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 22:11, 2 May 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


    User:Pacomartin reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: House of Windsor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pacomartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:DrKiernan#Read the letters patent & Talk:House of Windsor#Relinquished Arms and Titles & Restrictions of Princes and Princesses

    I have made a number of comments complete with references disputing DrKiernan's personal interpretation of history. I don't respect words like rubbish, when my comments are backed by historical documents and his are not. As to DeCausa we disagree on what constitutes trivial with regard to history. I think it is significant and he disagrees. Although I disagree with him I respect his right to have this opinion. I have proposed a solution that meets his principal objection of taking too much space in the article. I hope that he responds.Pacomartin (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    You didn't notify Pacomartin of this thread (as is required - see above). I've done it for you. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with the charge of edit warring. The first comment was valid about not enough references and was taken to heart and references were added that supported the section. Then DrKiernan began undoing work without making any notes in the talk page.Pacomartin (talk)

    I can see clear reverts at 21:30 and 21:06. The other edits are complex, and I cannot quickly see what they're actually reverting. Is this part of an older conflict? Kuru (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I can explain (I think):
    28 April
    04:16 Pacomartin added a new section about certain members of the royal family loosing their titles in 1917 with a list of the individuals concerned here.
    07:54DrKiernan reverted Pacomartin
    DIFF 1 above: 23:14 . Pacomartin restored it at with an added source (albeit not a good one as it is primary).
    29 April
    07:06 DrKiernan partially reverted and modified it (significantly reducing the list)
    DIFF 2 above: 13:36 Pacomartin made a further modification of the same text. It's not really a revert, I think, more of just building up the new section.
    19:15 Pacomartin restored the list that had been taken out by DrKiernan at 07:06.
    21:06 DrKiernan reverted everything (i.e. back to pre-28 April) position at 19:56.
    DIFF 3 above : 21:06 Pacomartin restored it.
    21:09 DrKiernan reverted.
    DIFF 4 above: 21:30 Pacomartin restored it
    21:34 I reverted Pacomartin.
    After Pacomartin was notified of this thread, he put in a much shorter version of waht was in his new section here at 02:55 30 April but covering the same ground, which I reverted.
    Pacomartin has been confrontational the article Talk page on this and shows a lack of understanding of WP policies. DrKiernan has used the page very little on this. DeCausa (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, DeCausa; that was very helpful and nicely laid out. I can see the original addition of the material I missed which started this series of reverts. I can also see he is still adding versions of that to the article. Based on 23:14, 19:15, 21:09, and 21:34, I have blocked Pacomartin for 24 hours. Kuru (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bijuts reported by User:Samaleks (Result: semi-protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to:
    Link: [7]
    Diff: [8]

    Further to edit-warring in Kochi page, the user was trying to do the same thing in Kerala page too.

    The user is using Multiple IPs to evade the block; inserting the same content every time.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] [21] [22]


    Comments:

    The user Bijuts has been blocked once (48 hrs) for editwarring in Kochi, Kerala pages. The user is constantly trying to push his POV, and not using talk pages or other dispute resolution processes.

    The user is trying to use Multiple IPs to evade the block. This user should be blocked for a longer period, and the pages should be semi-protected. --Samaleks (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Page protected for a period of three days Semi-protected to avoid sockpuppetry (I cannot verify that these IPs were the same user). If the user starts edit warring against in the next 24 hours, feel free to report to me or to this board again (making note of what I said here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another revert in Kerala page now : [23]
    As per Duck, Bijuts could be blocked. Else, I am afraid, that the user is going to use multiple IPs for edit-warring in different pages. Samaleks (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All the Indian notable cities have nick names. Whenever I am trying to add the nick name to Kochi city page with solid references, the User:Samaleks and anonymus ips reverting it without valid arguments. About sock puppetry, nothing to say- User:Samaleks simply allege about sock puppetry without any valid proofs. Administrators can investigate very well. My ip address is 59.93.43.177. Till date no other user logged through this ip address and till date i logged to wiki only through this ip address. --Bijuts (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Epiros reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Stale)

