Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 7 February 2008 (→‎User:G2bambino and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: See above): update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    Edit war on Plovdiv by User:Avidius and User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:CoJaBo (Result: Users asked to cease edit war.)

    Edit war involving the link Plovdiv: Granada of the East on Plovdiv. Attempts have been made to discuss the issue on the talk page, yet the reverting still goes on. Avidius insists the link is unnecessarily biased. [1] ILike2BeAnonymous insists the link should remain because it presents an alternative view. [2] Most of the last 100 edits to Plovdiv are Avidius and ILike2BeAnonymous (and a few others) reverting between the version with the link, and the version without. CoJaBo (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Couldn't find a technical violation but the edit war is way out of hand. Users asked to cease disruptive edit war:[3] and [4]. Page will be watched. CIreland (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:156.110.42.10 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result:User blocked 48 hours )

    List of Death Note characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 156.110.42.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user continues to insert a list of facts about the characters (height, weight, etc.) which other users have insisted is unnecessary. The page has also been protected because of it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked 48 hours, thanks for not violating 3RR yourself. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miyokan reported by User:Pietervhuis (Result: blocked 24h )

    Russian Apartment Bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [5]

    This user keeps inserting information that I and other users find irrelevant. The information is from years before and after the actual event the page is about. I've tried to explain him on the talk page but it doesn't seem to help. He reverted both my and another users effort. User complains of vandalism and warns us instead. - PietervHuis (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting vandalism doesn't count, which I gave 2 warnings to this user for. See reporting of this user below. He vandalizes content which he doesn't find agreeable. The only other user who removed this content as well is someone who has admitted that he is a believer of the FSB theory, so these users are removing the counterargument. If user wants to say that this information is irrelevant then how does he explain the "other user who finds it irrelevant"'s reversion which reinserted these entries to the chronology which have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings - "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President."--Miyokan (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The information that I added is no more "irrelevant" than a lot of the other information on the chronology.--Miyokan (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Miyokan (Result: blocked 24h )

    Russian apartment bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pietervhuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This user keep removing content which he doesn't like while including the other "irrelevant" information in the article along with another user who has admitted that he believes the FSB theory.Miyokan (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't add any other information like you're claiming. Your information is irrelevant as its from years before and after the event which the page is about. The other user is allowed to have his personal opinion. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If user wants to claim that this information is irrelevant then how does he explain the "other user who finds it irrelevant"'s reversion which reinserted these entries to the chronology which have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings - "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President."--Miyokan (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What reversion? I didn't reinsert any of those entries. Also this dispute is about your entries, not these entries. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to User:Biophys who is the only "other users" that you invoked as part of your argument. This report is about your violation of 3RR, you do not have a right to violate 3RR to remove what you claim is "irrelevant content".--Miyokan (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you just ask him or discuss it with him? - PietervHuis (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User_talk:82.6.15.4 reported by User:Morrismaciver (Result: already blocked )

    Barra. 82.6.15.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [13]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [14] (sole entry on user's talk page, won't let me use a "diff")

    A short explanation of the incident: User has added a flag that is generally regarded as not accurate; however, the other editors to the page are willing to be convinced if proof is available. Other editors have removed this user's edits for various reasons such as positioning of edit and reliability of content, user reverts without explanation.

    Since this, user has placed several edits that would appear to be in bad faith as a result of the other reversions. Changing "village" to "city", changing the Scottish clans associated with the place, removing pronounciations, removing Gaidhlig equivalents. Normally, this behaviour would result in a vandalism warning.

