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

Languages of Pakistan reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Semi)

Page: Languages of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit warring (& possible sock puppetry) to add extraneous detail to a summary article. — kwami (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There was indeed sockpuppetry, all socks of LanguageXpert currently blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected for three months by User:Salvio giuliano. The sock case is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive though no IPs are currently blocked under that. If LanguageXpert continues to evade his block it is possible that more Pakistan language articles may need to be semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:History2007 reported by User:207.112.105.233 (Result: Semi)

• Page: Lost years of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: History2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This most simple report I can imagine (the template is very confusing and time consuming) I repot on user: History2007. Please read section : "IP WP:OR" on Talk Page of the article "Lost years of Jesus". My attempt was to introduce better information on base of present and official statements and discoveries. Finally I just proposed to remove the old over 30 decades reference or recognize how the favorable professors of History2007 counted the 15-18 year gap in 1989 and/or in 1999. I do not think his actions were OK. Please pass the report to appropriated spot for fix up. I will look for note from you in section: "IP WP:OR" Talk Page of the article "Lost years of Jesus" --207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A content issue, no edit war, does not pertain to this board. IP has talked to multiple users on article talk, has no support and no sources. I will not respond further here, will be a waste of time. Final comment from me here. History2007 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:207.112.105.233, User:65.95.176.24 and User:205.189.94.11 keep pushing the same point of view, despite a prolonged discussion on the Talk Page. Probably the same editor. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The issues seems to have been raised on my talk page by the IP after I rejected one of their edits. Oddbodz (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article semiprotected two months. When three IPs are being operated by the same person to conduct an edit war this violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Joshua Jonathan - With or without an appropriate block for IP? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment #2 by Joshua Jonathan - In total it's five IP's whic are being used: 70.28.64.86 65.95.176.24 207.112.105.233 205.189.94.13 205.189.94.11. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What an amazing waste of time after all. It was the indef user:Serafin anyway. History2007 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:67.170.192.66 (Result: No violation)

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

The reverts are simply restores of the same uncited (since July!), dubious content, with aggressive edit summaries:

"Furthermore, the speed at which it can be decoded makes it useful for limited-power devices such as [[iOS]] devices.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}"

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: [diff] Only two, but see comment.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, shows editor doesn't care about verifiability - a SHORT discussion too.

Comments:

The diff immediately above shows another agrees that it's uncited, dubious info and doesn't belong. And suggests it's puffery.

Jimthing's edit summary : "user don't remove info without knowing facts" makes it clear that there's no intention of cooperating. --67.170.192.66 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The edits in question are from September 12 and January 7, there's no edit warring issue here, but I'll leave him a note. Ryan Vesey 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. (I think Jim's edit summaries match the definition of "the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." to a T, which is why I posted here. Along with the discussion, it all shows editor doesn't care about verifiability, etc.) --67.170.192.66 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Ryan Vesay's comment, this is absolutely nothing like an "edit war" being MONTHS apart! So your limited WP site experience (what, less than 20 edits in circa 6 months) does not fair you well here at all. I have added a citation from a professional source which you could have found yourself in 2 minutes searching, rather than wasting time bringing such a trivial case here. The only reason I didn't bother before was because unlike you —given your non-extensive edit record— I was actually likely very busy editing other more important WP articles in a more extensive manner. This needs closing accordingly, asap. Jimthing (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. The above report only shows two reverts. In any case Jimthing has now added a source for the disputed statement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hans Haase reported by User:Rtc (Result: Protected)

Page: Gustl Mollath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hans Haase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gustl_Mollath#POV_additions

Comments:

User:Hans Haase is the main author of the respective article in German wikipedia. He is known to be heavily biased on the subject. He violates content policy and abuses Wikipedia to push POV on this matter, ignoring any arguments by other users and ignoring policy even after being pointed to several times. He already caused several edit wars over the past weeks on the German Wikipedia article, so this most recent one cannot be seen as an accident anymore. --rtc (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I looked that article over and removed unsourced content and content sourced to primary sources and a blog. Hans Haase reverted it all back in , the diff is the 5th revert given above. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am the contributor of the German article, right. I am contributing content. We have some lobbyism or involved editors who do not contribute, but just delete. I appers some persons would like to have the case away from the wikipedia. See the German's articles talk (Diskussion). Also editor have been asked by others if they are involved. When I ask a question up to four times and got no adequate answer, but personal (attacs) talk meaning I am wrong. We see what is really going on. --Hans Haase (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I did not refer on blogs. This was a talk in the German article. Other users linked to "Gabriele Wolf", a former general attorney who wrote about the case. But now I got blamed to do so. I never did! I just was asking why Gabriele Wolf's webpage still provides the same information while using a blog content management. I would be also wrong to say discount offers the best price always. --Hans Haase (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Your manifold justifications are completely irrelevant. You violated and continue to violate policies, including WP:3RR. This is the only matter of significance here. --rtc (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Result: Article protected three days. Please use this time to find a compromise. The alternative to protection would have been edit warring blocks for both User:Rtc and User:Hans Haase. I don't see any obvious BLP violations in the material added by either side, so I don't see that anybody's reverts are exempt from 3RR. If you have questions about usability of sources, consider WP:RS/N. Bear in mind that, when the situation is rapidly evolving in the media, the best plan may be a short article that documents only the stable facts that are very widely known. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to set some things right: Material has been added by User:Hans Haase only, not by me. I attempted to remove some of it -- with the intention that "the best plan may be a short article that documents only the stable facts that are very widely known". But that is exactly the problem. If you try to do that, you end up in an edit war with User:Hans Haase, not only here, not only me, but several times with other users in German Wikipedia. His editing approach is one of pushing his own, biased opinion on the topic into the article, ignoring any arguments by others. He incorrectly assumes that this is justified if he cites primary sources that "prove" his points. Admittedly, this material was not in violation of BLP, but it was in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. --rtc (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There will be no compromise found , because it is not wanted. We all do know who stands behind user Rtc. The sources User:" Hans Haase" has used, where sources from governmental paid television called SWR [[8]]. The danger lies within the people who only do report half truth.--87.156.91.132 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cornelius383 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: 24h)

Page: Ananda Sutram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cornelius383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]
• 5th revert: [14]

(Collectively they span slightly over 24h; only 4 reverts within any 24h period, strictly speaking)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning after the second revert; warning after fourth revert; warning after fourth revert. A fifth revert followed a few hours later.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ananda Sutram, User talk:Cornelius383#Policies.

Comments:
There have also been recent discussions about edit-warring on a couple of other related articles - I want to emphasise that Cornelius383 was NOT reverting there (though there have been other concerns), but was involved in the discussion so the three-revert rule can hardly be a surprise... bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring at Ananda Sutram. User:Cornelius383 has insisted on retaining a version of the article holding more than 16,000 bytes of unsourced material, and has reverted this version back into place five times. The user has persisted in the face of reasonable explanations of policy provided by other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Raptor232 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Indef)

Page: Dhives Akuru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raptor232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]

Comments:This may not be the only account involved. There are striking similarities between edits from this account and User:AtefAadd, which was blocked back in December for similar edit warring. That editor's edits are also almost identical [20] to this editor's edit warring. The other edits from Raptor232 of late appear to be related to this "issue", see [21], [22], [23], and [24]. None of them are sourced, or even remotely explained. I don't have any background or knowledge of the underlying merits, but it seems quite clear the editor's in violation of edit warring on the particular article, and probably is part of a broader pattern. Their response on the talk page is particularly ironic since there's no talk page discussion that I saw on the subject. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I took a look at both users contributions and have filed an SPI here Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Raptor232‎ already indeffed as is his sockpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - Indef to Raptor232 by User:Lectonar for 'personal attacks with racist undertones'; AtefAadd is blocked indef as his sock. Thanks to Darkness Shines for filing the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Shinatuah reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 31h)

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

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

Time reported: 10:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Naturopathy

1. 09:23, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "")
2. 10:23, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Removed vague and clearly biased statements.")
3. 10:26, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Fixed vague and highly biased statements.")
4. 10:28, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Fixed vague and highly biased statements.")
5. 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Fixed statements that were vague, emotional, and clearly biased. Wikipedia is not the place for bashing on somethingnyou don't like, it's to deliver the facts without bias.")

