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 98.193.225.142 (Result: Malformed}}

In the course of attempting to remove an item that apparently contains invalid citations on the entry page 'Jim O'Rear' my edits have been continually undone by editor 98.193.225.142 who deletes these valid edits and accuses me of "vandalism" each and every time. I posted two entries in the talk page that were deleted by another editor, one rightly so, but the other, which I have since restored is factually based and indicates why neither credit appears to be a "reliable source" as both are privately printed books that are either co-authored by the subject entry, or feature an interview with the subject entry where he simply repeats his own claims of being in the film in question, despite no other evidence of his purported involvement would appears to exist. The editor has also re-worded my own talk page entry and altered it, instead of responding to it. My attempts to resolve this issue where met with rambling accusations and are written diatribe describing what he considers to be his definition of "vandalism" including rather wild accusations. This subject of this page is a minor film figure of very questionable notability who cites many "uncredited" roles and stunt work in major motion pictures, but almost always cites questionable citations which in the past have included consumer reviews from sites like Amazon and Barnes & Noble as well as IMDB (in which anyone can add a film credit) It would appear that this page may possibly be a vanity page which is either written by the author himself, or somebody who has a close relationship with the subject. The page appears to be hyper vigilantly "guarded" by the primary editor with any edits that contradict what that editor wishes to be true quickly deleted as "vandalism". I would appreciate expedient attention to this matter. Thank you (Sellpink (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC))

Response to SELLPINKs claims...

User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Sellpink reported by User:98.193.225.142 (Result: IP 98.193.225.142 instructed)

Page: Jim O'Rear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User Being Reported Sellpink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=557546403&oldid=556857958
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=557914651&oldid=557678083
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=prev&oldid=557546403
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_O%27Rear&diff=prev&oldid=557548364

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sellpink

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim O'Rear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.193.225.142

Comments:User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan.

98.193.225.142 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Actually, Sellpink made only two reverts on this article and has engaged in a talk page debate. It seems rather that the IP has been heavily edit warring in this case, e.g. by repeatedly reverting ([1], [2]) a valid copyedit. Instead of reverting even more contributors you should have waited for consensus on the article talk page. Currently the edit warring seems to have stopped and this edit by Collect has been confirmed by several other editors. But if this continues, the article will be semi-protected. On a side-note, posting your paragraphs twice as you did above or here is confusing and unnecessary. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: Protected)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3] removed fact Rothbard has an MBA from Columbia
2. [4] removed new material as unsourced WP:OR when kept other material from same source; didn't ask for quote to verify;
3. [5] removed new material;([6] also removed fact Rothbard founded Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics)
4. [7] In info box changed economic history to Historical revisionism (probably beginning of attempt to introduce negative WP:OR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]. (He asked a question I replied to 10 minutes later, but given below I think that was fair warning.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Problems_with_6.2F1.2F13_edits is whole thing started last night, latest change after no reply and diff on another related issue

Comments:
As a PhD economist of some competing Austrian economics school, User:Specifico already has expressed contempt for Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises-related economists (as well as editors who he perceives as defending them) as at April 20 diff, April 21 diff,May 28 diff.