    He's continuing to vandalise, I don't see any constructive edits in his edit history. Lurker (said · done) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been several subsequent reversions that would take too long to add.MRM (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has now progressed to article Stornoway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrismaciver (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked --slakr\ talk / 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Musiclover565 reported by User:BanRay (Result: Blocked, for 12 hours)

    Maria Sharapova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Musiclover565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [15]


    User:Tennis expert rewrote the article, after proposing his changes on the talk page (the previous version was widely seen as unencyclopedic). User:Musiclover565 then reverted Tennis expert's edits altogether (the new version was apparently too long for his liking. The user has been approached by four established editors. I have also left the user two 3RR warnings, both were ignored, cheers. BanRay 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Anthøny 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bleek25 reported by User:IrishLass0128 (Result: Blocked 55 hours.)

    Las Vegas (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bleek25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User insists on removing information from episodes and leaving it his way and no others' even after discussion took place on article talk page. IrishLass (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    S/he's been reverting to his/her version all weekend even though there are two discussions going on on the talk page. I fixed this notice with the times for the reverts, there are more but they are over the entire weekend not just the past 24 hours. I also tried to discuss it on his page and just got told I hadn't watched the episode. KellyAna (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He reverted again this morning. He's determined to remove content others have put in several times. IrishLass (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation; must have four edits in a twenty-four hour period to violate 3RR. · AndonicO Hail! 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How is it that you don't see 5 edits? He had 5 between 23:04 on the 3rd and 21:21 on the 4th. How is that not a violation? Please explain so I understand because I was going to report him for his reverts. KellyAna (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right you are, sorry. I think I need to sleep more, it's really getting to me... · AndonicO Hail! 02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.5.133.228 reported by User:Compwhizii (Result:24 hours)

    Oddworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Template:82.5.133.228: Time reported: 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


    Continued adding of links even after disagreement by editors. A discussion is on the talk page. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IrishLass0128 reported by User:Bleek25 (Result: no vio)

    Las Vegas (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IrishLass0128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [16]



    User has been deleting and putting there own information on the page.Bleek25 (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply - only two of three of those are direct reverts. The first and second are a rewrite of what happened and actually could be considered one edit if I hadn't hit save page too quickly before reading exactly what I wrote, and, may I point out, there's no revision in between #1 and #2, therefore #2 cannot be a separate revert. I have not surpassed 3RR but am dangerously close. Regardless, it is obvious this report is out of spite over the fact that Bleek25 has over 6 reverts to the page, has received the appropriate warnings, been requested to discuss the matter, and still continues to revert twice now after the warning. An investigation will show, I have followed all guidelines while Bleek25 chooses to ignore them. IrishLass (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.54.1.78 reported by User:twsl (Result: already blocked)

    Claymore_(manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.54.1.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [17]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: []

    User insists on having it his way. The publishers description of the manga/comic says it's shonen(instead of seinen), but user disagrees, saying: "Slipknot calls themself metal. It doesn't make them metal though, does it? Fuck." as seen at [23] Twsl (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arsonist's Daughter reported by User:Compwhizii (Result: blocked indef)

    Wonder Boys (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arsonist's Daughter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Even if this isn't today, a violation is a violation. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Styrofoam1994 (Result:Both users blocked)

    This user has been abusing a couple of times.

    Another Abuse was deleting evidence in a sockpuppetry case.

    Please solve this situation as efficiently as possible. Best regards--DurzaTwinkTALK 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the new case of sockpuppets against Durzatwink, see here. The older version that he posted is deprecated, and I already got warned for that. contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Styrofoam for 48 hours for various reasons, and Durza indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Nku pyrodragon per the checkuser. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rerom1 reported by User:Schwalker (Result: 31 hours)

    Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rerom1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • 1st at 14:44, 4 February 2008,
    • 2nd at 22:04, 4 February 2008,
    • 3rd at 2:21, 5 February 2008
    • 4th at 11:32, 5 February 2008

    There had been one revision of this kind before.