Homeopathy

1. 09:49, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "")
2. 10:05, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Explanations of perceived effects */")
3. 10:09, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "")
4. 10:18, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Vague and biased statements, also untrustworthy sources")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: Past 3rr already, and still going. Account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of edit warring to remove large swaths of reliably sourced content.   — Jess· Δ♥ 10:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been more reverts since. I'm not going to bother adding them to the report, since he's already past 3rr. Check his contrib history for a fairly clear picture.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kleinsma80 reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Warned)

• Pages in dispute:

• Rotterdam Blitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kampfgeschwader 54 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Battle for The Hague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wolfgang Völz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• User being reported: Kleinsma80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is impossible to negotiate with. I've asked for cooperation on his talk page and he responded by deleting it. I guess, its a sign of their intentions. On the Rotterdam Blitz article and Kampfgeschwader 54 he has continually reverted and launched attacks against myself and other users. He has violated WP:3RR and WP:Civil. Dapi89 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Battle of the Hague. He has reverted me, accussed me of tampering with a source. Yet it was me that added the source originally and was correcting "Pyrrhic Dutch victory", changed by an IP, back to "Pyrrhic German victory", as it is in Hooton 2010. Dapi89 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are pusher of a weird form of pseudo-German POV. I have seen your edits and you continually lurk around articles to do with WWII battles involving Germany. Where you seem very fond of adding things such as '(Decisive) German Victory' or making seemingly small changes in words such as changing (objective) 'bombings' to (daring) 'raids'. You ought to know that can (and will) eventually bring you into conflict with others. As what might be a glorious decisive and overwhelming German victory in your eyes is an unprovoked national tragedy for others. War is not a game. War is war, and it is not the scoreboard of a football match. Kleinsma80 (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Addition: Someone with your record of edit-warring and incivility should not be so eager to accuse others!Kleinsma80 (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What a load of garbage. Stop lecturing others on articles you don't understand. You're tone, willingness to fight, threatening behaviour (on wikipedia which is supposed to be collaborative not competitive) will earn you nothing but contempt to others and may lead to you being kicked off wikipedia altogether. You have systematically reverted everything, regardless of it being sourced. You've done nothing but leave a trail of edit wars behind you.

I'm established. My contributions speak for themselves. No editor will be persuaded by this torrent of nonsense which demonstrates only your pursuit of you're own POV, lack of knowledge, and desire to fight against an imaginary 'pro-German' lobby. Dapi89 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions indeed speak for themselves. I have systematically reverted your trickling with sources, your offensive euphemisms, and German '40 POV (not a pro-German lobby, as real German scholars do not have the POV you display!). I will continue to do that as long as this behavior continues as should everyone who wants a non-biased Wikipedia. The only thing you've done above here is show your true colors. Who's lecturing? Who's being denigrating? Who's accusing? You are. Kleinsma80 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of you knock off the bullsh*t, it's unproductive and childish, and I do not care who started it, I WILL end it if I have to. Admins, I have left messages for both users encourage a diplomatic approach to the problem, and I have watchlisted the page. At the moment there is no official grounds for sanctions, but I am keeping tabs on the article in question and if it comes to it I will protect the page and/or block the editor(s) for edit waring. For now, though, I would prefer to take a wait and see approach so as not to borrow trouble. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I added Wolfgang Völz to the disputed articles, please pay a special attention to the attack edit comments by this user. Indeed this user is immune to discussions/suggestions from other users and keeps his POV-pushing, see today's edits in Battle for The Hague. --Denniss (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the new article as well. I see a limited attempt to add sourced material to the Battle for the Hague article, but the material is not in english and I can not read german, so I can not say for sure if the information is from a reliable source. I'm also seeing some attempt at dialogue on that talk page. I think at the moment if the edit waring picks up again tomorrow the best thing to do will be to protect the pages for a while and see if the attempted dialogue doesn't firm up. If that does not happen then the next move will be to start blocking editor(s) for disruptive behavior. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:138.88.60.165 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: )