S/he is attempting to remove material with high quality sources describing Rothbard as a Misean who influence libertarianism, and material showing his academic and editorial credentials. S/he and another editor have twice removed Austrian school from the Infobox even though the fact he is an Austrian economist has four high quality refs in first sentence of lead, and more easily can be found. They replaced it with Anarcho-capitalism, even though there is no such economic school, and s/he uses refs that only say he influenced that ideology. When I pointed this out in the most recent talk page thread s/he ignored it, but opined in a separate one that the Economist infobox should be replaced with a general one. Yes, the article has far too many primary sources that need deletion and I'm helping clean that up, but it's getting frustrating having to explain real problems on the talk page, have to tag them to get their attention, and just be ignored while lots of questionable changes get introduced. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment – We are provided 4 diffs, dealing with different portions of the article, and at least 2 of them are well founded edits. Item 1 (diff 38), both degrees are in economics, but clearly a PhD is better than an MBA, so no need to list both -- Rothbard's creds as an economist are established. Item 2 (diff 39) removed clearly non-sourced info. (Perhaps there is more stuff that should be removed? SPECIFICO selected that one -- so what?) So, with 2 diff remaining, that editors may have a more basic difference of opinion on, where is the warring, what violations of 3RR are there? – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment The 3rr rule is that one should not revert to a preferred version more than 3 times within an 24 hours – not one should not edit more than 3 times within 24 hours. The 4 edits listed does not revert back to a 'preferred version' that was previously introduced or supported by SPECIFICO. From the edit history, it appears that Carolmoore is the one who has been reverting to a preferred version. This complaint is baseless, I suggest that someone explain to Carolmoore the difference between editing and reverting. LK (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The time period in question of what is a revert has never been established firmly (unless I've missed something in the last year), as I know from past discussions trying to clarify the matter. (I just noted two as new material since that also is relevant.) So just in case I tried to establish the larger context of POV pushing to remove material that makes the subject look good and put in material that makes him look bad and refuse to discuss on the talk page despite editing the article after talk page notes made. I know from past experience that LK doesn't think much of Miseans either; SRich may be annoyed at me for other reasons as an involved editor in ongoing problems at a series of articles. But if I've misinterpreted current policy as interpreted by non-involved, neutral editors, I do apologize. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Given OP's intensely critical comments to SPECIFICO on talk pages and the prior (erroneous and rejected) ANI complaint filed by OP against SPECIFICO, I fear that WP:Battleground may be in play here, particularly because the charges are (again) erroneous. Steeletrap (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article protected 48 hours. Both Carol and SPECIFICO appear to be editing on a topic where they have strongly-held personal convictions. Carol observes on talk that she herself is mentioned in one of the references. She is described as a left-libertarian activist who opposed Rothbard at some Libertarian conventions in the 1980s. SPECIFICO identifies himself as an Austrian economist. When you care about a subject it may be difficult to achieve neutral prose. I suggest that the editors use a Request for comment or some other method to bring in outside people who might help balance the article. The WP:RSN is something else to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ed. With all due respect, your comment above appears to affirm carolmooredc's ad hominem complaint against me in this matter. I am an Austrian economist, but aside from carolmooredc's undocumented personal ruminations and allegations, there is no evidence that I have edited Rothbard against policy. On an ANI or other complaint I'd hope that the issue would be stated and documented in terms of specific behavior and policy with diffs or other documentation. This is one of a series of escalating personal attacks that carolmooredc has brought against me and others recently. I've already stopped editing the Hoppe article because of them and I will now stop working on Rothbard. If you check the history of Rothbard, you'll see that carolmooredc had 4RR over the same period she cites, and unlike me, she did edit war back to her preferred content. I'm gone from that article, but other editors will continue to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

After my first set of edits where I did some reverts I was careful and just added material or tagged material that the editor was ignoring on talk while continuing to edit on the article. Always glad to undo any accidental 4th revert. Also commented on all the templates you put up on the article, which were either valid or needed future discussion, so did not ignore yours. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Carol, these past couple of weeks, you've been way too eager in reporting people to ANI and AN3. It appears that you have become emotionally involved. May I suggest that you take this article freeze as an opportunity to step back? Above you show some confusion about what constitutes a revert. The WP:3RR policy is pretty clear: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." I revert when this sequence of action occurs: 'You change something, I undo the change.' That's why there's a "Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]" line in the 3RR report. It's pretty clear that Specifico was not reverting in some of the diffs you posted. You should understand the difference between an edit I don't like and a revert. Lastly, it doesn't help your case to accuse others of bearing a grudge against you, as you did above, all that shows is that you've adopted a battleground mentality. At this point it's probably best to step back, relax, and take a break. Remember, nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, you can work on getting it right next week just as easily as you can today. rgds LK (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

LK: I think a lot of editors get annoyed at behaviors described above and go to noticeboards about them, mentioning expressions of POV. (All sorts of editorial comment removed or withheld.)

