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 Tbma (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 24 July 2010 (→‎User:Tbma reported by User:Posse72 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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


    User:Dougweller reported by User:Architecture and Interior Design (Result: see note)

    DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION YOU ARE ASKING FOR

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE PREVIOUS VERSION

    1. (cur | prev) 21:00, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Changed protection level of Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC))))
    2. (cur | prev) 20:59, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Protected Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC))))
    3. (cur | prev) 20:37, 18 July 2010 Arakunem (talk | contribs) (5,108 bytes) (Undid revision. You MUST discuss this on the talk page. See the New Messages left on your own talk page.)


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT - YOUR SYSTEM ISN'T VERY USER FRIENDLY

    Comments:

    So as you are aware there are a few users including users that you have bestowed "Administrative" priviledges to who for some reason insist on providing incorrect information to the world on this subject. They have blocked and locked down the page of course with their erroneous information in place. At the same time these "lovely people" (I use that term loosely) have the audacity to accuse ME of being the vandal and of edit warring. Certainly there is something you can do to remove these people from Wikipedia and not allow them to carry on their abusive behavior. Other vandals included in this consipiracy are as follows: Taroaldo, Arakunem, Administrator Bart133 and Administrator DougWeller.


    Thank for you help but I think I now understand the policy here just fine. If you are one of the "in-crowd" when you get your little hall Monitor/Administration designation you get to be a big ole, nasty, rude bully without any consequences. The novice user is SCREWED! I am, however, open to accepting apologies. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the drama above, I think the only thing you should be open to at this moment is a ban for disruption. Sorry to put it so bluntly. --Ragib (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ragib's comment is an excellent example of the "pack mentality" that I've had to deal with in relation to this issue. People like Ragib who aren't even part of the conversation or effected by the issue jump in with rude inflammatory remarks trying to make the issue worse than it already is. This is actually in violation of Wikipedias policies referenced in the section "Please do not bite the newcomers." These people don't just bite. They tear at the jugular. Someone like Ragib should be blocked if not permanently banned from Wikipedia. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design

    Thanks. Just to clarify, I'm also uninvolved with both article (despite claims above, I've never edited it) and editors, I simply found A&ID's case here and acted. A&ID hadn't been warned and I preferred to stop the edit warring without blocking a new user in any case. I thought a 24 hour block would give time to stop the edit warring and help the new user. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that this has been reviewed and ruled on can it be removed from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In due time it will be archived and become part of the historical record of this page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OCNative reported by User:OCNative (Result:No action )

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


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

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


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Comments:

    I am reporting myself as I forgot the 3RR rule and engaged in an edit war with another user. I am sorry, and I have just posted on the article talk page moments ago to try to resolve this dispute without further reversion at this time. My most recent reversion has been reverted by another user. OCNative (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not blocked Since you have clearly understood that you've violated the rule and stopped reverting, I don;t feel that further action is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Seven days seven nights reported by TFD (talk) (Result:No action )

    Page: Classical liberalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Seven days seven nights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 07:44, 21 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
    2. 20:46, 21 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "no difficulty")
    3. 01:30, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "This is personal lack of ability to tell the difference. It is not truly difficult to tell.")
    4. 02:10, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: ""difficult to tell" is personal lack of mental power of the editor")
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Discussion for revert is here

    TFD (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Not blocked There is a technical breach of the 3RR, but this is a very new editor and "reverted good faith edits" does not explain why you;re reverting them, so I can sympathise with their frustration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saki reported by Jason E. (Result: )

    Page: Afghans in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Saki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [8]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments: User:Saki is very disruptive, he refuses to explain why he is reverting my fixing of the article. I also suspect that he may be another sockpuppet of banned User:Teckgeek, the creator of the Afghans in Pakistan article who used a numbe of other blocked IDs to edit the same page, and User:CaliforniaAliBaba is probably another of his ID because that one also began distrupting my edits at the same time and both of them have very similar bios on their user pages. Example, both speak same languages and been to same countries, etc. I further suspect that he is a Punjabi ethnocentric POV pusher with anti-Afghan agenda.--119.73.6.164 (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you that your edits to the page were correct and appropriate and should not have been reverted. —Stephen (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!--119.73.6.164 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all "well and good" - but edits like this show a potential lack of understanding of what "edit-warring" truly is. One editor does not "continue" edit-warring when the other decides to "stop": it takes two (or more) parties to edit-war. Capiche? Doc9871 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pontificate823 reported by Arxiloxos (talk) (Result: )

    Page: Mike Leach (American football coach) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Pontificate823 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 13:32, 19 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
    2. 15:44, 19 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
    3. 03:23, 20 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
    4. 18:51, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
    5. 02:33, 22 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
    6. 03:35, 22 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
    7. 13:31, 22 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")

    No support on talk page for this editor's actions.

