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:WikiCalambenyo reported by User:P199 (Result: Stale; 48 hours)

Page: Calamba, Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiCalambenyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On August 2012 I made my 1st edit to Calamba, Laguna, as part of larger editing series to clean up and bring consistent formatting to Philippine municipality/city articles, including removal of duplication, redundancy, and non-encyclopedic business listings. Since then, 5 IP users (all from the same company in Makati (same as WikiCalambenyo? Please check.)) keep on reverting my edits in one shot without any explanation. Then User:WikiCalambenyo also reverted my edits without comment or reason, 4 times by now: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Note that intermediate edits make it more difficult to see and detect that WikiCalambenyo keeps on reverting my edits.

I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page and user talk page, and even on the IP user talk pages: User talk:112.207.3.238, User talk:112.207.16.116, and User talk:112.207.24.193. No replies. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He did it again: [5]! Still no discussion, not even here. Notice that he makes each edit somewhat different than before, so it doesn't look like a revert, but all my changes are undone. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. There's been nothing for a couple of days. Re-report if the problem resurfaces.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Stale? Far from it! Just look at the article in question. User:WikiCalambenyo keeps on undoing my changes and completely ignoring the process here without consequence! Even other editors are noticing that WikiCalambenyo is acting as owner of this article (see here). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. There are nicer ways of re-reporting the problem, but the editor indeed came back after a 3-day absence and reverted without explanation and without responding to a warning from another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User:DataChecker1 and User:Petroskinov1294 reported by User:216.93.234.239 (Result: Protected)

Page: Robert Agostinelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Petroskinov1294 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
  DataChecker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I gave a warning for 3RR on both pages, but the edit war continues. I am not involved in the war, I don't know who is at fault, but the repeated reverting is not collegial. Both editors are single purpose accounts. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Page protected – Article protected 24 hours by User:Mike Rosoft. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:John974 reported by User:MatthewVanitas (Result: Warned)

Page: Eckankar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]

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

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

Comments:

This user is a WP:SPA regged just today, and immediately dove into a POV fight with User:Sarunfeldt. This was brought to my attention at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#I_need_help_revising_the_Wikipedia_page_for_my_church.. I looked into it, and neither side was behaving particularly well. So I posted on Talk about the article issues, and dove into a cleanup removing Unreliable material, editorialising, etc. Then John974 starts reverting my cleanup and accusing me of "censoring" material and favouring this Eckanthar church (which I've never heard of until today). His editing pattern is suggesting a POV SPA and I haven't seen a lick of positive intentions in his handful of edits (Special:Contributions/John974). In under 24 hours he's already 3RR'ed both Sarunfeldt and me (and his edits resemble those of an IP doing the exact same thing hours earlier), but I'm used to doing cleanup on contentious topics, so reporting here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement from John974 (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It came as total surprise to find out that MatthewVanitas filled a report about me. The events happened so quickly. He was extremely quick to file this. The initial edits that MatthewVanitas carried out appeared to me to be Vandalism, weather a member of Eckankar or any other group. MatthewVanitas went well beyond a normal edit to wipe out such things as diverse and useful website references and references to other groups.

He even when so far as to wipe out all mention of AKATHA saying it had nothing to do with Eckankar and all AKATHA references where from AKATHA itself. This showed one of two things. He either was an Eckist trying to wipe out all mention of AKATHA and ATOM. Or he knew nothing about the subject. Now I realize it appears that the later is true. At the time I thought he was an angry Eckist. Either way his statements and actions I felt where unreasonable and destructive.

Please note: As an aside, I must say early on that I have dyslexia so apologize if my spelling is poor. (although this has been run through a spell checker.) Know that I am more carful when I add anything to Wiki. And also that my inclusions are short…often one or two sentences.

Continuing on, The whole operation smacked in my opinion of Vandalism and not “Cleaning Up” Hopefully over the coming months the article can be improved and offer a more diverse viewpoint. You must realized that an article on such a complex spiritual path as Eckankar with such an unusual history, can not be handled in the same way as an article on for example “The History of Railroads” I can’t say for sure but perhaps MatthewVanitas is not suited to this particular type of listing due to the subtly and complexity of the mater. Especially since he admits he knew nothing about the subject of Eckankar till a day or two ago. I’ve studied Eckankar for over 27 years and can say as an expert on the subject that its history, ideology and the whole subject in general is complicated with many opinions and thousands upon thousands of pages of text and hundreds upon hundreds of hours of audio tapes.