However, more importantly, I decided to search back through Editwarring talk page and found the quote that has stuck in my mind (and now is copied to my harddrive):

At this diff EdJohnston 20:52, 15 November 2011 wrote:

The current policy says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." It is left up to the closing admin as to how far back to go when judging whether something is a revert. If you impose a 24-hour limit on the definition of a revert, then someone could revert at exactly at the same time every day and never be blamed for revert warring. This would be nonsensical. Since the July dispute between Carolmooredc and Goodwinsands was never reported at WP:AE it is hard to know what the verdict would have been. Actual AE closures sometimes take into account the apparent intentions of the parties.

I don't see that policy has become more explicit one way or the other since than, unless I missed something. If admins disagree on this policy, they should have a conference, make a decision and change the policy accordingly so that we mere users will know. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Tieff reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: Warned)

Pages: Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suicide of Audrie Pott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tieff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is edit warring on two articles to insert content sourced to an unreliable source listed at Wikipedia:ELPEREN. Noticeboard thread: Wikipedia:RSN#findagrave.com_redux.

Multiple warnings issued to user, who has not responded to any of the messages on his or her talk page or participated in the discussion at article talk.

Diffs of the user's repeated edits at Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons (6 in <48 hrs.:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]
6. [14]

Talk page discussion is here: Talk:Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons#Date_of_birth_revisited.2C_and_sourcing

Diffs of the user's repeated edits at Suicide of Audrie Pott (4 in <48 hrs.):

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

User warned about edit warring: [19]

Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have these articles on my watch list and have reverted Tieff's edits twice now, leaving warnings and comment. They are edits that appear trivial but are against consensus, against the spirit of WP:SUICIDES, and against multiple discussions. Date of birth is discussed specifically not only in the editor's talk page but on Talk:Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons#date_of_birth, as is the so called source. I'm starting to see the initial stages of WP:RANDY, so far without the support squad. What we have so far is relentless editing against consensus. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Further comment by filing editor. Although the user appears to have made no edits since this report was filed, I believe that allowing it to go stale would be a mistake. Since the user has shown no sign of willingness to acknowledge being warned (even to refute the warning), let alone discuss the matter, it isn't improbable that they will resume edit warring and this will wind up at ANI. This is is really a rather clear-cut case of edit warring; on the first article listed above, 3RR was even exceeded. And it's not a run-of-the-mill content dispute at all; rather, it's at least three established editors trying their best to enforce a core policy in the face of a new editor who is completely disregarding policy. If something about the format of this report is causing difficulty or delay, I'd appreciate knowing so that I can fix it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Warned. I've left a formal warning on Tieff's talk page that if they revert again on either article, they may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ccroberts123 reported by User:Frungi (Result: 24h)

Page: Mattel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ccroberts123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] (edit: I missed this line before. I did leave the warning, though, after posting here, and he has since been blocked. —Frungi (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire edit history of User talk:Ccroberts123 as of [25].

Comments:

Blocked - 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:OrangesRyellow (Result: Full protection for 24 hours )

Page: Anjem Choudary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]

The edit warring involves two different sets of data. The first two reverts are to edits by a third user, and the last three are to my additions of sourced content in the lead. All within 24h. I have placed a warning template on the user's talkpage just now. The last revert is a partial revert in the sense that may edit in the lead has been reverted, but the material which I added in the article body has been moved to another place in the article body and many of the sources have been deleted. I count it as a revert because I think the material should remain in the lead too, and the current placement in the article body is inappropriate. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Anjem Choudary#Pakistani ethnicity

Comments:

• Page protected Full protection for 24 hours. Discuss this on the talk page, please. Bencherlite^Talk 10:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KAME 1971b reported by User:1966batfan (Result: Indef)