    Page: Famous Greek Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Epiros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [24]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

    Comments:

    Someone please intervene here: The user Epiros is making some very aggressive and non-cooperative edits to attempt and force his concept of how "Famous Greek Americans" is somehow different than the "Greek Americans" page. I discovered this while doing some cleanup of his edits based on a page I watch. Multiple warnings on his talk page and no sign of letting up. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stale The 4/28 3RR violation is stale. As for the 4/30 revert, it came two days later and the way the warning is worded it is not clear that one can be blocked for edit warring that doesn't violate 3RR. As they have been warned a second time, I would block if they made another revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the answer and information. Hopefully no further action will need to be taken. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:50.37.198.232 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Pokémon (anime) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 50.37.198.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [31]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] (Note: this is the user's talk page)

    Comments: User is adding unsourced content that is being reverted. Nothing fancy, just restoring it whenever it is removed. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked him apparently at the same time you added this. I see two reverts after the warning at 22:10; what am I missing here? Open to unblocking if I've mis-read that. Kuru (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, there were two reverts that occurred after the user was warned. The warning[39] was posted at 22:10. This revert[40] occurred at 22:13, and this revert[41] occurred at 22:16. I think User:King of Hearts's confusion was due to this diff[42] where I informed the user of this 3RR report, which occured at 22:21 (but I placed it right under the 3RR warning, hence the possible confusion) - SudoGhost (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chafis reported by User:Tenmei (Result: 1 month)

    Page: G8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) + G-20 major economies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    See also BRICS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) +

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


    Previous version reverted to: G8 here and G-20 major economies here

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55] + [56]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: G8 here and G-20 major economies here

    Comments: A block may be the only way to convey the reasonable necessity for Chafis to adopt a different editing strategy. A similar pattern of non-responsive and disruptive edits is replicated in three corollary articles. The serial reverts which Chafis makes are problematic because (a) they are accompanied by NO edit summaries; and (b) there is NO willingness to engage in talk page discussion -- even when it has been explicitly invited at User talk:Chafis.

    Chafis was notified about this complaint here; and a hyperlink was provided. --Tenmei (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2011

    For the record: Chafis was blocked for 1 month by Elockid here --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orangemarlin reported by User:Ludwigs2 (Result: Protected)

    Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Orangemarlin (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: [62]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Middle 8 raising the issue: [63] My suggestion that we wait for administrative input: [64] Orangemarlin's response (he wp:TLDRed it):[65] Raised again by Middle 8, 25 minutes prior to OM's last revert: [66]


    Comments:

    I'll add that all of Orangemarlin's edits to this article in the month of April were reverts (with the exception of the removal of a dispute tag, which probably counts as a revert as well). He's added no content, and his talk page discussion is uninformative (simple declarations of POV violations, false dichotomies, and etc, which he explicitly refuses to explain using comments such as this and this. --Ludwigs2 08:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    comment by uninvolved Collect

    Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Orangemarlin_at_acupuncture is a concurrent complaint by same editor about same editor. Simultaneous noticeboard complaines do not tend to be productive in the best of times. Collect (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 4:55-5:00: Ludwigs2 starts a WQA discussion and notifies Orangemarlin. OM makes it clear that he is not interested in cooperating.
    • 7:03: OM reverts for the 5th time in 24 hours and for the 10th time in a month, with 0 non-revert edits since he returned from his 2-year breaks and no meaningful participation in talk page discussions. (8 of his 10 last consecutive blocks of edits before his break were reverts of non-vandalism edits. They spanned more than a year, and the two non-revert edits were addition of a citation needed tag and removal of content.)
    • 8:22: L2 makes this report.

