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 206.188.60.1 (talk) at 21:32, 29 March 2011. 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


    131.156.211.10 reported by User:Rusted AutoParts

    Page: Bob's Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 131.156.211.10


    Clean version: unvandalized version.


    IP has been hopping and refuses to understand Wikipedia guidelines. Revert profile: 1, 2, 3, 4.



    Comments:
    The IP has been warned that he was reverted. I cannot see why he refuses to add a source or acknowledge this is trivia. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:38 23 March 2011 (UTC)

    Page protected by Airplaneman (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Markelmitchell reported by User:Dan56 (Result: stale)

    Page: 51/50 Ratchet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Markelmitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


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

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

    Comments:Since this user has made similar unconstructive edits to numerous WP:Albums articles, and has ignored any attempt to talk to him (see user talk page) this is not about the individual article. But the user did slip up here. He has been blocked once before for being non-responsive and his disruptive editing.

    Stale T. Canens (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for nothing. Dan56 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gharr reported by User:Sloane (Result: 24h)

    Page: The Venus Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gharr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1] this is the first edit by User:Gharr which started the edit war, this is the original another user reverted to [2]

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning for previous edit war: [7], warning giving out by User: Gharr to another user on current edit war: [8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

    Comments:
    The edit war largely consists of User:Gharr making changes to the article for which no consensus exists among the other editors. He seems to refuse calmly talking them through. His reverts have been conducted over a long than 24 hour period (41 hours), but the behaviour seems pretty blatant. Note that there's broader problems with the user's behaviour, documented at this very long thread at ANI (ironically started by himself). --Sloane (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This guy/girl called User:Sloane has no case, I did not make any 3 edits reverts withing a span of 24 hours. This user is simply trying to intimidate me. User:Sloane also gave me a generalized 3RR tag previously that Wikipedia states as being aggressive:
    • The rules on issuing a 3RR tag are clear “see Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit_warring_behaviors: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive." This links to the tag User:Sloane used: straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me--this type of warning is clearly aggressive in nature and he/she should not have used it.
    • I consider this action to be an aggressive attempt at continuing to “hounding me” by striking back at me for saying that the use of this aggressive 3RR tag together with with the history of a BLP incident in the past—that I believe involved his friend User:OpenFuture—was the reason behind why he/she is “hounding me.” You can check out my complaint about User:Sloane here: Complaint made to Administrators (assuming it has not been moved into archives yet, but it was active at the time User:Sloane made this complaint).
    • Incidentally, User:OpenFuture and a new person who turned up suddenly called User:Edward321 are the people who have been reverting my edits. User:Sloane seems to be kindly stepping in on behalf of his/her friend User:OpenFuture while also continuing his task of hounding me.
    • I also feel offended that this user is trying this without checking the facts. Perhaps User:Sloane was expecting you to make an error in the time calculations, but that would be dishonest and taking advantage of this place for the purpose of threatening me to back down on my complaint to administration. --(Gharr (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Gharr, there are 4 reverts, done by you, within a 24-hour period. I doubt you'll be let out on the template technicality, especially since you've accused others on violating the 3RR and thus should be very aware of the policy. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, for the record, as I stated above, the reverts happened over a 41-hour period, instead of a 24-hour period. But that obviously doesn't excuse the edit warring.--Sloane (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, you're right. I really need a new set of eyes. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [Statement from you own user page] Zakhalesh:
    • "I am Zakhalesh. I've got nothing to hide but I prefer to keep some obscurity as I don't want any "real" problems arising from conflicts with the people I oppress."
    • "Although my edits may seem genuine and even friendly, I have several disgusting plans for Wikipedia. Remember to treat me as you would treat any online terrorist, as I will do my best to prevent you from learning the truth."
    "Nice sense of humor you have there;" I wouldn't worry about your error, "since they will get better at taking down their prey now that you have let them practice." --(Gharr (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Gharr, that does not belong in 3RR noticeboard, and if you weren't trying to find anything to use against me, you'd probably sense the irony, if not from the text itself, from the links. I seriously urge you to stop attacking other editors. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I taste some sweet irony in the fact that it is you who take that seriously. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I dropped a mention on Gharr's reply to the ANI thread. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Blocked 24 hours. A typical edit by Gharr seems to be this one. It takes opinions which are cited to Fresco and expresses them like they are simple matters of fact, in Wikipedia's voice. This violates WP:NPOV, which doesn't always lead to a block, but when accompanied with edit warring, it's hard to defend. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.238.238.238 reported by User:milonica (Result: no violation)