    Supplemental:

    the editor has now reverted to xis own version again[18]--this makes eight essentially identical reversions against consensus, including four of them in the last twenty hours. These are the only edits made by this editor.

    —Arxiloxos (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (supplemented at 22:06, 22 July 2010)[reply]

    User:Ari89 reported by User:Noloop (Result: Reporter blocked)

    Page: Historical Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [19] - 18 July
    • 2nd revert: [20] - 18 July
    • 3rd revert: [21] - 19 July
    • 4th revert: [22] - 20 July
    • 5th revert: [23] - not a revert 20th
    • 6th revert: [24] - not a revert, 20th
    • 7th revert: [25] - 21 July
    • 8th revert: [26] - 22 July


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
    Many, in many different places. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27] Comments:

    • Note hostile tone in discussions.
    • Canvassing like-mined editors from different article to come oppose edits: [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs)
    Um...those are reverts and general edits (that were not reverts) over a five day period and are in no way close to a violation of 3RR. Trying to use WP noticeboards repeatedly as revenge for me reporting your edit warring (which you were subsequently blocked for) is clear abuse of the system. Furthermore, as you seem to be the lone voice arguing in favour of your particular pov version (on the various talk pages and noticeboards) there will be no more reason for your contentious edits to be reverted by anyone. Peace in the world of Wikipedia. --Ari (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note, the reason for most of these reverts were in response to Noloop's refusal to gain consensus on his controversial edits. A number of editors and administrators reverted Noloop's non-consensus edits in this period, and he was blocked in this period for edit warring.--Ari (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked Rather, Noloop blocked. Yes, this does appear to look like retribution. On the other hand, Noloop came off his last block doing the same things that got him blocked initially. There is some edit-warring between other users on the article, but I'll give that some time to simmer down before considering protection. -- tariqabjotu 16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: protected 1 week)

    Page: Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [29] Added yet the same sources and passages into the article again (one source and sentence of that source (Augustine Casiday) is in some form or another in this article 4X now).
    • 2nd revert: [30] Adding sourcing requests to not section or even sentences but words in the article as a means to edit war and frustrate with no discussion on talkpage. The section Esoglou is asking to source words from is copied word for word from Orthodoxwiki. One source citation request would seem reasonable.
    • 3rd revert: [31] Reverted out citation request even after issue was resolved by other editors on article talkpage to remove the text completely.
    • 4th revert: [32] This entire section is sourced by a valid online source editor Esoglou has peppered the section with citation requests even though it is sourced by to get the section deleted.
    • 5th revert: [33] reverted/added back duplicate content.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

    Comments:Esoglou refuses to use talkpage to arrive at consensus. I (LoveMonkey), and ex admin here User:Richardshusr and User:Cody7777777 have agreed to start and rewrite sections of the article that Esoglou has clobbered with citation requests and deletions, blank edits and edit warring tactics of the like. We had arrive at consensus for just one section of the article under Esoglou's contention on it's talkpage [36] Esoglou has now moved his edit war from the article filioque first [37] second [38] and East-West schism (DGG became involved) to now this article Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Esoglou refuses to compromise again refuses to listen and or co-operate in the collaboration process as I (user:LoveMonkey) Richard S and Cody7777777 have tried to do. Esoglou has insisted that even with valid sources and sources that are of higher value and an overwhelming amount of them that Esoglou's opinion is correct and that Esoglou will continue to edit war until the articles say what Esoglou has been asked to source (by Richard S for example on the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences talkpage) but Esoglou refuses to source.