When MatthewVanitas was claiming that AKATHA lacked references outside itself it was obvious he does not understand the nature of spiritual paths. I think what we have is someone who is virtually clueless on a subject they basically know nothing about trying to delete and “Clean up” information they basically don’t understand. Not out of stupidity but out of shear lack of experience and knowledge.

The article has been pretty much the same for several months. Until these sweeping changes/deletions called “Edits” Yes it (in its previous state) was diverse in its scoop. Perhaps a bit confusing. But Eckankar is a complicated subject with a long and complex history. MatthewVanitas did not clean up the article but sterilized it. And I believe personally censored large sections of it. Whether that was done consciously or out of ignorance I don’t know.

Sarunfelt has a history of deletions bordering on Vandalism. See nov 3rd 4th of this year.

I am relatively new to Wiki editing so I have to apologize for not completely understanding the protocol. But I feel my intentions where noble although perhaps my methods could have been more professional. The idea of preserving text and editing work and copulation that has taken dozens of people months to do I do not feel is something to be punished for. In the old days they use to burn books…now we can delete Wiki text. Its something to think about as Electronic censorship is more subtle.

As I stated beforehand If you look at the history of this article over the last 6 months you will see it has stayed pretty much the same give or take. Then Sarunfelt attempted to do a remake Nov 3 where he deleted just about everything. (See History) his changes where reverted (not by me.) When I reverted Sarunfelt’s changes I thought I was protecting the article as it had been just hours ago….from Vandalism. I was not trying to cause vandalism nor start a war…. but prevent Vandalism.

With MatthewVanitas changes the same held true but even more so! His “changes” where in my eyes and I would imagine a lot of peoples eyes massive deletions that could easily be viewed as Vandalism although he calls them “Cleaning up”

Anyone looking at the history of this article can see I was trying to protect the culmination of several months if not years of edits from many people from diverse backgrounds. Many of the people who edited this article I would disagree with but I did not delete there work even when I felt they where in error.

Instead I added the links and references I thought would give a more rounded viewpoint on a very complex topic. Eckankar. Religions and philosophies by there vary nature are controversial. And Eckankar is one of the most controversial of all! I feel by omitting opinions we end up losing the value of Wiki.

I reverted revisions to restore text. Not delete peoples hard work and research. If I by accident deleted text I am sorry. But the situation became difficult due to the number of edits and the vast array of Edits/deletions that where being done.

Given the extent of the deletions by Sarunfelt and especially MatthewVanitas I was shocked at how easily Wiki could be gutted and saw some of the changes as Vandalism. I’m not trying to call anyone names…simply point out that deleting so much material of a religious and or spiritual nature can cause problems as Eckankar has as stated before, a complex history that few understand who have not been involved for many years. Its also subject to opinions and viewpoints. But I feel its up to the article reader to sort through all of this. This is what makes Wiki great. Diversity. The new sterilized version of the article is missing that quality and reads more like a short brochure from Eckankar and is missing much useful information. Yes maybe it looks more “professional” to someone like MatthewVanitas who admits he knows little or nothing about Eckankar. (I’m not putting down MatthewVanitas simply pointing out by his own admission he never heard about Eckankar till very recently) While I have studied it for 27 + years. So to those experts such as my self who have been involved with the Eckankar works the article is grossly inadequate unless there just trying to bring in new converts and using it as an advertisement.