    Page: Revenge of the Nerds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 98.238.238.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [10]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

    Comments:
    I have noticed this apparent edit war pop up in my watch list over the past few days. Although the IP editor may be acting in good faith, he/she is actively changing the article the same way each time. Multiple editors have reverted the edits but IP continues to change it. This subject was already discussed on the talk page, but I'm afraid no consensus was reached. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! • 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No 3RR here, obviously; the edits are spaced over a month. I see no edits after the warning, either - that's kind of the point of the warning. Keep working on a consensus on the talk page, but I'm not sure if any administrative action will help here. Kuru (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tentontunic reported by User:Igny (Result:no violation)

    Page: Occupation of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Reported by: Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Edit warring/3RR warning diff: [22]
    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page diff: N/A has a long history of edit-warring. Failed to follow the BRD procedure many times

    What a big fat lie. There are but three reverts on that article. And one of those ought not count due to IGNY moving the article without consensus knowing full well it was contentious. Tentontunic (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

    I am hoping the administrator who looks at this report looks properly, there are not five reverts there at all, IGNY is being dishonest here. Edits done one after another with no other editor editing between does not count as a revert. As IGNY is no doubt aware. Tentontunic (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation I only count three reverts (the three successive edits count as one). Yes, even reverts which undo "contentious" edits/moves will count; those are the kind we'd like to avoid the most. It may be a good idea not to skirt around the edges, and move any further discussion to the talk page. Kuru (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kwamikagami reported by Jayjg (Result: )