    Response. Far from trying to limit the article to one point of view only, in line with LoveMonkey's accusation, I have on the contrary consistently tried to ensure balance. If the view that he insists on is the common view, my edits state this expressly, but point out that it is not the only one, and that serious reliable sources hold the opposite view. To avoid any impression that the opposite view is held only by some crank, I think it best to provide two academic sources for it. I also think that, if in the article the view that LoveMonkey supports is given repeatedly, the sourced opposing view should be given the same number of times.

    Let us examine LoveMonkey's complaints, one by one, using the links that he has given.

    1. This edit was in response to his reverting an edit that I had made in order in order to give an objective account of what an author had written in place of an original-research interpretation of it (cf. this edit summary). Since the source given by LoveMonkey was the primary one, my edit was composed mainly of quotations from the text. LoveMonkey restored his original-research edit, saying in his edit summary: "There was nothing wrong with this passage". I thought it best to reply, not by reverting his revert but by pointing out by citation-needed and failed-verification tags, accompanied by explanations, the original-research character of various statements in it and the evident inaccuracies of some parts. What did I do wrong?

    2. The second edit of which LoveMonkey complains had the same purpose: to point out the many original-research statements that he had included in that part of the article: unsourced attribution to Augustine of a teaching that the context suggested was also the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church; unsourced claim that that teaching was confirmed by unspecified "multiple" councils; unsourced claim that the Council of Orange of 529 confirmed the teaching; unsourced claim that there is a difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church on this matter, when the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church says the opposite of what the editor was attributing to it; unsourced claim about a doctrinal reason for the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

    3. LoveMonkey's third complaint is about the moving to the end of a sentence of a citation-needed tag. He had himself reverted this edit and I gave him no less than 16 days to explain his revert before finally undoing it today, he made no attempt whatever to explain why he had reverted it (see discussion page on his revert).

    4. Similar to his first and second complaints.

    5. This is an example of how LoveMonkey wants to allow only one view to be presented, with no mention whatever of a well-sourced different view. I have already replied to this complaint in the opening paraqraph of this response of mine.

    With regard to failure to discuss on the Talk page, see how LoveMonkey ignored requests to indicate some reason, other than his refusal to grant what he called his "consensus", for reverting another editor's edits.

    LoveMonkey's previous reportings of me on this noticeboard have all been dismissed. In at least one case – I don't remember if there were more – I felt that there was no need whatever to respond. Is it too much to ask that he be told to stop harassing me? And perhaps that he be told to avoid original-research insertions into articles and not to resort so easily to reverting the edits of others (not only mine but others also, most recently the one discussed here)? Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wantthetruth reported by User:UltraEdit (Result: stale)

    Page: Fellowship of Friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wantthetruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [39]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

    Comments:

    --UltraEdit (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stale I respectfully suggest that both editors in this report might benefit by avoiding this particular article for a while. There is plenty of encyclopedia remaining to be written. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Ultraedit reported by User:wantthetruth? (Result:malformatted)

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).


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

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


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

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

    Comments:

    User Ultraedit persists in reverts while accusing me of reverting, user has history of gaming system and sock puppetry, user is member of the cult Fellowship of Friends the subject of the article in question Wantthetruth? (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)wantthetruth?>[reply]

    I was never involved in any incident of "gaming the system" or sock puppetry (see history of my user page). I never stated that I belong to the "cult" fellowship of Friends. The serious accusations above have to be proven. --UltraEdit (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have 482 edits since I became a Wikipedia editor on November 2, 2007. Of those, 116 (24%) were of the Fellowship of Friends article. User Wantthetruth has made 211 edits since he became an editor on August 20, 2007. 199 (94%) of those were on the Fellowship of Friends article, and the other 12 were directly related to that article. The only purpose of this user on Wikipedia is to edit the Fellowship of Friends article, and that presumes an agenda. --UltraEdit (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:188.80.59.174 reported by User:DCGeist (Result:already blocked)

    Page: Confirmation bias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 188.80.59.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [47]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53] 2d diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

    Comments:

    Pure vandalism/edit warring IP. Also disrupting other editors' Talk pages.—DCGeist (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pontificate823 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Mike Leach (American football coach) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pontificate823 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [55] Here is Pontificate823's first edit to the article in question; removing reliably referenced information and replacing it with his own. He was told several times that adding the additional information was OK, but removing the other information was not. This edit war has been going on for about 3 days; the user has been invited to use the talk page and has so far refused to acknowledge those requests. He has, in edit summaries, claimed that the information he is removing is "slanderous", but near as I can tell the information he is removing is neutrally worded, and most importantly, accurately reflects the sources in question.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Pontificate823 has several warnings about this issue, all predating the last revert above.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mike Leach (American football coach)#Firing Section is a discussion that the above user has refused to engage in.