    A single purpose account is trying to change article content against the opinion of other users. Schwalker (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.87.47.110 reported by User:Griot (Result: no vio )

    Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.87.47.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This editor drops into this article everyday and does a wholesale revert of one of the lead paragraphs. He/she’s been doing it for some time. I warned him/her about 3RR on his/her Talk page. BTW, does this constitute longterm vandalism? Griot (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 1 week )

    Russian apartment bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pietervhuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Edit warring. User just came off a 24 hour block for edit warring no less than a couple of hours ago. [34]Miyokan (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Navnløs reported by User:Twsx (Result: 24 hours)

    Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Navnløs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This is about an heated, endless and inconclusive debate about whether line breaks or commas should be used to delimit genres in infoboxes (see here). In this case, editor is enforcing his preferred version rather harshly. Multiple reverts since middle of January. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I partly agree with Twsx (about the inconclusive issue) he has no right to report me. First of all yes, I was reverting someone on the Rush page because they were violating an armistice. I warned them about 3RR and edit warring first only to then be warned myself that I was violating both (utterly ridiculous since I'm only keeping up an agreed armistce to stop edit warring). Twsx also has no right to report me as he has been warned many times and is a known edit warrer who, until a couple days ago, has continued to edit war on at least two pages only to be reverted by me and others. I would like a definitive answer to the genre delimiter issue, but since one is not forthcoming, I protect pages and make sure that they stay in their form (whether its comma breaks or line breaks) so this: "editor is enforcing his preferred version rather harshly" is ridiculous. I do prefer line breaks but I try to keep allpages they way they are (whether that be line breaks or comma breaks). I should not even have to defend myself against these claims but I have no choice as I have reported users like Twsx in the past only to be laughed at (since the editors thought the genre delimiter deabte trivial). I reall don't know what else to say. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add that User:Twsx has many many times over broken 3RR and that the 156-multiple-IP-user who I am having this issue with on Rush has also broken 3RR. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – Multiple editors seemed to have a problem with the formatting changes, yet this user was the only one reverting them (presumably against consensus). For the record, an article won't get demoted from featured article status over such a minor formatting issue (honestly, I've seen both formatting methods on various pages), but it is more likely to get demoted for constant edit warring and instability. I also would, in the future, avoid using the term "armistice," since this encyclopedia is not a battleground, so there aren't any treaties. We work on consensus and the process of changing consensus— not military treaties set in stone. Consider using the talk page in the future. --slakr\ talk / 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:NrDg reported by User:NimiTize (Result:No violation )

    Zoey 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NrDg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This is a feud between, if Sean Flynn, is the part of the main cast (Zoey 101) or not, which he isn't, because he is not suppose to be in anymore episodes of Season 4, till the end. And, NrDg keeps telling me that (s)he's getting info from IMDB, which IMDB is not a reliable source, and theres no SOURCE. Also I warned the user, but that didn't seem to do anything and he reverted once again.

    No violation; NrDg has only reverted 3 times. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Bueller reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: No action)

    Douglas J. Feith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 12:32, 4 February 2008
      • (Note - there were some intermediate changes by an anon ip, but the material that Bueller keeps deleting is contained in these edits).


    I think the user should be blocked if he fails to heed the 3RR warning. If he self-reverts I do not think he should be blocked. But that is my opinion; I don't know what the usual practice is; he's been a user for 2 years and appears familiar enough with the rules. The fact that he has edited for two years as basically a single-purpose account may be relevant (he has mostly edited this article alone). csloat (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit war seems to have stopped and Bueller has not touched the page since the warning. It's customary to warn someone before reporting them. Closing with no action for now. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So 4 reverts is OK then? Shouldn't bueller have self-reverted? Is it ok for me to revert him now (which would be my fourth revert)? Can an admin at least explain to bueller that he has violated the rule and that such action normally would lead to a block? The only reason he stopped reverting is because his last revert is the last change on the page. csloat (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) PS I did warn Bueller before reporting him. csloat (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation given.
    The intention given is that a warning should be given and ignored (i.e. a further revert made afterwards) before a relatively new user is reported and blocked. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is two years still considered relatively new around here? I didn't even think a warning was necessary given the user seemed familiar with the rules but I gave one anyway just because I didn't want to seem punitive about it. Anyway I appreciate you commenting on his talk page; a warning from the person he's edit warring with is not nearly as likely to be heeded as a warning from an uninvolved admin. csloat (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.77.222.188 reported by User:Fair Deal (Result:24h block)