    Page: Ritual Decalogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 20:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 00:37, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "undo: we do not write in WP jargon, so "disambiguation" means what it says in the dictionary. edits were also factually incorrect: the ED is not in general said to be later than the RD.")
    2. 09:12, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "Yes, seriously. You're obfuscating the situation, and misrepresenting the claim")
    3. 19:57, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "*sigh*")
    4. 22:48, 27 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 416254088 by Jayjg (talk)--No, you stop edit warring: read BOLD if you don't know how WP works")
    5. 16:10, 1 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. to stable version until this is resolved.")
    6. 07:01, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: " ")
    7. 22:18, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: "factually incorrect: ED is not, in general, said to be composed at a later date")
    8. 06:36, 3 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. unencyclopedic edits. Jay, articles are not about terms. That's what the dictionary is for. Take it to talk.")
    9. 15:04, 4 March 2011 (edit summary: "restore & add refs")
    10. 07:18, 8 March 2011 (edit summary: "still no refutation of the basic premise, nor reason to delete the alternate names")
    11. 23:45, 10 March 2011 (edit summary: "it's been five days, and the deleting editors have failed to provide any sources supporting deletion")
    12. 02:51, 11 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 418231919 by Plot Spoiler (talk)--then define it appropriately. Don't delete sources wholesale.")
    13. 04:09, 13 March 2011 (edit summary: "rv. content deletion for mere stylistic reasons")
    14. 18:04, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "integrate new source into article")
    15. 19:31, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "Okay, but then let's start from the beginning, per WP:BOLD")
    16. 21:01, 15 March 2011 (edit summary: "No consensus for these changes on the talk page. Follow your own standards.")
    17. 22:35, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "compromise with Slrubenstein and Jayjg per Talk")
    18. 19:53, 27 March 2011 (edit summary: "restoring mass deletion of sources; blanking of content w/o explanation")
    • Diff of warning: here (note, though I warned him I would report him on March 3, I delayed my initial report for almost two weeks, hoping he would stop reverting).
    • Comment: This is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR-violation report. For a month now Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) has been reverting the Ritual Decalogue article, in almost all cases inserting the phrase "one of three lists identified as the Ten Commandments in the Bible" (or close variations) into the lede. He has reverted 18 times now, and in turn been reverted by five different editors (Kwamikagami is the only editor supporting the use of this phrase). After a previous report of edit-warring was made, the article was protected for a week. Within 48 hours of protection elapsing, he reverted again, and has done so again today! Even more provocatively, his edit summary claimed he had reached a "compromise" with other editors on this on article Talk:, despite the fact that the other editors clearly stated they did not agree with this insertion. As stated before, Kwamikagami will apparently will never stop reverting, regardless of how many editors oppose him, unless some more serious sanction is imposed.Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: As noted last time Jay posted this, this is a content dispute, with several editors on both sides. As of today he does finally seem to be collaborating on this, but a previous outside editor described trying to get answers or sources from him as "like pulling teeth". It looks like we are approaching consensus on the talk page, and our recent edits have grown closer, now that Jay has made a couple objections and sources explicit. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that the 3RR board does not often do anything useful with very-long-running disputes between senior editors. I wonder if either party could propose an outcome, or a further negotiation step whose results they would agree to accept. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible kwami has been battling over this article since 2005, but this specific dispute started on Feb 27, when kwami reverted slrubenstein.[23] Also, it's rather bizarre to see kwami claim there are "several editors on both sides" and that "as of today [Jayjg] does finally seem to be collaborating on this". The fact remains that kwamikagami has reverted eighteen times, and been reverted by five different editors. This is kwami vs. everyone else. The edit-warring board can (and typically does) often deal with this kind of disruptive behavior by a lone editor (kwami) edit-warring with five other editors. Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the latest round, after the article was stable for so long, was a failure to observe BOLD, and insistence that sourced material can be deleted simply on one side's say-so.
    The other editors who have objected to Jay and SLR, or have been frustrated with their refusal to cooperate, are Griswaldo and Steve kap.
    The talk page is the way to get there, if both sides use it in good faith. It's very difficult to accommodate objections if those objections are never made explicit, or to source a differing point if the sources presented for that point don't actually address it. As I said, we finally seems to be moving forward, and we're not very far apart. I don't see why we can't come together on this. My unanswered questions on the talk page are one possibility. — kwami (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (←) Do we actually have the case of two admins edit warring with each other? Honestly? Blocks are useless on a long-running dispute, as EdJohnston said. We have pretty much two options: 1) all of you stop edit warring, or 2) the page gets fully protected until the heat death of the universe or you all finally work something out, whichever is earlier. Take your pick. T. Canens (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to delete anything which is unsourced or which Jay or SLR are able to show is unwarranted. I'm not willing for them to delete reliably sourced info just because they don't like it, or for reasons or sources they refuse to disclose. (Even if they claim they have already or don't need to disclose them.) They have been extraordinarily uncooperative, as others have noted, but things seem to have improved in the last couple of days, with both making constructive comments, which are now incorporated into the article. I've posted my objections to their edits, and the reasons for them, on the talk page; let's see if they're willing to substantiate their objections, as we have repeatedly asked them to do. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor Kwamikagami seems extremely zealous here. He has been battling this out against the consensus of numerous other editors, and appears to be acting as though he has a vested interest in pushing one position. I understand the idea of assuming good faith, but assumptions only go so far, and Kwamikagami is pushing the bounds of what can be assumed as good faith. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But obfuscation, lies, and playing stupid should make us think they're acting in good faith? Jay and SLR have been zealous in battling this out against the consensus of numerous other editors as well, since evidently "numerous" here means "a few". But we go by our sources. I am zealous against those who would delete sources or sourced information and refuse to give any good reason, no matter how much they bluster that their irrelevant claims are good reason. Let Jay and SLR spell out their actual reasons, and address the actual points being contested, and we'll have no problem. We no longer have a problem with the few points where they finally caved and cooperated. Cooperation should be the default. It shouldn't take years of requests and edit wars before one side addresses the issues at hand. — kwami (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Avanu (Result: malformed report)