    Does an open WQA report with which he is not cooperating make a seasoned edit warrior immune from a 4RR report about an infraction that occurred after the WQA report was opened? Hans Adler 05:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I see it as two separate issues, though obviously there's an interrelation. OM's editing practices are certainly WQA-worthy for a long-term discussion, but five reverts in a day without significant talk page interaction was an immediate problem that needed looking into. I'm a little saddened that the decision seems to have been to lock the page (as though we were all at fault for this problem) rather than block Orangemarlin. The result, I suspect, will be that we all sit around for three days accomplishing nothing - OM certainly has shown no inclination to discuss content - and as soon as the protection is lifted OM will return to reverting material without discussion. <shrug> we'll see. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see you have a couple of editors attempting to make changes to the page which were opposed by OM. Neither group really used the talk page, and we also have forum shopping going on here (agree with Collect). When I tried to restore the prior stable position to allow discussion to take place both Ludwig2 and Adler reimposed their position. Ludwig jumped to my talk page to say that he would have to name me at an ANI case in consequence and then we have complaints by Ludwig that other editors are not responding to a woefully inadequate summary of the issue within two hours. Two much game playing with different forums here. Nothing justifies breaking the 3rr rule, but we seem to have a personal dispute being played out here which goes beyond the article itself. Best people lay off the personal stuff and focus on getting the content issues defined and resolved while the article is frozen. --Snowded TALK 06:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a personal dispute, and I have no position on the content (yet). You inadvertently supported one of the most reckless (and unfortunately generally successful, due to his special technique) edit warriors I have ever seen on this project. It was an error in judgement. Maybe you even believed that OM would actually take part in a content discussion. By now you should have understood that that is not going to happen and should understand that I was right to undo your revert. So far you have not made any concrete objections to the edits reverted by OM either, nor has anybody else. BRD doesn't mean: Bold edit, unexplained revert, discussion among those editors who don't see the problem. Hans Adler 07:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, saying that I did not use the talk page is ridiculous on the face of it. any one who even glances at it will see that I have been trying extensively to get people to explain this set of reverts, and anyone who has even a mild exposure to my editing style knows that I have an unfortunately hard time keeping my mouth shut about anything. Accusing me of not using the talk page is a bit like accusing Paris Hilton of being demure. --Ludwigs2 07:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are ya'll still needling each other? GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well... Welcome to Wikipetula! --Ludwigs2 14:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ludwigs2, who has been blocked 14 times for various personal attacks and edit warring, has personal issues with me. This is an embarrassing use of bandwidth. It's sad that someone is so angry at my editing that they need to resort to bogosity. I can help you Ludwigs, I really can. Maybe I can mentor you. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very silly argument from someone who has 6 blocks himself. Hans Adler 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Add in the he didn't get blocked for this 5-revert rampage and I'd estimate OM's blockable offenses up in the 20's or 30's. You know I'd have gotten blocked for doing what he did. It's good to have friends in high places, apparently... --Ludwigs2 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Meliniki reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Demographics of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and several other articles)
    User being reported: Meliniki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 94.209.255.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Parallel rv-warring on multiple articles:

    1. [67] (8R/3 days)
    2. [68] (7R/3 days)
    3. [69] (4R/3 days)
    4. [70] (4R/3 days)
    5. [71] (8R/48hrs)
    6. [72] (9R/48hrs)
    7. [73] (6R/48hrs)

    Several 3RR and Arbmac warnings on User talk:Meliniki. Related content discussion ongoing on Commons.

    Comments:
    Filed yesterday also at WP:AE as an Arbmac issue, re-filing here for faster response (still also recommending Arbmac topic ban as part of the response). Editor is now continuing the edit-war through an anon IP; identity is self-confirmed [74]. Multiple forms of disruptive editing also on Commons (personal attacks, WP:POINT deletion nominations etc.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record: Blocked 24 hrs by Mike Rosoft. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PeRshGo reported by User:Roscelese (Result: warned)

    Page: Pro-life feminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: PeRshGo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [75]

    • 1st revert: [76] 10:46
    • 2nd revert: [77] 18:08


    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [78] ([79] [80])

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

    Comments:
    Abortion-related articles are subject to general sanctions which include 1RR on all articles. (PeRshGo believes that they do not apply to this article, but I obviously disagree.)