Page: Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 138.88.60.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]
• 5th revert: [29]
• 6th revert: [30]
• 7th revert: [31]
• 8th revert: [32]
• 9th revert: [33]
• 10th revert: [34]
• 11th revert: [35]
• 12th revert: [36]
• 13th revert: [37]
• 14th revert: [38]

(It is a slow edit war, but certainly looking un-endable.)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40], [41], [42].

Comments:

• This IP user, who is clearly actually an experienced user, protests that this is actually a sourcing policy based edit war, and so I brought this case to WP:RSN.[43] The editor has completely ignored the consensus there.
• I have obviously also down quite a few reverts! But I have also trying new wordings many times, and the aggressive/punitive style of reactions made to those, is worth noting: [44], [45], [46]

This is a scientific article that requires us to adhere to relevant scientific publications as close as possible, all my arguments, which in my opinion are closest to said publications, can be found in the talk page discussions that you have linked to above, so I see no need of repeating them here again. As it stands now however, we seem to be in an agreement on the lead, that is off-course if you do not decide to change the content again.138.88.60.165 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this must surely be User:Muntuwandi. In any case it is interesting that since this case has been posted here, this editor has announced on the talk page, and now here, that they think a compromise has been reached: "the northern part of East Africa" is to be used instead of the "Horn of Africa"! I think this obviously fudged wording is not going to last the next time someone else who speaks English looks at the article, but this also proves that this editor has some axe to grind about the term Horn of Africa, and is not really concerned with anything else. This is all "edit warring" behaviour, and not how we should edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The compromise doesn't really have anything to do with you bringing the thread here, although you are welcome to think that, rather it is the fact that you decided to accept all the reasonable criteria I have asked for (a)Substructure information (b) Same terminology as what is found in scientific publications (c) Substructure based frequency information (d)no terminology that conflicts with area of origin. The 'Northern part of East Africa' statement does not contradict what is in the literature and is also consistent with what is displayed for area of origin.138.88.60.165 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is clearly not in a form which is ever going to be a stable compromise, so it is just between reverts. This is because you have in fact never had a consistent rationale. Your sourcing claim, which you developed after first intervening with other arguments[47], was unanimously rejected at WP:RSN. The only thing that is consistent is you want to remove mention of the Horn of Africa, which is a clear English term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

After a 35 hour hiatus, Andrew Lancaster has decided to restart the edit war [48] by removing the compromise he had offered himself and re-inserting back into the lead the same terminology that had led to the contention to begin with. As this is the second time [49] he has gone back on his own edits that were seemingly leading to a compromise, it seems as though he rather favors a more protracted war than a quicker resolution. I have now gone back to the exact same terminology as used by the geneticists and all other public sources.

On a related but separate note, he is now also rejecting scientific sources [50] that have been co-signed by the same major authority of the topic of discussion (Fulvio Cruciani), in addition to other scientists that are also authorities in the field, with the excuse “the link is not to a real source or any mention of V6”, the latter part of the excuse is even more baffling as it is blatantly false, given that the frequency of E-V6 in the samples are clearly tabulated in Table 1 of the article, along with the phylogenetic tree in Fig.4.138.88.60.165 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:0oToddo0 reported by User:Astynax (Result: Stale )

Page: Two by Twos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 0oToddo0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]
• 6th revert: [57]
• 7th revert: [58]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:

This user has previously engaged in drive-by tagging/defacing on this article and in the past has refused to accept references or consensus.