    Page: Swedish diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Other pages are relevant to the discussion as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_diaspora&curid=17379619&diff=421088211&oldid=421087198

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&curid=30941449&diff=421093828&oldid=421092312

    For example, a recent revert of a single quotation by two unrelated editors in the lead paragraph has led the reported editor to call it an edit war, rather than simply addressing the reasoning for the quote in the Talk page.

    User being reported: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user is consistently avoiding consensus discussions in favor of BOLD editing. This might be fine, but I feel it might be occasionally crossing the line into disruptive editing. This user makes literally hundreds of changes to Wikipedia a day, and boldly moves on, but it would be nice if they would stop when questioned to simply give a rationale for their actions. It strikes me as not in line with fair play to simply push others aside in favor of making major adjustments to the encyclopedia.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User failed recently to respond to a complaint regarding their behavior regarding calling other editors "Essjay". My feeling is that the editor will continue to ignore comments, and so I will place a notice on their Talk page, but I would rather see other editors review and resolve this.

    -- Avanu (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional comment: The editor seems to be now involved in Wikipedia:Canvassing in an attempt to 'win' the argument of whether their edits are proper or not. So far this still has not been in line with simply asking for opinions, but again is being phrased as "edit war". To me, it appears designed to again promote their POV on articles.

    04:13, 28 March 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Aristophanes68 ‎ (top)

    04:10, 28 March 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Sharktopus ‎ (→Diaspora edit war: new section) (top)

    Content of canvassing: It looks like the diaspora edit war has heated up again. Would you look at Swedish diaspora and help decide whether the quote should stay or go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

    -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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. Without diffs of the reverts constituting the alleged edit war, the situation cannot be evaluated.  Sandstein  05:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not the person calling it an edit war. I am responding to the tone of what Richard Arthur Norton himself is calling it, and the pattern of rolling over the community in the edits. I guess really I am asking for assistance before it begins to escalate into something further, and since first encountering Mr. Norton, the general attitude has been one where he seems unwilling to stop and actually discuss his actions, and more of a person who simply changes things and moves on, and others are left to pick up the pieces.
    • As far as "complete diffs", I'm not sure without going through dozens of edits how to present a cohesive picture of what is occuring in general. The article link and the diff I provided at the beginning is the one that Mr. Norton recently called attention to as an "edit war", rather than simply addessing other editors in a community fashion.
    • I would ask you to reconsider this decision to simply say 'malformed report', and give me some idea of how to proceed if this is incorrect. I am really just looking for Mr. Norton to act as a community partner, not as a singular, driven editing machine. -- Avanu (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the complaint is about RAN's characterization of certain situations as an "edit war", a characterization that Avanu disputes. If so, then this is something that should be worked out between RAN and Avanu, or, if RAN is somehow acting disruptively, be reported to a suitable venue such as WP:ANI. This board is for dealing with ongoing edit warring. If you think that there is no edit war then there's nothing for us to address. T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake then. At the time I filed this, my impression was that RAN was beginning an edit war, and has characterized the edits as such with 2 other editors on their Talk pages in order to enlist their aid in pushing his POV. I have explained further at User_talk:Sandstein and he also advised me to go down the WP:DE route with this. I really don't want to make a huge issue of this, but I am a big believer in community and mutual support of editors, and it seems from my research and experiences that RAN is typically more apt to act unilaterally. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Igny reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: no violation; self reverted)

    Page: Occupation of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [24]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30] This ought not be needed, Igny made a spurious report here on myself, and then proceeded to break 3r himself to edit war in a POV tag. This is not the first time he has done this.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

