunk (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. I've also warned Festermunk that if after expiration of this block they resume the same battleground behavior, they may be indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: I concur with the block. I'm a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard and user Festermunk has been very belligerent and uncivil there, including posting obscenities on the DRN case (the case is related to this RT article). The also don't seem interested in achieving consensus, and they appear to be strongly inclined to impose a negative POV on the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:175.110.147.104 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: A day)

Page: List of Urdu-language poets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.110.147.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Rashid sandeelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Comments:
After IP user's non-notable entries were reverted out of the list a user account was created, which did same edits as the IP. Now today IP user again partially restored his/her edit. --SMS ^Talk 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings,

I made some valid updates to a political candidate's wiki page, Cheri Bustos. These were valid updates and properly sourced. I do not make a habit of editing wiki pages. Not 1/2 hour later, most of my valid and properly sourced edits were reverted by a frequent editor to this site. I happened to notice that this editor (who I informed on his talk page, per wiki guidelines) has a very detailed trail of editing political pages. He appears to only edit the pages of Democrats with negative information. While this is probably valid, I intended to balance the article with positive items directly related to negative things he and another frequent user to the page have added. How can this not be fair and reasonable. Someone even created an "endorsements" section with negative items, but REMOVED a section I added on a key endorsement this candidate received from a major newspaper in the district. Her opponent's wiki site is filled with similar endorsement. He removed it wholesale. He also removed a study that directly related to an item about Catholics and contraception. He also removed a quote on a technicality. A losing primary candidate stated a Senator who is endorsing Bustos, did not specifically mention qualifications. When I added a quote that listed qualifications, this editor removed it. This is vandalism. I added stuff that was well cited and pertinent. My *thought* is he is watching this page for anything positive and removing it. I smell an agenda here. I only wanted to add balance. Please resolve this war. My additions should stay. Thanks. First down comets (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: )

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26] Rhode Island Red prefers the version on the left, and GeorgeLouis prefers the version on the right.

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red#3RR_warning_on_vanderSloot_BLP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Improving_GLBT_section

Comments:

I am trying to get the Gay-rights section into proper shape by proposing one new paragraph at a time. A previous attempt at a wholesale improvement to the entire Section was reverted by a different editor (not Rhode Island Red).[31] Perhaps narrowing the focus would help move the article off dead center. Editing was Blocked for one week, and the conversation was taken to the Talk Page.
There was also a reversion by Rhode Island Red of an entirely different Section.

Reply

I’m getting really tired of Frank’s disingenuous conduct in general, and this trumped up edit warring accusation in particular. First of all, I did not violate 3RR -- Frank knows it -- but he’s trying to use one innocuous edit, which he knows full well is innocuous, to back up his charge. The 3rd revert he listed was a self-reversion,[32] made because I had previously reverted to the wrong version – it was a simple self-correction so as to not lose one set of minor intermediate changes. I would normally be reluctant to even go that close to the 3RR line, but in this case, George’s edits were so ridiculously tendentious that I didn’t think the situation would escalate as far as it did.

George was previously making tendentious edits on the article, and the page was protected for a week.[33] During that time, he requested comment on the OR noticeboard and his proposal got shot down.[34] Nonetheless, as soon as page protection expired today, George made the change anyway and then started edit warring when I reverted his edit. [35][36][37] He did not comment as to the reason for his reverts.

I left a comment with the admin who originally looked into the issue and protected the page, alerting him to the nascent conflict and requesting that page protection be extended for another week,[38] reasoning that this would nip things in the bud. George knows this as well; he already left a comment there. He knows that this 3RR complaint is unwarranted, and it’s not the first time he’s tried to pull vindictive shenanigans like this (e.g., harassment). This sort of thing has become a chronic problem and I’m on the verge of filing a user conduct complaint with the admins as a last resort. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RIR has been a long term edit warrior on this BLP, and was rather upset when DRN failed to agree with his POV on using a primary source in the article. Frankly, there is a whole lot of UNDUE stuff in the article, and RIR's belief that everyone who disagrees with him is "acting in tandem" for "vndictive shenanigans" when he was politely told that his edit war tactics were likely to cause him problems (I believe he called my required notice and request to self-revert "disingenuous" on his own talk page, and that I was "threatening" him [39]). Over two hundred edits on one BLP is a lot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect failed to identify himself as an involved participant, and his off-topic ad hominem and suggestion that I'm "rather upset" about some prior incident was entirely predictable given that he and George Louis (both members of the NPOV-challenged WP Project Conservatism)[40] have been marching in lockstep on the VanderSloot article, and one always pops in to back up the other in virtually every dispute. Together they have been trying to game the system and whitewash the article since long before I first visited the Vandersloot page.