    • Previous version reverted to: [35]

    Comment IP user has been edit warring across several articles over the past few weeks. Has a previous history of warnings and blocks.(previous block log) Editor has also ignored WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on both article talk pages and user talk pages. Fair Deal (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Svetovid reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: Blocked, 12 hours; parties cautioned)

    Hedvig Malina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Svetovid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This user broke 3RR. These are his main reverts, but actually he deleted others' contributions many times during the day. Among others he is deleting text from the article and the references supporting them. He made controversial changes without discussion first.
    On the 17th/18th of January he already broke 3RR at the article Trenčín[36] without being reported, but this time he doesn't seem to stop. He called my 3RR warning 'inflammatory, rude' and a 'personal attack'. Squash Racket (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the third revert a real revert? It seems more like expansion and the "fourth" revert is the real revert to this new version. That would make only three reverts in 24 hours. The edit war between Svetovid, Hobartimus, and Squash Racket appears to be over now anyway because the article is now listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves and users are engaged in a discussion on the article's talk page. But I might be too optimistic, of course. Tankred (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The third revert is just like the others and in fact he made way more disruptive edits in 24 hours than just four. Squash Racket (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Svetovid has engaged in disruptive behaviour, and it cannot be permitted to continue: the user is Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Additionally, I have issued a warning to Squash Racket, who was also engaging in edit warring, although admittedly to less a degree than that to which Svet. was. Hopefully all the parties can move on, and engage in meaningful discussion, with the aim of working towards a compromise, rather than disrupting the article.
    Anthøny 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Momento reported by User:24.98.132.123 (Result: semi-protected)

    Prem Rawat. Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [37]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [43]

    Despite requests on user's talk page [User:Momento] has not discussed issue and instead has performed multiple reverts. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I repeatedly deleted 24.98.132.123 inclusion of this article [[44]]. as a violation of BLP. It has since been deleted on 21:20, 6 February 2008 by David D. (Talk | contribs) (52,115 bytes) (→Media: this has nothing to do with the subject) (undo). Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Observation from the sidelines: Both editors appear to be acting in good faith, although I am disturbed at the apparent bias displayed by Momento in zealously eliminating all traces of sourced and notable criticism of the subject. The criticism exists, it comes from notable sources such as ex-members of the organization, and respectable publications (books and newspapers) are available to back it up. Citing WP:BLP as a catch-all excuse for deleting criticism doesn't seem proper. If the criticism is valid (and it appears to be) then it should be included, with sources, and improved rather than deleted repeatedly. If it were me, I'd block both editors for a week so that others can make positive contributions to the article. =Axlq (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ex-members and tabloid newspapers are not suitable sources for a BLP when there are many noted sociologists and religious scholars to use. In this case The Register article is completely innappropriate.Momento (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as someone with no involvement in this article: On the contrary, ex-members (especially an organized group of them) have a perspective and experience that sociologists and religious scholars sorely lack. When it comes to criticism, Momento appears to have a double standard regarding sources; this comment is telling. Verifiability and reliability are sufficient; academic credentials aren't a requirement. Ex-members are verifiable and reliable sources for their own criticisms.
    I see no need to continue this conversation further. I stand by my comment that both editors should be banned for a week, for violating 3RR. =Axlq (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As the article has been semi-protected, apparently due to vandalism concerns, there's probably no block necessary, but I'll leave this up for a bit in case another admin disagrees. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.30.38.213 reported by User:Amatulic (Result:24 hours)

    Shadow people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.30.38.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]

    User received several warnings about adding unsourced editorial comments on shadow people. User doesn't appreciate warnings, and doesn't respond except to blank his talk page each time he receives a new warning. The reverts are somewhat under the radar for 4 reverts in 24 hours, but he's consistently reverting about 3 times per day. (Well, if you count his talk page blankings, he's reversion rate is above 4 per day.)