    Comments:

    Igny has persistently edit warred this POV tag into the article. This is not the first time, nor I fear will it be the last. I am unsure if moving the article without consensus is a revert, if not then he has but four. Tentontunic (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I am unsure this meets a full-blown edit war status (it hits 4RR only because of the attempted move) - I am more concerned that [32] (moved Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect: move per talk) evinces a unilateralist philosophy which is contrary to consensus building in any case (having noted that nothing remotely near consensus existed for the move). Collect (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This move was not unilateralist. As the discussion on the talk page demonstrated, numerous sources and arguments have been provided from both sides. I would say, the prerequisite for this edit war was created by Peters, who attempted to close the RfM[33], a step he could not do, as Lothar explained here[34]. Although I see no any gross violation in this Peters' step (he definitely genuinely believed he could do that), the same step made later by Tentontunic few days later[35] was a more severe violation: he was informed by me about incorrectness of the removal of the tag by involved users[36], and, nevertheless preferred to ignore my advice to self-revert. Therefore, per WP:BOOMERANG the most correct solution would be to direct sanctions against Tentontunic. BTW, it will be not the first, and even not the second block in the recent Tentontunic's block history. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul's attempt to blame Peters' RM closure as a cause is a misrepresentation and may be a breach of WP:HONESTY, Peters' good faith closure has absolutely nothing to do what so ever with Igny's disruptive behaviour, as is demonstrated by Igny also removing the RM tag[37]. I note that a totally uninvolved editor has noticed Igny's disruptive behaviour and reported him to ANI[38], some action needs to be taken here. --Martin (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, firstly, I do not blame Peters in anything, I just explain what the Lothar's position was: an involved user cannot close the RfM. After Peters has been explained, the issue was easily resolved. Again, I see no serious violation from the Peters' side (who genuinely believed he had a right to close the discussion, which, in his, (and in my) opinion became dormant), and I expect Martin to withdraw his odd accusation. In any event, by this step Peters unintentionally renewed the discussion over renaming, which, despite a visibility of dormantness, appeared to be not completely resolved.
    Interestingly, another step that lead to escalation was a unilateral change of the sidebar's title by Martin[39] That has been done without any discussion, and the need of this step was questioned by others (see talk page). Therefore, although I see no traits of edit warring in these Martin's actions, he definitely contributed into the development of the conflict, and, therefore, this his comment is somewhat hypocritical.
    However, all of that are just minor details. The reality is as follows (I reproduce it again below):
    "Tentontunic removed the RfM tag[40], the step, he, being an involved user, could not do. After the issue has been explained to him[41], he refused to self-revert. This[42] is a proof that he has read my post. This[43] is a proof that he was an involved user by the moment he de facto closed RfM. This[44] is a proof that he removed a POV tag despitre the fact that the thread named "POV issues" is still active on the talk page[45]. Therefore, despite the fact that Tentontunic made just three reverts:
    1. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48],
    by these three reverts he removed the POV tag twice, and removed the RfM tag.
    When I started to write this post I didn't know all these details, and I didn't realise the situation is so severe. In this situation, to block Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has already been blocked recently twice, would be a good solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you clarified your position and have struck my comment accordingly. Note that Igny's move was marked as minor. This is not the first time, Igny has previously attempted to move this article against concensus, also marking those edits as minor: here,here andhere, so this current move is part of a pattern of reverts by a long standing edit warrior. --Martin (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Although I do not think Igny's behaviour is correct, however, we must concede that some steps made by other users could contribute into the Igny's emotional outburst. Moerover, since Igny seems to accept my advice[49] (at least, his last edits just restored the status quo ante bellum editorarum[50]), the situation seems to be resolved, and any actions against Igny will be punitive, not preventive.
    Re minor edits. I myself sometimes do the same mistake by automatically clicking at this box.
    However, that does not resolve another issue: the behaviour of Tentontunic. I suggest to focus on this problem. Do you have anything to say on his behalf?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3RR case above against Tentontunic is closed, this is about Igny. No, Igny's last edit did not "restore the status quo ante bellum editorarum" as you claim. This edit by you was the last edit[51] before Igny started edit warring[52]. I can understand accidently marking an edit as minor, but doing it four times for the exact same edit in the case of Igny? Igny was previously warned by an admin for this kind behaviour[53], so any action here would be preventive. --Martin (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to remark that Tentontunic's move was also marked "m". Now Martin, you go ahead and try to move an article and mark it minor. I would like to see how you do that. (Igny (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    Just my tuppence.