But background details aside, notice how Collect's mudlslinging has no bearing whatsoever on the 3RR issue (i.e. the fact that I did not violate 3RR and that George's accusation was off base) or George Louis's attempt to bypass the outcome on the noticeboard by pushing a tendentious edit the instant that page protection was lifted. Nor did he acknowledge that it was I who requested page protection to avert an edit war. The red herring about my edit count was particularly puzzling since I've contributed a substantial amount of carefully written and reliably sourced text in the article, while Collect has probably racked up 200 comments on the article's Talk page alone and still hasn't contributed more than a sentence or two to the entire article. If there were a barnstar for obstructionism...Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Involved"? Risible in excelcis. I have ZERO edits since the protection, and only TEN ever on that article. But let's look at the record which RIR seems intent on pushing here: RIR has 67 and I have 37 total edits on the talk page. Period. And anyone reading my posts there will note that I discuss based on the WP:BLP requirements, and not from any desire to attack or defend any person. BTW, following policies is not generally considered "obstructionism" but exaggerating about editors and making uttely risible claims about them is likely to cause problems. Cheers - but your posts here do not seem aimed at preventing any admin from acting on your edit warring. BTW, there is no doubt that this is edit war from you - 3RR is not an "entitlement" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It was 39 comments actually, and negligible contribution to the article itself; thanks for proving my point. But you really shouldn't have brought up the issue of edit counts in the first place. It's a needless distraction and it just adds another layer of pointless bickering to the situation. Doesn't exactly set a good example. Popping in to make an ad hominem attack just adds fuel to the fire. Again, I did not violate 3RR, and George jumped the gun without consensus, but why let pesky facts get in the way of a good witch-hunt eh? Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I gave you a very polite warning (not a template) and your reaction was to attack me. I made no ad hominem attack on you unless we are in topsy-turvy world. And that you find it somehow wrong that I do not edit war on this BLP is a very interesting concept indeed. Meanwhile, I do not engage in "witch-hunts" as you seem to think that everyone else is somehow collaborating against you -- that is a quite unwise attitude. Lastly, edit war does not require a 3RR violation -- the edit war you have engaged in is now quite long-running indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment. You did not offer a fair, balanced, or constructive perspective on the situation and made no comments about your buddy's disruptive behavior because, as usual, you two are marching in lockstep, as you always do (which is why I referred to your history of collusion and obstruction). You simply railed about how you thought I was upset about some past event, called me a long-term edit warrior, made a silly off-topic observation about edit counts, and completely ignored the fact that George's complaint was misleading and that I did not in fact violate 3RR as George alleged in his trumped up accusation. Your input has done nothing but exacerbate the conflict, as usual. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I count four reverts. How do you figure that there are not four? Are you saying that No. 37 above, the second one, is not a revert? But the Edit Summary says, "Reverted to revision 520771488 by John of Reading: restoring version with innocuous edits." GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I already provided an explanation. One of the reverts was a self-correction of my own revert because I had reverted to the wrong version and inadvertently missed an intermediate edit. That fact is obvious and surely it must not have escaped you; hence my statement that your 3RR complaint was trumped up and unwarranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Self-reverting does not count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR. That makes three reverts, and taking into consideration that RIR self-reverted one of those three, it's two reverts in 24 hours, not four. - SudoGhost 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Note to RIR: I am not a member of any Wikiprojects AFAICT, and I consider the claim that I am a member of one to be false. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That little note of yours is misleading in the extreme. I don't know whether or not you are a card-carrying member of WP Project Conservatism but you are a regular contributor to the Project's talk page and to articles that fall under the project's umbrella, and you have been called out there as a biased contributor, for example in the following comment: "I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism."[41] You are even edit warring on one such article in the midst of your bloviating about this 3RR complaint.[42] If there were a barnstar for hypocrisy...Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