    "Last version reverted to" is dated later than 1st revert because of improvements people are attempting to make to the article while the reversion war continues. Amatulić (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the first revert is different from the others, the anon is clearly edit warring. 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GeeAlice reported by User:Zerida (Result:no block)

    Image:Egyptian.jpg. GeeAlice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 00:46


    I've had to supply a url because the page in question is for an image, not an article. User is aware of 3RR because it's almost definitely a sockpuppet of banned User:Jeeny, but also because I found a post where she mentions it [46]. User:Jeeny had a history of disruption on Egypt-related articles, so it was only a matter of time before this was going to happen. I plan to file an RFCU. — Zerida 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RFCU filed. — Zerida 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This person is retaliating over a tag I placed for an image rename Image:Egyptians.jpg to Egyptian collage.jpg. I first had Egyptian people collage, but shortened it because of his revert, and rude edit summary. No communication from him, except for short rude comments. In fact, he is the one who kept reverting after I tried to explain the reason, and broke the 3RR rule. It is NOT an article, it is a tag to leave to the admin to decide if it is better to name it to the new, more DESCRIPTIVE name. That's all. ←Gee♥Alice 01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not willing to block because both users are edit warring. Of course, if it turns out that GeeAlice is an abusive sock, it will be fine to revert him/her again, but in the meantime, please don't edit war here. I'll be watching the page to make sure no one does. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lear 21 reported by User:Sandpiper (Result:3 weeks)

    European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 10:21



    User Lear 21 has persistently edited this page agressively including violations of 3RR whenever the page is not to his liking. The page has twice been locked from editing over content disputes where Lear was the major party on one side of the dispute, and he engaged in multiple violation reverts. It is no more likely that locking the page for a third time will discourage lear from continuing this behaviour in the future than it has been thus far. Last time this happened I checked and noted policy that locking a page for a content dispute is discouraged. Perhaps some other action can be taken this time? Sandpiper (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Lear 21 has not violated 3RR according to Wikipedia policies. The user has reestablished a consensus layout/section-heading already existing for more than half a year and is supported by several editors. User Lear 21 has argued for this consensus version at the talk page this time and is still supported by a majority. The accusing User Sandpiper and another user have instead developed a long history of disruptive editing vandalizing majority consensus at the EU article. Without gaining support of their proposals at the discussion forum. The listed 5 reverts are different edits and indicate no violation of any suggested policy. Lear 21 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite the contrary. There is no requirement that all edits be the same in order for them to qualify: any four reverts, in whole or in part, count. More importantly, Lear is very clearly edit warring. This is to say, he is essentially attempting to force his version (the one saying "Economy") through by repeatedly reverting. Because of the rather long history he has with edit warring, I have blocked for three weeks. SouthernElectric has also been edit warring, and therefore I have blocked for 24 hours (this being a first offence). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What policy justifies a 3 week block? All edits are clearly different, are backed at the talk page by the majority of editors and have argued in detail by myself !!!! I am merely upholding a consensus layout. There is clearly no violation. Please reconsider the decision. Lear 21—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.10.76 (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've answered you on my talk. I've also already told you how to contest your block. Now, please stop using IPs to get around the block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quizimodo and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: Warning)

    Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quizimodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [47]


    A short explanation of the incident. Soulscanner (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Removal of various POV tags that identify passages and sources currently being verified and discussed on talk page.[reply]