    • My report against Tentontunic was not frivolous, he just got a break on a technicality, for some reason, 2 reverts were counted as one. I would appreciate if someone reviews how how 4 reverts ([54], [55], [56], [57]) do not mean an automatic block.
    • By contrast, Tentontunic's report was frivolous, I would like someone to explain to me how 2nd and 3rd edits reported by him can be considered reverts.
    • Amount of bad faith from Martintg's towards me is staggering, but understandable as I have so far refused to put up with his behavior here. I can not help but wonder if that is a new EEML technique to irritate opponents by ignoring opponents' arguments while poking at anything which could potentially provoke an outburst. They however fail to realize that attempts to boycott an opponent does not work on WP, as they would in a kindergarten, for valid arguments not go away unnoticed.

    (Igny (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    Old news first, I suppose. The previous report against Tentontunic was not frivolous, it was simply incorrect. I'm surprised that you've used the phrase "for some reason 2 reverts were counted as one" as this is specifically coded into the policy as "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I'm not sure how much more clear that could be.
    The four diffs you give as examples appear to be from the same sample set as your report above. All four are indeed clear reverts. You will also the reverts at 14:27 and 14:03 occur without interventing edits and count as one - he could have just as easily done it in one edit. If you need a better explanation, please let me know, but this seems quite clear. So that's the old news, I'll look through this report now. I do notice that you are still the last editor on that page and there is still time to self-revert before I dig through this. I would encourage you to do that before I finish. Kuru (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for an explanation, and for the opportunity to self-revert. (Igny (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • No violation Collect is pretty spot on above; I see four reverts including the move revert, not five. Since Igny has self-reverted the last one, there are only three and no 3RR which forces a block. I would encourage everyone on this article to start making sure there are discussions that are completed on the talk page before making any other reverts. This is an excellent time to point out that 3RR isn't the only criteria for an edit warring block, it's just the bright line; please don't start playing games with four reverts in 25 hours or some other nonsense. Kuru (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.20.46.8 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: stale)

    Page: Éamon de Valera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 92.20.46.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [58]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Under discussion at [62]

    Comments:
    The article is under a 1 revert restriction per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE_case. O Fenian (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale T. Canens (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (Result: protected)

    Page: Guy Fawkes Night (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: [63]


    1. 08:28, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 421111187 by Moonraker2 (talk) I suggest you read up on exactly what he was doing. An undercroft is not a cellar")
    2. 09:45, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "he was caught "skulking around" in there, not leaving, and the pile of explosives was not limited to gunpowder. Do try and keep up, try buying some books on the subject, they may help")
    3. 09:52, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 421121143 by Moonraker2 (talk) the house of lords contained gunpowder? News to me.")
    4. 10:47, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Jesus Christ, there was only ONE undercroft beneath the house of lords, and it contained MORE than just gunpowder. If you're going to make changes then make them legible and factually accurate!")