• Stale but feel free to hit up my talk page if he re-adds that tag again. I have warned him that a block will follow. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 08:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Paulduffill reported by User:Shrike (Result: Declined)

Page: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paulduffill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 12:36, 16 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 532848445 by Soosim (talk) See explanation in talk")
2. 13:47, 16 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 533364255 by Soosim (talk) I have just completed the talk entry. Please read and respond in talk.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Comments:
The article belong to WP:ARBPIA and its under 1RR.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Note. The editor has apologized on the article talk page for the "lapse" and would have self-reverted but someone else reverted him. I've formally notified the editor of the sanctions. I think that's enough unless there's another similar incident.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: )

Page: Governor-General of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 17 January 2013

• 1st revert: 02:09, 17 January 2013
• 2nd revert: 02:20, 17 January 2013

Previous version reverted to: 04:09, 17 January 2013

• 3rd revert: 06:12, 17 January 2013
• 4th revert: 06:35, 17 January 2013
• 5th revert: 06:38, 17 January 2013
• 6th revert: 06:48, 17 January 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:20, 17 January 2013 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 06:42, 17 January 2013

Comments:
Miesianiacal is being extremely generous in his counts here. A look at the diffs shows that different things are being changed, with the latter edits focussed on restoring sources which Miesianiacal has repeatedly removed, despite being invited to discuss his Bold edits.[63] The earlier reverts are simply inserts of a "citation needed" template to cover unsourced. Discussion ensued on the talk page, various changes were made and both sources and wording agreed upon. User:GoodDay could do with some reminding of our WP:RS policy. If a cite is requested it should be supplied. --Pete (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "Undoing other editors—...whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

I stated I did not mean to remove the reference and restored it myself. That is incidental, however, as each time you restored the reference and on more occasions than those, you also reverted to your preferred wording. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Our articles need to be reliably sourced. The removal of sources constitutes vandalism. In this case, the source was one Miesianiacal and I had discussed at some length here. Its relevance to the topic, being the directly specific remarks of Australia's longest serving Chief Justice of the High Court, is crucial. Repeatedly removing it is wilful vandalism. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake? I let myself be distracted by a tendentious editor. Luckily, I jumped out after 2-reverts. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your mistake was in not pausing to think about whether you should repeatedly remove "citation required" templates from two different articles. I don't know what you were thinking, but if unsourced material is identified, it must be sourced, either by supplying a source or pointing out where the source lies in some other part of the article. You don't fix the problem by removing the template - that merely leaves unsourced content buried in the article! If an edit of yours is reverted - especially by a longstanding editor - then instead of allowing the red mist of rage to direct your actions, you should check with one or all of the three mentors whom you have accepted for that very purpose. I made a comment to that effect on your talk page, which you removed a few seconds later. --Pete (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

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

• 1st revert: [64], 16 Jan 20:56
• 2nd revert: [65], 17 Jan 03:05
• 3rd revert: [66], 17 Jan 05:03
• 4th revert: [67], 17 Jan 11:18

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] -- a diff that shows GeorgeLouis giving a warning to another editor, thus awareness of the need to comply with 3RR is readily apparent.

Comments:
George appears to think he is being attacked in the comment he is repeatedly removing. He's not, and WP:TPO makes it clear that editors should not remove other editors' comments particularly if there are objections: "This [right to remove others' comments] generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil".

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Nomo is acting in WP:Good faith, but please note Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. And see also "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence," which is also at WP:Good faith. A Talk Page is for improving the article, not for badgering editors. If Nomo has a better way of keeping the Talk Page conversation on track without insulting others, I would be happy to oblige. Perhaps he or she would accept the collapsing of this off-topic gibe instead of deleting it? GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles. "Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way." GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not off-topic, and it doesn't appear to be misrepresenting your views. However, may I suggest that RIR redact "whitewash", and replace "campaigning for" with a more neutral phrase, such as "working toward". That would make it more clearly talking about the edits, rather than the editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:0oToddo0 reported by User:Astynax (Result: )

Page: Two by Twos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 0oToddo0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]
• 5th revert: [74]
• 6th revert: [75]
• 7th revert: [76]
• 8th revert: [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78] [79] [80] [81]

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

Comments:
The previous warning had no effect.

User:Norden1990 reported by User:Omen1229 (Result: )

• Page: János Scheffler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reverts:

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86]
• 5th revert: [87]