Page

April 30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

KAME 1971b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-03T15:11:41Z "Undid revision 558139432 by Technopat (talk)"
2. 2013-06-03T15:11:05Z "Undid revision 558139347 by Technopat (talk)"
3. 2013-06-03T15:10:32Z "Undid revision 558139281 by 1966batfan (talk)"
4. 2013-06-03T15:10:06Z "Undid revision 558139216 by Amaury (talk)"
5. 2013-06-03T15:08:29Z "Undid revision 558138994 by 1966batfan (talk)"
6. 2013-06-03T15:07:36Z "Undid revision 558138854 by 1966batfan (talk)"
7. 2013-06-03T15:06:57Z "Undid revision 558138777 by 1966batfan (talk)"
8. 2013-06-03T15:06:09Z "Undid revision 558138567 by 1966batfan (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-03T15:07:56Z "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on April 30. (TW)"
2. 2013-06-03T15:06:01Z "Caution: Unconstructive editing on April 30. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely as a VOA. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:77.56.43.218 reported by User:Mangoe (Result: Semi)

Page: Legendary creature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.56.43.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]

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

There is a long discussion of how God got to be not a legendary creature at Talk:Legendary creature#Mythical creatures such as deities, i.e. gods & God

Comments: IP user has come in pretty much once a day, as their only activity, to re-add "God", without discussion. Page protection was refused, so here we are. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week by another admin. This article gets a lot of drive-by edits from people new to Wikipedia. These edits usually end up being reverted. So a longer semiprotection would be something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KARGOSEARCH2 reported by User:Delljvc (Result: Warned)

Page: Lingam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KARGOSEARCH2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]
6. [46]
7. [47]

Edit warring Delljvc (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: KARGOSEARCH2 is warned. The above list of diffs is wrong. Some of those edits are by others, and some are consecutive. Only three reverts by KARGOSEARCH2 in total, and none within the last 24 hours. But if KARGOSEARCH2 continues to revert the article without joining in discussions they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:PhunderMerwe reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: edit warring has ceased)

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

This is mostly a content dispute, although a new editor is pushing the same incorrect change with such frequency that it has passed 3RR already. An already poor article is having an unreferenced block of incorrect information added to it. The latest block is still there (and still misleading), but I'm at 3RR.

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]

Note first that this is HTML element, not HTML. HTML could be considered as an "introductory" article where some flexibility in terminology might be considered useful to make it more approachable to a wide audience. However this is HTML element: the narrow, specific topic that is of particular interest and of a need to be exact and precise in its description.

Specific problems:

• Elements are not tags. This is not merely a misnomer, they represent different objects. This is the article in which this difference has to be explained precisely and correctly.
• Elements are not "text level elements". Some elements are related to text, others are not. This term is not merely a neologism, it's an invention, and an inaccurate one.
• (Most importantly) "element is a code declaration that contains instructions for formatting or rendering content online." is quite wrong for HTML in the last decade and a half: instead we carefully separate content (HTML) from its presentation (via CSS). This new statement completely contradicts this and so is grossly misleading. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of this distinction within HTML.
• %block; (vs. %inline;) is part of the HTML DTD and is relevant to HTML element. However the box model (as now added) is a purely presentational feature, belonging as part of CSS. The new additions persist in hopelessly confusing the two.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Now they're still "improving" the article by changing titles and direct quotes from sources, including technical non-prose changes like renaming the %inline; entity from the HTML DTD to %in-line;. This is simply incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result The edit warring has now ceased, and the other issues are a content dispute. I'd suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and inviting participation at relevant Wikiprojects as unfortunately this isn't an effective forum for resolving content issues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkingYouth reported by User:AcorruptionfreeIndia (Result: No vio, article protected)

Page: India Against Corruption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ThinkingYouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [58], [59]

Comments:
The disputed text is left in place as I do not want to EW with this editor. I was planning to seek wp:3o when he 3RRed.

AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• No violation I do not see more than 3 reverts in a 24 hours period. In addition, whilst the editors changes to the article may be problematic, some of the reverts to them are as well (for example, sourcing to unreliable sources). Therefore, I have protected the article for a week to allow discussion to take place, which may include WP:DR and/or WP:3O. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• In addition, the article (in both versions) is very poorly written and contains large violations of original research, not to mention primary sourcing, stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice, MOS violations and borderline copyright violations. In short, it is a mess. It may be better to stub it and start again from scratch. Also, the reporting editor's username suggests they have a conflict of interest here. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:LoveWaffle (Result: page protected for 36 hours)

Page: Captain America: The Winter Soldier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67] (User's Talk Page)

Comments:
User Rusted AutoParts has consistently reverted the order of the film's cast to one not represented on the film's press release without reason. The User has ignored any attempts to discuss this matter, so I am forced to bring it here.
LoveWaffle (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Plain and simple: I disagreed with placing the two most likely men to be credited towards the end of the cast above the primary players in the film (Evans, Johansson, Mackie, Stan). The first three reverts were 5 days ago, well out of the 3RR range. Assuming this is a legit report out of offence or the user wishes to be correct in the matter, the reverting has ceased and no furthur action will be taken in regards to LoveWaffle's pickiness of the location of the named actors. RAP (talk) 5:46 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. You both seem to have conduced a similar amount edit warring over what is, to be frank, a pretty minor issue with no attempt to discuss this on the talk page, which is where dispute resolution is generally best handled. I've fully protected the article for 36 hours to allow for this dispute resolution to take place. RAP, please note that there's no 'entitlement' to three reverts in a day, and edit warring which lasts across several days is strongly discouraged. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Antinoos69 reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: 24h)

Page

Robert A. J. Gagnon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-04T20:35:18Z "Undid revision 558341772 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
2. 2013-06-04T20:22:31Z "Undid revision 558340874 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
3. 2013-06-04T20:18:04Z "Undid revision 558340645 by Cullen328 (talk)"
4. 2013-06-04T20:14:48Z "Undid revision 558338515 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-04T20:29:04Z "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robert A. J. Gagnon. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 2013-06-04T20:26:00Z "/* Balance and Context */ re:"
2. 2013-06-04T20:05:53Z "/* Balance and Context */ comment re: revert"

Comments:

As evidenced by the discussion in the article's talk page, the user has been advised that his addition of a 'Controversies' section is in violation of a host of guidelines: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. A previous addition by another account (SPI?) was revdel'ed yesterday after an OTRS ticket was received regarding the language and content of the changes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I HAVE been discussing this matter in the article's talk section, but I'm being largely ignored. This editor, in particular, wants me to talk but doesn't respond when I do. Furthermore, the accusations as to neutrality and whatnot are utterly unfounded and absurd. People are deleting an entire section that I very carefully wrote and sourced, even by the highest academic standards, which is my background, without so much as a single accurate reason. No one makes any specific edit suggestions; they merely delete the whole thing. Apparently, there are some biased editors who follow the article and are unwilling to allow any facts they don't like into the article. This is utterly unacceptable and must stop immediately.Antinoos69 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Note - User Antinoos69 was just blocked through wp:AIV. - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: No action)

Page

March Against Monsanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Five in the last 24 hours:

• [68];
• [69];
• [70];
• [71];
• [72]

Plenty more before that.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[73]; Petrarchan47 has since removed that section from their talkpage.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Various talkpage threads have been started by other editors (including me) but the reverts keep on coming. bobrayner (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops - I missed a point. DGG also started a talkpage thread (after having been invited by Petrarchan47) but, alas, after DGG's comment it went the same way as the other threads. Not that I'm implicating DGG of course just that various different editors have started talkpage threads. bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

For anyone unfamiliar with this (new) topic, please look at the references section at March Against Monsanto. This article was being considered for deletion when I discovered it, and began doing research and filling up the article with references. When you glance at the refs, you'll see "2 million" or "millions marched". Now you can see bobrayner quoting from a local newspaper (printed online while the protest was still ongoing) that the numbers "ranged from 200,000" to 2 million, and making a crack about RT, even though it is recognized as RS (CNN was also a source for the 2 million number and no major media has mentioned a "range from 200,000"). This change to the number happened at Genetically modified food controversies as well as Monsanto today.

The main issue at hand, besides having my words misrepresented as a promise to edit war, is that I am not being allowed to tell what one of the protesters' main points is. It gets reverted every time. I think it is an incredibly NPOV handling of the issue and is sourced to the Guardian: "in the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment." This is all I have said about the GMO issue, besides adding some quotations from their protest signs. But this is an article about the protest, and what caused them to go out and marched HAS to be mentioned (this is not a promise to edit war, it's a simple fact).