    Comments:

    • No 3RR vio, but a pretty clear case of sustained edit warring and zero talk page participation, so 24-hour block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thomaskh reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result:47 hours)

    Page: Talk:ABC News 24 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 05:24, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "live stream")
    2. 06:00, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert , yes no forum, but this has relevance to the article")
    3. 06:52, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "reverted vandalism")
    4. 07:00, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "revert and let it go......")
    5. 01:45, 23 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "rv vandalism")
    • Diff of warning: here

    The editor has been warned about using the article talk page as a forum but seems to have no regard with policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. —Bidgee (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have gone ahead with a 47 hour block. If the user persists, a longer block (if not indefinite) can be implied.Mitch32(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.) 11:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean "applied"? I know: I'm sorry... Doc9871 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carthage44 reported by NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs (Result: page protected)

    Page: Wisconsin Badgers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 04:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 21:35, 20 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374414450 by Burpelson AFB (talk): Not a notable player")
    2. 04:02, 21 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374607203 by Burpelson AFB (talk): 99% of Badger fans do not know who he is and did not play in the NFL not notable")
    3. 00:32, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374762553 by Burpelson AFB (talk) One good season does not clarify as notable, therefore NOT NOTABLE")
    4. 21:47, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374782327 by Burpelson AFB (talk): Your justification makes no sense at all")
    5. 03:58, 23 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 374955717 by Burpelson AFB (talk): Not notable")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh my, WP:LAME seems to apply here. No one has reverted since the talk page warnings, so I'm going to mark this as Page protected for 3 days, and I'm considering removing [User:Burpelson AFB]]'s rollback for using it here. Courcelles (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Cptnono (Result: protected)

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

    This is a clear case of an editor continuing to insert material against consensus while not using the talk page to find a solution. It has been going on for days. Some of the information might be fine but untill editors start using the talk page nothing will get done but reverts.

    • Made abold edit and it was reverted. His first revert was of Threeafterthree here at 13:30, 17 July 2010
    • Another revert here of Threeafterthree at 14:01, 17 July 2010
    • A partial revert of removal of the content by Marknutley here at 02:39, 21 July 2010.
    • Another partial (90%) revert of Marknutley here at 02:49, 22 July 2010. The section header was removed but the rest was put back in.
    • A revert of Jauerback here at 01:41, 23 July 2010.

    There are two sections on the talk page discussing the contentious edit. One of them does not go into much detail though. I asked the editor to use the talk page but this was blanked and he again reverted (see the last diff up above). His last attempt at using the talk page was at 17:09, 18 July 2010 (he made 3 reverts after that).

    Cptnono (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected three days. Please work out the sourcing at the talkpage or the appropriate noticeboard before then, and come back if the back-and-forth continues. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:71.184.184.238 (Result: )

    Page: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Below are changes made by SaltyBoatr that change or delete pre-existing article text from July 22, 2010 21:58 To July 23, 2010 to July 23, 2010 1:40 - This is a 4 hour period

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374925916&oldid=374898459 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374926207&oldid=374925916 intervening post by another editor - per 3rr http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374945299&oldid=374940019 intervening post by another editor - per 3rr http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374950338&oldid=374949116 intervening post by another editor - per 3rr http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=374955417&oldid=374954421