GHuh? You have made enough false claims here to fill a bushel basket. I have nearly 3000 pages on my watchlist, and I am neither a memebr of a wikiproject nor a "regular contributor" to one. And when 3RR is noted on one's talk page, it is proper to self-revert as I did -- so your personal attacks are actually angering me now - you seem to be more interested in roiling waters than in collaborating on an encyclopedia. And that is actually worse than your edit war problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21

29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You've completely avoided commenting on the facts at hand and you seem to be more much more concerned with smearing and evasion than with conflict resolution. It's now becoming disruptive and is making matters worse. I've done my part to provide facts and context relevant to this charge, but now this pointless bickering serves no purpose, so if you you want to continue we can do it on your Talk page where it won't be so disruptive. Let's move on now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have earnestly sought to avoid problems with you - hence my polite suggestion that you self-revert. Instead you seem to think that having battles is wise. I assure you such is not the case. You seem to think that attacking a person who actually wished to prevent this discussion is at fault, whilst it is more likely that the person who refuses polite suggestions is the one at fault. And I hereby disinvite you from posting on my user talk page. Again, I assure you that treating Wikipedia as a battleground is about as grieous a sin as is possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Time to step off the soapbox and lighten up. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing this complaint

Carefully examining the reverts as listed above persuades me that the second revert from the top was not an actual Revert. It was a correction of RIR's previous Revert. His Edit Summary, stating "Reverted to revision 520771488 by John of Reading: restoring version with innocuous edits" was not at all clear to me (very confusing, in fact), and I apologize to all, and particularly to Red, for not figuring out what he had done. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, pointless tag-team witch-hunt. An apology after the fact doesn't make up for the hassle or wasted resources. This is emblematic of a chronic problem. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Johnsopc reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Golden triangle (English universities) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnsopc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:50, 28 October 2012, in which the lead includes the London School of Economics (LSE) and Kings College London as members of the "golden triangle" of English universities

• 1st revert: 00:01, 31 October 2012, restored LSE and King's to the lead
• 2nd revert: 00:33, 1 November 2012, restored LSE and King's to the lead
• 3rd revert: 00:38, 1 November 2012, restored LSE and King's to the lead, logged out as User:82.31.132.160
• 4th revert: 00:55, 1 November 2012, restored LSE and King's to the lead

Comments

This is just 54 minutes outside the 24-hour period, and the user was warned before his fourth revert, so I'm reporting it as a 3RR violation.

Regarding the logged-out revert, User:82.31.132.160 has previously acknowledged being Johnsopc (diff).

I warned Johnsopc that he was about to violate 3RR at 00:49, 1 November 2012. He acknowledged the warning at 00:51, 1 November 2012, and made his fourth revert four minutes after the acknowledgement.

It's also worth noting that Johnsopc removed from the lead on 5 October 2012 that "King's College London and the London School of Economics are not universally included as part of the grouping." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the timeline a bit more ? I did not revert anything in knowledge of a violation. Once you started to engage in a conversation on the articles talk page there were no further revisions as far as I can see. I think the way you, as a clearly more experienced user, are handling this issue is a bit unprofessional to be honest. Hypatia (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Also looking at the edit history I think User:SlimVirgin has a history of being in editing wars on this article and has violated the same rule she/he is reporting me for in spirit by making negligible edits to revert the article the his/her version. Hypatia (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours John, please read up on 3RR appropriately and kindly do not cross this line again. May I also request you to kindly use your username in your signature rather than using an alias? Wifione ^Message 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Omar-Toons reported by User:Fort-Henry (Result: Warned)

• On October 23, user Dzlinker added some information to the article Fkih Ben Saleh
• User Omar-Toons reverted this contribution here [43] using, as usual, his impoliteness, rudeness and lack of education (using once again the word stupidity).
• I put back the deleted information (well, stating that the famous Moroccan prostitute, Karima El Mahroug or Ruby, was born in Fkih Ben Saleh ) with an appropriate reference (an article from The Telegraph)
• Omar-Toons erased [44] the information with the reference giving this argument: ‘’’Not a wiki article, create a wiki article that respects biographies requirements then put a link if you want’’’
• I undid his vandalism here [45] stating that an article will be created for Ruby.
• He erased the content once again [46] stating that it is not a wiki article…
• I undid this illogical contribution [47] believing that the information is sourced and authentic so it should remain in the article…
• Finally, Omar-Toons undid [48] my last modification stating, this time that ‘’’ NOT A WIKI ARTICLE, NOTORIETY NOT PROVEN AT ALL’’’

Since I do not want to be dragged into an edit war, I would like administrators to tell this contributor to not initiate such situations and to be collaborative.