If any administrators are listening, Please, can we get a babysitter at that article just while it's written? I don't know the right way to tell this story, but I do know that the fact that people are wary of GMOs, ie, the reason the protest exists, has to be mentioned. Why is it so hard to tell this simple story?

Yes, I erased the messages from my talk page because frankly, it seems like harassment. I've been around, and I have never had as many comments on my talk page about what I'm doing wrong (in fact, none that I can think of) as in this past week working on this one article. I think the article needs supervision. I don't know what else to say. I've put in a lot of time and effort to get a neutral article that is factual. What I see is a well established group that works on GMO articles who don't seem to see that March Against Monsanto is not one. I have gone to two administrators to ask about this problem, and was pretty much told there is not much that can be done. petrarchan47tc 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I don't have time to review this in-depth, but the five diffs listed are not all reverts. Two are out of order, but, more important, two pairs are consecutive edits and therefore count as one revert each.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right. Mea culpa; I lost track whilst up to my neck in tabbed browsing. Aggregating series of reverts, there's only 3 net reverts in the last 24h.
• It doesn't help that every single attempt to deal with the problem, including this report at AN3, gets bogged down in arguments about how other editors are biased and about how the article must reflect the TRUTH &c; but that's not editwarring per se. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• A promise from one or more of the parties to wait for a talk page consensus before making further changes would be welcome. I did not detect much hint of compromise in Petrarchan47's statement above. His suggestion that the messages left on his talk are harassment looks to be incorrect. The most obvious reason for the complaints on his talk page is that some other people disagree with his changes. If he is interested in consensus, he could try negotiating with them instead of deleting their comments. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem agreeing to wait for consensus on future contentious edits. I have been choosing to work with editors on the talk page of the article, rather than mine. I am not making a formal complaint, but it is true that after a few of those comments on my talk page, it did feel like harassment to me and actually ruined my weekend to be very honest. I am not at all happy that I stumbled upon a GMO-related article. This is a most unpleasant task. I do hope someone will help. petrarchan47tc

What Petrarchan is alluding to here is that he thinks there is a large conspiracy to insert "Pro-GM" material on wikipedia: [74]. Him, Gandydancer and Groupuscule appear to think they are fighting the good fight against US Corporations (they have been battling at the BP article for some time), e.g [75] and have been relying on a mixture of favourable opinion pieces to insert highly polemic statements into the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think what Petra is alluding to is that this RfC has no basis. No edit warring occurred. BUT, now that Petra is "in the pillary" he (?) is fair game for other questionable attacks. Petra is doing a stand-up job to improve the articles of WP. Let us all get back to the pleasentness of WP editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not an RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this article, but I noticed this discussion on Petrarchan's talk page. This appears to be a content dispute, since it appears to be agreed that no 3RR violation took place. Why not close this out and end the drama? Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that Coretheapple and Buster are two editors piling in from User_talk:Petrarchan47#Editor_of_the_Week. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It is hard to believe that Petrarchan47 is editing in a neutral manner on this article, but there is no 3RR violation. Issues of POV pushing are usually handled at other noticeboards. The March Against Monsanto article seems to have been recently improved since the person who opened the AfD was convinced to withdraw the nomination. A number of people seem to believe that the anti-GMO people are using Wikipedia for publicity, but that question can't be settled here. Petrarchan47 and his opponents disagree as to the extent that the article should uncritically quote whatever the protesters are saying about the bad effects of GMO. This is a matter for consensus and it is not up to admins to ensure that 'the story is told.' Reflecting what major news sources have said about the protest would be more defensible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Syngmung reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Blocked)

Page: Invasion of Normandy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other related edit warring over the last few days
User being reported: Syngmung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts in the Invasion of Normandy article (all 5 June)

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]

Diffs of the user's similar reverts in other Battle of Normandy related articles:

• [80] (4 June)
• [81] (2 June)

Previous related edit warring in the Rape during the liberation of France article