    Note AnonIP is a very disruptive editor who is frequently uncivil. He seems to misunderstand 3RR to mean that if you edit anything on a page 4 times in a day you've violated the rule, which is of course untrue. It is true that the 2A article remains a disputed topic, and it is true that SB stands at odds with almost everyone else in terms of what the page should contain, but I have to say that being the odd man out shouldn't alone be an issue. Disclosure - SB and I rarely agree - you can easily see this in our talk pages and article histories. In this case I'm familiar with the topic, and while I would say one of the edits was perhaps overly BOLD in light of it's obvious lack of consensus, the others actually are good edits that improve the article and as far as I can tell are not controversial. As an admin I'd say this is not a 3RR violation. Since I've been involved in the article I prefer not to get involved in editor discipline, but hoped to provide some background. Additionally it would be nice if we can once again get someone to review the AnonIPs behavior - I'll probably go track down the noticeboard where that was previously started. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been several admin interventions with AnonIP over the last two years. Here is a link[63] to the latest ANI section devoted to this issue. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The description of 3rr is quite clear and states that it is 4 or more changes of previously appearing material, "with" intervening posts by other editors. The abovove 4(or 5) changes involved deletion of previously appearing material with intervening posts by other editors. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Salty is warned per following link

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Salty_there_is_a_3rr_violation_being_filed_against_you

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

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

    He was warned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Salty_you_are_now_WAY_PAST_a_3rr_violation and stopped edit warring but has also been warned in the past see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_28#SB.2FHauskalainen_-_rules_on_edit_war_and_3_revert_rule

    Comments:
    I warned him here that his next 3rr will be reported if he continued his unacceptable behavior. - see bottom of the following link and now I am doing so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_30#English_History:_Connection_between_the_English_and_American_Bill_of_Rights_re_right_to_arms

    Comment I sincerely don't believe that these good faith edits outlined by AnonIP are WP:REVERTS. If I am misunderstanding WP:REVERT, I apologize. Also, I have repeatedly requested help to bring more collaboration to that talk page, and my edit history there shows that for a very long time now I have been patiently working to edit this article in collaboration with AnonIP through dispute resolution. And, even though the AnonIP has refused[64] to participate in WP:DR, I am committed to calmly continue to try to find a compromise. Check the talk page and you will see confirmation my commitment to work out proposed edits and to avoid edit war, as I understand how important this policy is to Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have proposed a voluntary agreement by SaltyBoatr over at User talk:SaltyBoatr#WP:AN3 report about the Second Amendment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like Salty to be less aggressive and relentless but to stay involved. Also for 71.184.... to stay involved. BTW I consider 71.184.... to be less anonomyous than us registered users, and somewhere about the 100th time calling him "anon" starts to be ad hominem. Salty is more clever than 71.184 at using the Wikipedia system to do battle. And all should resolve that this this eternal slugfest over British history needs to start moving forward to a resolution. Massive relentless undiscussed edits will never get us there. I suppose that's all a little vague regarding any "action" but there's my 2 cents. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since SaltyBoatr's response on my talk page does not clearly accept the offer, and since this article has been taken to the noticeboards many times, I'm tempted to impose full protection, say three months. This would be a way of forcing WP:Dispute resolution to occur, since admins would be available to make any change to the article for which consensus was reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Salty would probably consider freezing the article a reward rather then a punishment. The article needs substantial updating to reflect recent court rulings such as Heller and McDonald. It is currently infested with pro-gun control propaganda, much of it inserted by Salty, which is opposed to the individual right viewpoint of the Second Amendment, that the US Supreme Court affirmed in Heller and seconded in McDonald. The last two freezes happened at his request right after he was accused of 3rr violations - check my warnings from the links above with the dates he requested a freeze. Both times when he was in danger of loosing control of the contents of the article he got it frozen.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Salty is more knowledgeable about 3rr then his above post implies - I found this with only a minute's search of his talk page - Salty is not above using threats of 3rr to get his way http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SaltyBoatr&diff=186881680&oldid=18686988971.184.184.238 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is badly outdated due to recent Supreme Court Decisions. Needs a lot of detailed work work to fix it. Locking it up would doom it. Plus I think that all of the current disputes are about just one section. We just completed an consensued amicable major rework of the lead. On the article talk page Salty asked for my ideas, and I wrote: "I think that at the moment this is too big and complex for wp:dr. If you three would be willing to give it a try, I would be happy to try to organize a dialog & effort to move this forward. Besides my commitment to accuracy above all else, I think that I am dumb enough and uninvolved enough on this whole natural right / British history thing, to approach it as just a dumb moderator/organizer. :-) Sincerely," North8000 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not accurate to say that the current dispute is just on one section. Hauskalainen has a problem with the English section, which I can understand. I have been having a dispute over what a "%^$#^* dictionary states when that dictionary is online and can be checked by anyone with two brain cells. Salty wants the article to reflect a meaning NOT in that dictionary. As soon as other sections start getting updated Salty will insure that those sections will be in dispute as well. If the changes are in any way anti-gun control or pro-individual rights Salty will be there obstructing those changes. Guaranteed!71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info / correcting me on that. On the issue of the moment, do you have a better idea? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000 I welcome your offer to moderate/organize the fixing of the problems with the English History section. The example set with the recent collaboration on the introduction rewrite is a very positive example because it was developed on the talk page first, and then moved to the article space. If we could apply that model of cooperation to a rewriting the English History section I think this dispute could be resolved. I also would support a full page protect because it would encourage all editors, including myself, to work things out on the talk page. (I am somewhat disturbed that the article presently is stuck in a state that was achieved by brute force, and not talk page collaboration, so I think that paying attention to the last stable version prior to the latest dust up and page locks would be a wiser starting point.) SaltyBoatr get wet 03:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give it a try. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I blocked User:71.184.184.238 for edit warring &c. all over, but there may be additional issues here that should be addressed. Perhaps Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal could help? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already asked for help from the Mediation Cabal here: [65]. In response, User:71.184.184.238 expressed his opinion of that request here[66]. I am trying to be reasonable and am looking for any help I can get. SaltyBoatr get wet 02:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.13.125.131 reported by User:Weaponbb7 (Result: withdrawn)