    User claims that I have also violated 1RR, but I invite anyone to check if this is indeed the case.


    Response: Just to note, the first revert was to one editors edit, the other was to another. The reverts involved editors attempting to remove sourced material. No usage of the talk page took place until after the second revert. There is no listing on the talk page that the General sanctions apply to this particular article so one would assume it is subject to the standard 3RR and the discussion is now ongoing. PeRshGo (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: PRG had not been warned about 1RR, while I think that the page should fall under general sanctions it was not and has not yet been tagged as such. The warning was only issued after the fact. The attempt at resolution on talk only took place after and is not as much an attempt at resolution as it is the prosecution restating their argument in a somewhat belligerent tone. - Haymaker (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pershgo was warned about edit warring right before the violation of 1RR. In that light, the 1RR violation is clearly a continuation of edit warring with or without knowledge of 1RR restriction on abortion-related subjects. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, Pershgo had seen the sanctions note applied to a related article a few days ago. Pershgo edited Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute for the first time on April 27, then on April 28 I added the sanctions note. Pershgo edited that same talk page the next day, and is assumed to have seen the note. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned The sanctions clearly apply to this article, as it's hard to claim that "pro-life feminism" isn't an abortion-related article. However, I'm willing to assume PeRshGo's good faith. Please keep this in mind when editing untagged articles in the future. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biker Biker reported by User:Barnstarbob (Result: )

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


    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:

    The Lead, Problems and Reception were covered in two long discussions and were approved by many Users. Biker Biker did not participate is now also reverting the sections. None of his edits according to Wiki prose and content were reverted, but the deletion and complete change of the three sections above were reverted as the previous versions were already approved in two discussions for content and neutrality.

    Look at the changes made in the past 24 hours by myself and 842U and you will see a concerted effort to improve the article. No tendentious editing like Barnstarbob, no WP:OWN issues like Barnstarbob, and no POV pushing - making sure that the article is whitewashed by having more praise than criticism for the vehicle. All we have done is try to balance the article, reduce the trivia and fancruft, remove many of Barnstarbob's COI blog entries and videos, and generally make the article better than it is. Barnstarbob's response was four straight reverts in a row. I stopped when I realised he wasn't going to give up, but each time I asked him to cease and engage in a discussion at the article's talk page. He refused instead pushing the same line of "the article has been approved by others" meaning effectively that it can never change. Wikipedia is based on consensus and one editor (Barnstarbob) does not own this article. Where he gets the idea that an article can be approved and for ever more set in concrete I don't know. If you look back at Barnstarbob's behaviour over the past couple of weeks it has been a constant cycle of reversion of other people's work in favour of pushing his own content into his article. Even this report, crazy because he's the one edit warring by reverting mine and 842U's work, is because I reported him to ANI (see current case there). As for this case - you'll notice he can't provide 4 reverts because I didn't make four. He did however, here are the four diffs for his wholesale reverts of a lot of hard work by myself and 842U - diff1, diff2, diff3, and diff4 --Biker Biker (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct of User:Barnstarbob

    • Invoke WP:Boomerang. Reporter did not provide diffs, but lets look at a few from them. 1 2 3 4 reverts. Seems like a clear cut case of a 3rr violation by the reporter. Reporter obviously knows the 3rr rule by virtue of filing the report here. Monty845 18:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:842U reported by User:Barnstarbob (Result: )

    Page: Chevrolet Vega
    User being reported: 842U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    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:

    842A keeps deleting lead section and replacing it with his version after a long project discussion he started (but did not participate in). The section was approved in article talk page and automobile projects discussion by many Users. 842A is acting alone, not following opinions of Users in the two previous discussions, and is editing with OWNERSHIP of article.