    This report is not unexpected, rather limited in scope, and of course one-sided. This disruptive editor has been placing 'dubious' and 'neutrality' tags on various assertions in 'Dominion' that said editor disagrees with despite the sources fully conforming with Wikipedia policies (some accompanied by quotes) and with little justification, doing so without good faith or salient reason, and with misleading commentaries on the talk page. In essence, this editor is unable to compel through argument and/or sourcing, with similar behaviour going back to related edits on 'Canada' in Sep./Oct., and said placement of tags on selected notions herein is a a hyper-reaction. This editor has also initiated an arbitration case regarding this, without making salient attempts to seek mediation despite claims -- again, a hyper-reaction. As per my request on the RfA page and as a result of said editor's continual dickery, I hereby request the 'Dominion' article be locked until further notice. Moreover, since it takes two to tango, any administrative actions taken against me (and I may have violated 3RR) should be exacted upon Soulscanner too. I contend this report is arguably an attempt to quell opposition. In any event, I hereby pledge to refrain from edit warring on this article, and to not be drawn into additional edit wars with this editor. Quizimodo (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's customary to warn people and give them a final chance before reporting them here. As Quizimodo was not warned and has agreed to stop edit warring, I am not going to block on this occasion. Soulscanner did not violate 3RR, stopping before the fourth revert. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:G2bambino and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: See above)

    Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quizimodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [52]


    A short explanation of the incident. A brief inspection of User:G2bambino and User:Quizimodo talk page histories, and patterns of reverts above show that two cited editors are colluding to remove neutrality tags placed by me on that page. I've already pointed them to Wiki's policy that if there is a dispute about neutrality tags on an article, there probably is a neutrality issue. [User:Quizimodo]]'s pledge above seems somewhat disingenuous given this context. Again, tags in question identify pertinent claims and sources currently being debated by various editors at relevant talk page. Soulscanner (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quizimodo hasn't contacted me for months. Since he did yesterday, I've taken one look at Dominion, and offered a comment at talk. That's hardly collusion; perhaps you need to tone down the conspiracy theories? Regardless, I believe you've violated 3RR, in the process of an antagonistic edit war, no less. But, we shall let more experienced people be the judge. --G2bambino (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Folded into the above report. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Later protected for a week by me. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:G2bambino and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: Protected)

    Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [58]


    A short explanation of the incident. The pattern here is clear. In this old edit war the editors in question replaced a number of descriptors for Canada (federation, federal state, etc.) with words containing the word Dominion. User:G2bambino would continue the edit war stopped by User:Quizimodo when informed of violating 3RR rule. This is over the same content issue as the current Dominion article, and the same pattern is employed. I do not wish to be drawn into a similar edit war in the case above, but I do not want relevant neutrality tags removed in the case above either. I did not put this 3RR violation here before because it was the first time I'd seen it, and made a request to pp-dispute lock on the page, which was granted and made the 3RR report unnecessary. Please see link to Edit history page. Soulscanner (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple users edit warring - page protected for a week. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth generation jet fighter

    Fourth generation jet fighter has degenerated into an editwar and requires an admin to step in. Various parties have abused the 3R rule. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Please use the report template at the bottom of this page to make reports. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guest2610 reported by User:V-train (Result: 48 hours)

    Kawasaki KLR650 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guest2610 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [66]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [74]

    User keeps adding links that do not meet WP:EL and are WP:LINKSPAM, including discussion forums and multiple links to the same websites. V-train (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Users only edits are to that one page; blocking for 48 hours with a strong warning. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User EBDCM

    [75] Multiple reverts. Report by Mccready (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please use the report template at the bottom of the page if you would like your report acted on. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record EBDCM has made several edits in a row, some of which are reverts. This is not edit-warring and the sequence of edits counts as one revert for 3RR purposes. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ó Flannagáin reported by User:Hankwang (Result: 24 hours)

    Homebrewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ó Flannagáin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Re-adding of inappropriate external links; 9 times since 4 Feb, 2 of them as User:67.9.62.131. Han-Kwang (t) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
=== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ===

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=189737333"