Omar-Toons already received two warnings even in the Italian wiki for edit wars, please see here [49]

Thanks

Fort-Henry (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In an edit war, usually, two sides are involved.

Unfortunately, here, that seems to be more a POV pushing coming from Fort-Henry than an edit war : he insists that a "prostitute" involved in the Berlusconi gate has enough notoriety to be added to the article, without considering the fact that this "notoriety" is disputed.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't do more than 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, while Fort-Henry did 4 reverts, then, maybe he is the one who initiates the edit war.

--Omar-toons (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The chronological order explains everything. Omar-Toons kept inventing arguments to erase the content. After all, if Karima El Mahroug has no notoriety who else may have.She is known worldwide. Thanks to be collaborative and stop insulting others Fort-Henry (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And could you please show us where the notoriety of El Mahroug has been disputed? By who and when? If the notoriety has been disputed no one would think add such content to the above mentioned article. Where is that disputed? Thanks Fort-Henry (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, seems that I'm not the only one who considers that this person hasn't to be cited in the article! Why? Because Wikipedia works like that and, then, Fort-Henry is the one who has to understand that the aim of Wikipedia isn't to share anything --Omar-toons (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! I will talk directly to that user. Fort-Henry (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. Both editors were edit-warring. Both should be blocked. Fort-Henry raised the same issue at WP:ANI, which isn't helpful. That said, both editors seem to have calmed down. However, any resumption of the battle will be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:207.225.131.141 reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: 1 week)

Page: King Janno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.225.131.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 4th revert: [53]
• 5th revert: [54]
• 6th revert: [55]
• 7th revert: [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Comments:
This is for the continued removal of AfD notice. Bgwhite (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Blocked for both edit-warring and persistent disruptive editing, including other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Kabulbuddha (Result: )

Page: History of Cambodia
User being reported: User:TheTimesAreAChanging

Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]
• 5th revert: [63]
• 6th revert: [64]
• 7th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

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

Comments:
User:TheTimesAreAChanging is constantly reverting my work. Everything that I have posted in the named article had been deleted by him and some of the excuses used I feel do not hold water. It is like he owns the thread and does not want any changes to it that do not agree with his own POV.In the latest revert he names the source as the problem but forgets that it was himself that added the source in the first place 1 and here he is complaining about the source he added when I used it. 2. I have tried to act within the rules here and took a source to the reliable sources board.[68] and I said I would not use that source but was still concerned about him deleting other sourced work without good reason.I also went to the dispute noticeboard.[69].I then posted another piece of info to the article page with source and he just deleted it twice.This is getting very tiring trying to edit when someone just deletes everything I have written.He has also accused me of lying which is not very nice when all I did was contradict his opinion and provided a link to prove it.[70].I posted an edit war warning to his page but he has just deleted it.[71] Kabulbuddha (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

At the DRN, the RSN, and the article's talk page several editors have all sided with my edits. Kabulbuddha, who I (and others) have reason to believe is an obvious sockpuppet with a grudge, is just hoping that by some fluke he'll get me in trouble here. The source he accuses me of adding was first provided by User:ColaXtra, who also misquoted it and used other dubious sources like "Covert Action Quarterly". Kabulbuddha already rejected my proposed compromise, but his vision for the article is an enormous violation of due weight that has garnered no support from others. I have been trying to compromise: When ColaXtra deleted his own work, I restored it; I created a version of the text that was not reverted by User:Stumink, who had previously battled with ColaXtra. Kabulbuddha's complaint is groundless because I have accepted some of his text (I just added a source he recommended on the talk page, in place of the source he criticizes me for "adding") and I have not reverted his text more than twice. (After the second revert, I usually end up making concessions, after which he attempts another radical overhaul in violation of every discussion we've had.) There would be no edit conflict at all if he got consensus for his edits through discussion. Instead, he ignores policy, claiming "there is no rule to use scholarly sources" and nobody "gets to decide which sources are acceptable". If he really believes that I deserve sanctions, he must believe the same about himself; after all, he is the source of the dispute, there are no editors on his side, and he has reverted me no less frequently. This game--trying to sacrifice one of many accounts to the cause of "baiting" another editor--is apparently his modus operandi.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)