John974 (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith to a newbie, I have Warned John974, and pointed out WP:BRD as a future reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite and User:201.27.173.109 reported by User:Jonathanfu (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: The Silence of the Lambs (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 201.27.173.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12] I think this is the one before all the reverting

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]
• 5th revert: [17]
• 6th revert: [18]

There are >10 more reverts between the two of them, I just got tired of linking them.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to User:201.27.173.109: [19] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to User:TheOldJacobite: [20] I believe User:TheOldJacobite removed my warning, thinking I was a sock of the IP or something. I suggested with a dummy edit edit summary that they take the discussion to talk, but was summarily ignored

Comments:

There does seem to be some previous discussion whether or not the movie is a horror film, but not between these two editors. Jonathanfu (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

201.27.173.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be the sockpuppet of the de-facto banned user Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and he was already blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sjones23 is 100% correct. Please see this recent discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive241#Community_ban_proposal:_P.C3.A9_de_Chinelo where Pé ban was made de jure as well. MarnetteD | Talk 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Withdrawn, was unaware that 201.27.178.109 was a sock. Jonathanfu (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)}}}

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Zeeyanketu with me, User:Ashermadan (Result: Protected)

• Zeeyanketu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashermadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jab Tak Hai Jaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Zeeyanketu is having an edit war with me on the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page. He is deleting reviews that according to the Wikipedia guidelines are Reliable Sources. I do not know why. I told him to stop but he doesn't but keeps on reverting my edits. I have to revert his vandalism or whatever it is to add more to the article. I can't do this. He's reverted my edits more than 3 times I'm sure. I don't know why this user is obsessed and ignoring the RS guidelines. I don't understand what he's trying to say in English as it is weak. So please help me. At least help decide who's right. Ashermadan (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(Had to put it here because it kept on going into the comments section of the resolved complaint below)

I moved this new report to bottom of page after reformatting the one that was causing trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Page protected three days. Though the parties have begun a discussion at User talk:Ashermadan reverts have continued. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Fairlyoddparents1234

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

Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]

This user has removed ownership info on the station, as it is considered an O&O. But the user calls it an affiliate. I have even used a ref in the form of NBCU's 10-K AR, but he still goes on, saying it is for biz only. I can understand the info in the 10-K.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

User has previously been warned on edit warring...

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You have also been reverting to your preferred version in this article. Consider starting a discussion on the article talk page and waiting for other editors to build consensus, requesting input at related projects like WikiProject Television Stations, or posting at third opinion. Assuming the reverting stops, this case can be closed while alternative forms of dispute resolution are hopefully pursued.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Response

User:Fairlyoddparents1234 first posts Reminder section at my talk page like, I am some to be ordered around. I rename the section to a more appropriate title "Station Venture Operations" and explain my position. Fairlyoddparents1234 doesn't care to respond and slaps a Template:uw-delete1/Removal of content, blanking on KNSD and Template:uw-delete3/disruptive editing which is of course untrue as the content exist at the Station Venture Operations subarticle and I previous point out "Station Venture Operations" why. I even point out that he is not responding to the discussion perhaps do to the name change and move the notice up to the original topic. His sole reponse instead of discussion it to indicate that he is taking it here. Then litters my talk page with additional sections with a notice then does what he should have done second (since he failed to discuss the issue in the first place) third a uw-3rr warning then makes it out to a seperate issue with another section. So in no way did Fairlyoddparents1234 attempt to resolve the issue; all he did was to attack me.

Counter report

He also engaged in edit warring - ignoring my attempts to discussion or directs to were the discussion is taking place in my edit summaries:

1. 00:02, 13 November 2012
2. 22:17, 13 November 2012
3. 22:46, 13 November 2012

Spshu (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gilmario Rocha reported by 177.65.53.191 (Result: Declined)

Page: White Brazilian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gilmario Rocha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: that in which he placed Tom Cavalcante in the list of notables.

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

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

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

Comments:

2RR dude insistently adding completely non-notable Tom Cavalcante to the articles White Brazilian and Brazilian people. Early on he tried Michel Teló, what is less absurdical, but still impossible to include on "most prominent Brazilians of group/ethnicity X". I didn't take a closer look, maybe some of his various little edits include some helpful things. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. Putting aside the malformed report, you never warned the editor they were edit-warring and you never notified the editor of this report. That said, it looks like the editor has an English problem. All 33 of their contributions have been to article space, and all of them have non-English edit summaries. The editor hasn't reverted since yesterday, but their reverts have been sporadic. I've left an advisement on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand it, Bbb23, I had an English problem here too, from 2010 (comprehension) until June 2012 or so (communication). He was not being disruptive, I did this report because I wanted someone to take care of the novice as I'm afraid of undoing edits several times because the last time I did, I got a 24-hour block, what was pretty humiliating, since the guy with which I had a dispute - that got blocked too - was just some random n00b pushing his opinion, but people agreed with him because the topic in which I was working is waaaaaay obscure even in WP, so the discussion I tried to do after the mess, with the help of a nice admin, got immediately stale. I can't whine openly about it though, almost 2000 edits and two years here, people would see me as more childish than I think they already do right now. You probably don't remember as you handle tens of cases of things like this in a frequency close to everyday and it was about a month ago, but you commented on it. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:Collect (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]