    The discussion regarding Chevrolet Vega is ongoing and not something that is either resolved or static. The discussion page reflects numerous editors citing problems with the article; I am not acting alone. The article essentially has been crafted by one editor who is very close to the subject matter: he has populated the article with his own photographs, photographs form his own cars and promotional material from the manufacturer. He has gone to great length to expand the article, including sections about minutae (fake wooding siding application) while avoiding the broad legacy the car has earned -- which happens to have a large negative component. In discussing these points, the editor has refused to allow the information to be included either in the introduction or in a legacy section – often subdividing the sources for information by "auto" sources and "non-auto" sources as a way of obfuscating the facts. He has suggested that the sources (all listed on the discussion page) are problematic. This includes sources such as Time, Newsweek, Popular Mechanics and books by noted historians. In the process of discussing the article, the editor has strongly discouraged editing of the the article by others, saying others are wasting his time, etc. He has verbally attacked other editors. I can see where including a products extremely negative reputation can be a delicate matter, but at the same time the Vega article receives hundreds of hits per day. There is no need to have an article crafted by one editor, near to subject matter, who strongarms other editors out of the conversation. 842U (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crusio reported by User:Snek01 (Result: no violation)

    Page: The Nautilus (journal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Crusio (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: The discussion: Talk:The Nautilus (journal). Comments: Crusio broke the spirit of the 3RR. He should also know, that when he make the same revert after three days, this also 3RR apply and that such behavior is not appropriate and can be also considered as a gaming of the system. I would like to avoid this (also for the future cases) and then I am reporting this (otherwise helpful) user. By the way, he is arguing that there is no consensus on that this and that gives him the permission to making his reverts. Unilaterally ignoring other views (such as that notable people associated with the article can be normally mentioned) is not good. Thank you for your help. --Snek01 (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The three diffs provided date from 24 April, 25 April and 1 May. 3RR does not apply here. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 3RR does not luckily apply here. But edit warring yes. This page is named "Edit warring & 3RR". --Snek01 (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please could you supply the diff(s) where you warned Crusio about edit-warring? The discussion on the article talk page seems quite orderly. Mathsci (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, I am arguing that there is a long-standing consensus within the WikiProject Academic Journals that editorial board members should not normally be listed in articles on journals. There may be exceptions, for instance if there are reliable sources that document some actions of board members relating directly to the journal in question -such as the case a few years ago where complete boards resigned from some Elsevier journals. Even there, not the whole board should be listed, but only the leaders of that movement. There are large discussions about this archived on the talk page of the WikiProject. --Crusio (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty mild edit war, with a fairly productive and polite conversation progressing on the talk page after the last revert. I'm not seeing any administrative action that needs to take place. Kuru (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer (Result: page protected)

    This user keeps removing any reference from the Unicron page to him being a Decepticon. I have provided THREE different officially licensed sources by the character's creator saying he is a Decepticon to the user on their Talk page and on the talk page for Unicron, but all talk is ignored and the reverts keep coming. I think we are already in a bit of an edit war, so I wanted to try to stop it now and get help. Any advice? Mathewignash (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick look at the problems shows that you have both gone past "a bit of an edit war". I've protected the page for three days to allow the two of you to try to discuss the change on a talk page instead of through tit-for-tat edit summaries. Please try the suggestions at WP:DR. If this flares up when the protection expires, you can both be subject to having your accounts blocked if you repeat your recent actions. Kuru (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd look forward to a talk. I've been posting on talk pages for several days now, and all she does is revert to her edits, never responds to the talk invitations. Mathewignash (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits are wrong man. He's not a Decepticon in any canon. One toy does not count.--FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Say, how about Talk:Unicron? People who are interested in this conversation are more likely to be watching that page. Kuru (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.145.105.224 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Tom and Jerry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 86.145.105.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [82]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

    Comments:
    This is a long-term IP hopping vandal, who continually reverts to his preferred version (with poor spelling and grammar) whenever article protection expires - this article needs semi-protection again. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.235.150.99 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Saul Alinsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.235.150.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [89]