    Amish: Amish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:92.13.125.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [67]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

    Talk:Amish#Amish in Europe Section

    Comments:
    Ok I violated WP:BITE smack me with WP:TROUT If appropriate Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • No action. That user is a bit over-exuberant, but the issues appears amenable to discussion. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 24 h)

    • 1st dif: [73] and [74]
    • 2nd dif:[75]
    • 3rd dif: [76] and [77] and [78]
    • 4th dif: [79]
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [80]

    I listed four diffs of reversions but in most cases several reverts were done at once. Editor has reverted my edits and the edits of one other editor. I reverted Texreb twice and the other editor reverted him once. We both then added material rather than reverting but Texreb continued with the reversions. I opened a discussion on the article page but Texreb has not participated. A third editor has also mentioned Texrebs edit warring on the discussion page and provided a warning on his talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support this report. Texasreb is a POV warrior who won't listen to others, and repeatedly reverts despite warnings and requests for discussion. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked There is discussion of the edits in question, there is discussion of what means reliable source, and there is notification about edit warring. Texasreb, please try to reach consensus with your fellow volunteer editors regarding the points you think the article should cover. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Polaron reported by User:BsBsBs (Result: Stale )

    Page: List of cities proper by population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [81]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

    Comments:


    List of cities proper by population is a list of the population of cities using the city proper concept. The intro of the article says "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government .... Therefore, the populations listed are for the administratively-defined city and not for the urban area nor the metropolitan area."

    The disputed entries are sourced from a United Nations Database of urban agglomerations. The database defines each cited datapoint as "Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2009." This is in contradiction to the definition of List of cities proper by population. I did not edit the questionable entries. I tagged them with <nowinki>[vague]</nowiki> or similiar, accompanied by various attempts to resolve this matter on the talk page in a civilized way. These were fruitless. The tags are being removed on a consistent basis. Calls for a better, unambiguous source are being ignored. Please take the appropriate action. Thank you -- BsBsBs (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stale Currently, both of you have not edited the article itself since 0600ish, and seeing as you have both moved to the articles talk page a block would be purely punitive. That said, both of you have engaged in an edit war, and both of you are subject to a block if you continue. Tiptoety talk 21:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tbma reported by User:Posse72 (Result: )

    Page: Battle of Tali-Ihantala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Tbma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [89]

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


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

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

    Comments:

    Posse72 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Posse72 reported by User:Tbma (Result: )

    Page: Battle of Tali-Ihantala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Posse72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user was already previously blocked for his attacks on me. This article has open NPOVN investigation, and my edits were adding information from more sources. User Posse72 continues to reverse my edits, and falsifies numbers from the references.

    --Tbma (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=375270185"