• 1st revert: [27] 16:02 13 Nov et seq to 23:44 13 Nov (sequence of 10 edits last ones being within 16 hours of 6th revert listed))
• 2nd revert: [28] 02:10 14 Nov
• 3rd revert: [29] 06:44 14 Nov
• 4th revert: [30] 15:42 14 Nov
• 5th revert: [31] 16:47 14 Nov
• 6th revert: [32] 17:47 14 Nov

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] notice of 5RR and request to self-revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
This is far from his first edit war spree on the same article. He is notified of this discussion at [35] Collect (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Rhode Island Red

Anyone who takes a cursory look at this complaint will see that it is a poorly cobbled together collection of mostly unrelated edits, and a vindictive action by Collect, who is in the midst of ineptly fighting an editorial battle regarding the use of the term "attack ads" in the article (see Talk page) and is using this trumped up 3RR report to defend his own POV pushing and contentious edits. The issue is under discussion on the Talk page. I created the Talk thread today after Collect previously tried 2 times to remove the term, which was properly sourced, from the article[36][37] Prior to these 2 deletions, Collect made no attempt to address his concerns on the Talk as required by WP:BRD.

After opening up a Talk page thread to work out the issue,[38] I offered a compromise to stave off an edit war.[39][40] Collect rejected this compromise, insisting that the term should only be used in the article lead but not in the body text of the article, which made no sense because as per WP:LEAD the lead is only supposed to summarize the content that's in the body text of the article; it should not introduce new text that is not included in the body. I pointed this out, but this too fell on deaf ears and Collect reverted a third time.[41] As a willing participant in the discussion process, I then supplied more than ample evidence to support the inclusion of the content in question,[42] yet Collect's most recent comment on the Talk page, posted just after this 3RR complaint, shows that he is still refusing to get the point and instead still stubbornly insists that there is some sort of POV violation.[43]

This is nothing more than a content dispute (and a case of WP:TE/WP:DE on Collect's part) and there was no 3RR violation. When Collect doesn't get his way he either (a) plays WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, (b) edit wars, or (c) files retributive baseless 3RR reports like this one as a form of harassment/punishment. Every time he does this, it unnecessarily eats up time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere (like writing and editing articles), and it wouldn't be necessary if he simply chose to be a good faith participant on the Talk pages; but sadly, that's not the case. This is a chronic user conduct issue with Collect, who is involved with WP Project Conservatism and has a track record of POV pushing and whitewashing on articles of 'interest' to political conservatives. He colludes with 2 other members of Project Conservatism to obstruct/disrupt progress on the VanderSloot article and has been doing so for quite some time. His questionable conduct has been called out on WP Project Conservatism ("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")[44], and the project's raison d'etre has been repeatedly called into question for POV violation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion process works. It would be nice if Collect felt the same way and stopped trying to game the system.

Also, notice that Collect's so-called 3RR warning came several hours after my last edit (misleading) and that Collect's so-called attempts to resolve the issue were anything but. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My article overlap with the person you assert is in "collusion" with me is small considering my editing several thousand articles, with an emphasis on BLPs. And I would note you have been warned a few times about edit war in the past, and the fact is that 6RR is well past the bright line of 3RR in 24 hours. And again you imply that I have a connection with the conservatism Wikiproject -- and you have been told in the past that making such false claims is not really collegial. Nor is saying "tag-team" a collegial or civil way in which to proceed on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that both Rhode Island Red and Collect have reverted four times on 14 November:

• Rhode Island Red

6:44, 15:42, 16:47, 17:47

• Collect

00:11, 12:49, 16:30 and 17:15

I notice that this article keeps coming up here at AN3. If blocks are justifiable due to the current war, it ought to be considered as a viable option since otherwise disputes on this article will become a permanent feature of this board. I wonder if anyone sees another way to address the long-term problem with this article. The last two AN3 reports were here and here. It is a concern that both of the above reports are mostly ad hominem and challenge the good faith of the other party. An RfC is one option and I wonder if the two parties would agree to stop reverting until an RfC gives a result. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I have long felt that a comprehensive user conduct RfC would be the way to go, given the lack of cooperation on the article. I think it's the only way to achieve long-term stability. I had hoped that it wouldn't be necessary because the situation is complex and would require detailed explanations with lots of diff edits, and that's a major time suck -- time lost that could be better spent actually writing articles. But if that's what it comes down to, I'm totally willing to participate. If you were referring to a content-related RfC, then of course, yes, totally willing to participate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, one of my edits above was restoring the term in one place the body text of the article because the term was included in the lead, and WP:LEAD dictates that it would be illogical to include it in the lead but not the body text. I explained it on talk and figured the edit was so straightforward that there couldn't possibly be any objection. Apparently, the assumption was incorrect, because Collect reverted for reasons that are still a complete mystery. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice you let the last report go stale. (Which you didn't include above, oddly.) And here we are yet again. Care to take action? Arkon (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the reverts you count against me was a clear attempt at a compromise, and one was removal of a word ("touts") which on its face pushed WP:BLP concerns. Meanwhile, I waited until RIR hit am absolutely clear 6RR - which seems difficult to excuse so lightly. Unless, of course, you find that seeking a compromise is evil, of course. <g>. Generally seeking a compromise should be thought a reasonable thing to do, I would trust. RIR's belligerence here is shown by his "discussion" comment:

There is absolutely nothing in WP:NPOV that supports the POV you are pushing -- zero. There is no POV violation here and merely shouting "NPOV" over and over again is not an argument, it's just obnoxious. Your misinterpretations of policy in support of such contentious claims on your part is disruptive and highly inappropriate. You're also being rigid and inflexible even when an overly generous compromise was offered (post by RIR)

which I suggest shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is not shown by my clear compromise suggestion. Collect (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I also note RIR has FIVE clear reverts on 14 November,, and one on 13 November all in 16 hours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And that I earnestly have been trying to discuss the topic - while RIR keeps accusing me of "tag teaming" and "collusion" which I thunk is not very collegial in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC started per suggestion. Collect (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And now the second part of Ed's question. Will you (Collect) and RIR agree to stop reverting until the RfC is complete?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I shall respect the RfC - and would note that I have assiduously tried to reach compromise here. Collect (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. The editorial issue seems to have been resolved already anyway. I invite (implore) you to read the Talk page discussion on this issue[45] and the subsequent comments that were generated from the RfC[46], and to judge for yourselves where the problem lies and whether Collect assiduously (with emphasis) tried to reach a compromise. I think WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will be obvious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've been pleading to get more objective eyes on the article because it would put a stop to the tag tag teaming, POV pushing, and tendentious editing that's been taking place. So if you both kept on eye on it for a while it would be very helpful and greatly appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ceco31 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ceco31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

• Initial edit: [48] 7 November
• 1st revert: [49] 9 November
• 2nd revert: [50] 9 November
• 3rd revert: [51] 9 November
• 4th revert: [52] 13 November
• 5th revert: [53] 13 November
• 6th revert: [54] 13 November
• 7th revert: [55] 14 November
• 8th revert: [56] 15 November

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:
The latest series of near-identical tries to push in certain edits consists of two things, as far as I can tell, removing information about the Roma and replacing it with some census figures, and changing some images. The Roma dispute is new to these edits, but the image changes are a repeat of a previous incident. The diff of attempt to resolve dispute above is a post User:Tourbillon made on the talkpage about images, which has up till now had absolutely no response. Ceco31 has already been blocked for edit warring on this twice article before, so they should really know better. CMD (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Not a 3RR breach but a consistent slow war with a tendentious attitude. As an aside, the editor has only been blocked once before for edit-warring (I didn't check to see which article).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)