    1. 02:08, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
    2. 02:35, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
    3. 03:14, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
    4. 03:34, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
    5. 12:51, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
    6. 12:59, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
    7. 13:04, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
    8. 15:28, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
    9. 16:51, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

    Comments:

    User:Seabas73 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: blocked 31 hours)

    Page: Planned Parenthood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Seabas73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=427112268&oldid=427111971


    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seabas73&diff=prev&oldid=427113721

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planned_Parenthood&diff=427114559&oldid=424854762

    Comments:

    Violation of community-imposed 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lgmagone reported by User:lhb1239 (Result: )

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


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

    Note: The last revert diff above was made without an edit summary and after I had reminded that editor in my own edit summary to please come to the talk page and discuss.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97], [98], [99]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100] Note: This isn't the first time I have tried to keep things civil in editing this article -- I have repeated myself many times over on the talk page of the Mortenson article about editing together rather than fighting about the edits and reversions just to revert.

    Comments:
    A number of editors (and one administrator) have attempted on more than one occasion to reason with this editor on his talk page and on the talk page of the article. From practically his first edit in this article, this editor has been engaging in edit-warring behavior. Administrator User:Will Beback has tried to reason with him by telling him point-blank that his edits are disruptive (diff here [101]. Last week, it got so tiresome that Will Beback asked the two of us to take a break from editing the article for three days. I did not edit the article for at least three days, the editor this report is about was back editing considerably sooner than that. Other editors have tried to tell him to back off, too. This editor has also been making edits at the Mortenson article and talk page as various different IPs rather than logging in. He's been warned several times about logging in and not editing as an IP. This has also seemed to go unnoticed by this editor. Some diffs (on the article talk page) for this are here [102], here [103], and here [104]. Some diffs for this in the article editing here [105], here[106], and here [107]. I have come here because his biggest offense is edit warring. He has essentially mocked anyone coming to a noticeboard regarding his edits by stating "I don't think anyone would find them disruptive"[108]. One administrator has already found his edits disruptive and edit warring in nature (Will Beback, as noted above). If I'm in the wrong place, I apologize. I'm totally new to this process. From my observations, Lgmagone is an agenda editor (he's pretty much only ever edited the Mortenson article) on a POV mission to win. If there is something I've left out or I'm at the wrong place, please let me know. One more note, I see that this editor has now gone to the BLP noticeboard (as seen in the following diff: [109] He also seems to be now forum shopping with the addition of this: [110]. Personally, I'm real uncomfortable coming to any noticeboard because I think that if one is going to take responsibility for editing Wikipedia, they should also behave in a responsible manner when asked to do so. More succinctly, I just don't like being a "tattle-tale". But, at this point, I don't think I have/had any other choice. Thanks for considering this. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to add my response.
    I've been attempting to add souced, reliable information to the article about Greg Mortenson since the original news broke. The other editor, LHB1239, continues to remove the souced, reliable information that I've added into the article very quickly after I've added it. Just last night, I added several bits of good information to the article, and LHB1239 reverts all of it - and accuses me of edit warring. I don't understand how I am edit warring if I'm adding information and he is the one reverting it.
    The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th "revert" above are not reverts at all. It was times that I was refining what I wrote. If you look at the change, you will see that I did not revert any information in those edits.
    I'd also like to mention that LHB1239 has reverted as many times as I have. So I'm not sure if he is edit warring and I'm simply making the article correct, or if I'm edit warring and he is simply making it correct.
    I think it would be most insightful if someone were to read the discussion page...you'd notice that LHB1239 goes in tirads at many different editors who add unfavorable information to the Greg Mortenson article.
    Lgmagone (talk) 21:21, 2 May 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)

    March 29 report that was not acted upon at the time: [111]

    April 7 removal of tags:[112] (again without any discussion)

    April 26 removal of tags:[113] (again without any discussion)

    Comments:

    This SPA user only logs on every week or two to make this one change and then leave. This has continued since January. Please help curve this disruptive behavior. 206.188.60.1 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=427140937"