• [82] (1 June)
• [83] (1 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84] (1 June)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion of the problems with the content which is being edit warred all over the place at Talk:Rape during the liberation of France and Talk:Normandy landings#Rape allegations - inadequate sources. Syngmung has not been attempting to discuss why he wants to add this contested material into the other articles, and simply edit wars. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a report of sustained edit warring to push a point of view rather than a 3RR violation. Syngmung (talk · contribs) has created the Rape during the liberation of France article, and is trying to edit war material from it into other articles, despite serious concerns raised by myself and others about the neutrality of this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I know Nick-D well, we have had conflict concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. We should try to unthread emotional entanglements.--Syngmung (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

? I haven't had any involvement in your edit warring in these articles other than in regards to the Rape during the liberation of France article. This is a report of your sustained edit warring, and not a discussion of content. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: See [85]. Nick-D lose his calm mind. He refuse conversation.--Syngmung (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing a new thread you started on my talk page after this report was lodged in which you accused me of "hidding outcasters acts" is not relevant to this report, except to illustrate your POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I have been involved in trying to bring some sense to this article. Normandy landings refers to the initial day of invasion and not the Normandy Campaign. My reverts have been again changed without any adequate and understandable reason. I would add that there is only one source, and newspaper review of same, for any rape allegations, which have not been mentioned by any other reliable sources. I also have to say that this person seems to be pushing POV and also seems by their history, to have a unhealthy interest in rape. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I came across Syngmung's somewhat obvious WP:AXE edits to Invasion of Normandy and reverted him. Another user apparently thought based on a technical error in my revert that I was a vandal, so I figured creating an account might prevent this from happening again. This user is clearly attempting to promote a POV that American troops in South Korea are rampantly engaging in rape of local women, and so has been WP:SYNTHesizing sources to create links between this and other topics such as the Normandy landings and the 1995 Okinawa rape incident. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the source Military Prostitution and the U.S. Military in Asia by Katharine Moon.--Syngmung (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I already read it. You misrepresented it and I removed your misrepresentation here. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: The comment above by Synmung illustrates their bias and POV. There is only one source quoted! It really is time to stop this POV pushing and obsession with rape. David J Johnson (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mean as custard reported by User:Bhtpbank (Result: Declined)

Page: Ansaldo STS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mean as custard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:

This user appears to have a long history of trying to remove "promotional" content from articles without discussion. When I tried to resolve on his talk page I got this response: [92]

For information, this was my latest response to this editor's complaint on my talk page:

"My reversion applied solely to a large edit made by a user (who has made no other edits to Wikipedia) on 30.5.13. It was clearly intended to be promotional and it was impossible to separate out the flagrant advertising from the potentially useful (but uncited) material. Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot has been known to apply to editors who threaten to have me blocked. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"

Mean as custard (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Having read WP:PROMOTION I can see the intent of his actions, but deleting large sections of text, in my view, comes after (1) Tagging the article as such (2) Requesting on the talk page that the article be re-worded to reflect WP:NPOV (3) As a last resort, wholesale deletion of large sections of text. It is one thing to be WP:BOLD, but another to not attempt to get the article toned down beforehand. This user appears to be very deliberate in his actions, to the extent of removing "self promotional" material from user pages, as evidenced by this diff [93]. I can understand the basic reason for taking out advertising from articles, but from the page of a user?? Bhtpbank (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if my edits to Ansaldo STS are the only subject of the complaint, as it appears my entire editing history is now under scrutiny. I am beginning to feel as though Bhtpbank is stalking me. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Mean as custard has not violated WP:3RR as he has reverted only 3x (as has Bhtpbank). Regardless, the material he removed should have been removed, and the notion that it should have been tagged or "toned down" is meritless in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Adelmira reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:

Editor isn't responding to warnings/requests for refs. Similar edit warring at Swahili people. — kwami (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Qara xan reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: )

Page: Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qara xan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079451
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079773
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558118054
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558282348
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558428541

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qara_xan

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people

Comments:
The person refused to use the talk page to cease our edit war and he does not go against my arguments on the history page either.

History page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&action=history

Verdia25 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)