    In all four reverts the word "gunpowder" has been replaced with "explosives", but there are other reverts in the diffs as well.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I will post a message about this posting on User talk:Parrot of Doom. PoD is an experienced editor and has already been warned by me twice in the last week about 3RR. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] see the section Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night#"explosives not limited to gunpowder"

    Comments:
    This is the third time that PoD has broken the 3RR limit on this article in the last week Once was report here by me, the second time I pointed out PoD's breach on POD's talk page with a list of the diffs See:

    1. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive153#Parrot of Doom reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: No action taken) (22 March)
    2. User talk:Parrot of Doom#Four more reverts and partial reverts in 24 hours (24 March)

    -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Surely it's now time that PBS was once again blocked for disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Page protected for a period of 1 week in lieu of blocks and rollback removals and whatnot. T. Canens (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I had already asked for the page to be protected (on the 25th) so I am please that you have done so. However, that does not address the issue of of PoD breaching 3RR not once but three times on the same page within a week, and coupled to this two editors on the the talk page have suggested that PoD has an ownership issue with this page.

    I think that PoD should be blocked for a time so that a clear message is sent that whatever the content dispute may be, breaching 3RR multiple times is unacceptable to the community, particularly as his/her conversation on his/her talk page with User:Charles Matthews shows no understanding that his/her breaching 3RR is out of order. Although I do notice from the archives of this page that PoD will bring 3RR complaints against others.

    Also knowing that this 3RR report was open PoD performed another revert at 08:25, 29 March 2011 bringing the number of reverts up to five in a 24 hour period. Exactly how blatant does breaching of 3RR have to be before a block is imposed? -- PBS (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the editors who feels PoD has ownership issues also told an American editor she has no 'qualification' to comment on the talkpage - essentially telling her to go away. I think protecting the page is the right decision, but don't think blocks are necessary at this point because of the provocation I'm seeing on the page and talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Truthkeeper88 to which editor are you referring? I have checked the edits of the two editors who have explicitly commented about PoD's ownership of the article on the article's talk page by linking to WP:OWN when making those comments, and could not find any comment by either of them of the type you describe. I presume that the discussion you are referring starts close to the top of the section Talk:Guy Fawkes Night#Bonfire night. Do you think that the editor who wrote "Hello, Truthkeeper88. As you would suppose.." also thinks that PoD has ownership issues? BTW I do not think that the editor in question, suggested anyone should go away. -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to bring personal histories into this PBS then perhaps I should post this link, which clearly demonstrates that quite a few experienced editors (content creators unlike yourself) feel that you are disruptive. Although you're "clever" enough to not appear to break the rules you are obviously edit warring, and having clearly lost several arguments on the article's talk page you are now attempting to force your view with this bureaucracy. The scholarly integrity of that article is far more important than my block log and I will not allow you to derail it by adding a load of badly-written and dubiously-sourced bollocks. Cease your disruption and go and do something constructive. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good move to protect the page. I've tried to stay out of the childish name-calling, and have no intention of defending all of PBS' edits, but the comment by PoD above that "I will not allow you to derail it by adding a load of badly-written and dubiously-sourced bollocks" hopefully is sufficient demonstration of the nature of the problems facing other editors - see WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The views of PBS are clearly at odds with the majority of editors on the article's talk page. PBS is using bullying tactics to impose his minority view. Several editors have suggested to PBS that his suggestions could improve the Bonfire Night article yet he seems intent on degrading the Guy Fawkes Night article to the level of the Oktoberfest article. Parrot of Doom is not the editor creating drama here, it is the sustained campaign by PBS to get his own way.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment is utterly misleading. There is a group of very active, very technically proficient editors, including Parrot of Doom, J3Mrs, and some others associated with the Greater Manchester WikiProject, who take the view that articles such as Guy Fawkes Night should take a certain form, and be academically unimpeachable. That would be fine, were it not for the fact that they (in some cases) abuse and generally denigrate other good faith editors who take a less absolutist and more inclusive view of different approaches towards informing readers. PBS has one view, and has edited in accordance with that view - his editing approach on the article (I can't comment about other articles) is far from "bullying". I don't personally agree with many of PBS' edits, or all his comments, but to suggest that he is in the wrong and PoD's approach (which includes, at best, gross arrogance and incivility) is "right" is completely preposterous. There is no evidence either that PBS' views, or those of PoD, command the support of the "majority of editors" - there is disagreement as to the way forward (in particular, as to whether the GFN article should be expanded, or whether an (effectively) new, more general, article on Bonfire Night should be developed), and a poisonous atmosphere which is apparently designed to ensure that GF editors on such articles are driven away. What a shame that PoD should be defended in this way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    J3Mrs, rather than discussing the content of articles and the alleged behaviour of other editors in this section, do you think that editors should be allowed to repeatedly breach 3RR? -- PBS (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unsure as to why you mention the Greater Manchester WikiProject and what it has to do with my comment. From my reading of the talk page I disagree with Ghmyrtle's analysis but that is my opinion. However I should point out it takes two editors to create these situations. If I have harmed caused PoD any offence, I apologise to him.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only relevance of mentioning the WikiProject is to indicate that those defending PoD's behaviour will have had many previous WP interactions, and may conceivably even know other in real life. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't offended me at all J3Mrs. As usual, certain people here are whinging about personal insults while spewing forth their own. The hypocrisy is amazing. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "spewing forth" or "whinging" at all - just commenting. Independent readers will quickly come to their own conclusions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but they already have. Parrot of Doom 19:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good the article was protected. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.248.151.69 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 31h)

    Page: Paypal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 67.248.151.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Latest revision as of 20:47, 28 March 2011

    Comments:
    Incessantly edit-warring and reverting multiple users. Adding POV, OR and unreliable sources. At RFPP I was told to report here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours T. Canens (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Timothy. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jane his wife reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 72h)

    Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jane his wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 3rd revert: Reverted User:Crohnie at 23:51, 28 March 2011 from here through 01:38, 29 March 2011 here
    • He then went on to revert User:Drmies three times after this. You can see the extent of his singleminded efforts at the article's history page, where you'll also see his uncivil comments to the multiple other editors who disagree with his press-puffery, his WP:PEACOCK, WP:DATED and other vios, etc. Despite a request on both his talk page and the article's talk page, this is his reply:
    First off, I'm not 'new' to wikipedia, I just got another screename, second I don't do 'talk' pages, this part of the article has been here for years and is staying. My 'snide' comments are only to those who deserve one
    LMAO yeah that was really un-friendly, you want to see un-friendly, go out more, how about you stay away from here. There is nothing wrong with how the article stands, not to mention I added 70% more information to it.
    I wasn't even talking to you. How about you go away. I'll reply in my edits if someone responds like you are now, so shut it.

    As well, he is exhibiting WP:OWN and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: "if I'm blocked I'm reverting all the edits I added MYSELF back to how bare and unprofessional it looked a month ago"


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jane his wife#Reap what you sow

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Jane his wife#Nicole Kidman, and bottom of Talk:Nicole Kidman.

    Comments:

    --Tenebrae (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:124.169.173.59 reported by User:TeleComNasSprVen (Result: rangeblocked/semi'd)

    Page: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 124.169.173.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: stable revision, seven intermediate reverts


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

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

    Comments:

    Pretty sure this is the same revert warrior hopping IPs. More recent war erupting on Flying Spaghetti Monster. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Page semi-protected for a period of 3 days Blocked 124.169.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Platinumshore reported by User:206.188.60.1 (Result: )

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

    This has been reported at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Platinumshore_and_Peak_oil_again, but I am cross posting here as previous postings at that NB produced no effect. Please indicate there if action is taken.

    • Jan 22 first insertion of text: [64]
    • Jan 22 removal of CN tags: [65]
    • Jan 25 removal of CN tags: [66]
    • Feb 1 removal of CN tags: [67]
    • Feb 1 removal of CN tags second time: [68]
    • Mar 1: [69]
    • Mar 13: [70]
    • Mar 15: [71]
    • Mar 29: [72]

    No response on user's talk page or article discussion page.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Peak_oil#Platinumshore

    Comments:


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=421384354"