Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Illegal Operation reported by User:A Quest For Knowledge (Result: Stale)

Page: Windows Phone 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Illegal Operation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Illegal Operation has been edit-warring to remove Windows Phone 7's market share from the article.

• 17:51, June 14, 2011
• 16:36, June 13, 2011
• 19:04, June 11, 2011
• 12:54, June 11, 2011
• 17:05, June 10, 2011

I have warned the editor to stop edit-warring.[1]

But Illegal Operation continues to edit-war after my warning:

• 22:28, June 14, 2011

Also note that Illegal Operation was warned against edit-warring on this very same content by an admin on December 13, 2010[2] so this edit-warring is a long-term problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the source http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011051.html did not talk about Windows Phone market share and was removed. Specifically, the statement on Wikipedia said that Windows Phone has 2.5% market share, yet this is not said anywhere at the source. Apparently, I am using the talk page for discussion, but Enemenemu decided to keep re-adding the source and did not use the talk page until today. I have no idea why A Quest For Knowledge is supporting him. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the last time I was contacted by an Admin was 6+ months ago and is irrelevant to this discussion. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that out of the 4 editors discussing this on the talk page, Illegal Operation is the only one against inclusion.[3] So not only is he edit-warring, he's edit-warring against consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• He's also stopped completely at this point, so I'd recommend that no block be issued (blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I've left the user a note on his talk page regarding edit warring. It should also be noted that A Quest For Knowledge's actions have not helped at all here. Instead of trying to talk with the editor and find out his side of the story, AQFN has continually left short, commanding messages which only promote hard feelings, not a solution. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted this on Ajraddatz's talk page, but I suppose I should post it here, too. If my messages to Illegal Operation have been curt, it's out of frustration over the fact that he's been edit-warring on this article for 6 months making it very difficult for anyone to work on the article. His latest edit war is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Metabradley reported by   — User:Mann_jess (2nd report) (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 07:06, June 15, 2011 (edit summary: "see talk page --you scared cynic dogs")

Comments: Fresh off a 24 hour block (see section above), and immediate return to same edit war.

  — Jess· Δ♥ 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Thisthat2011 reported by User:Thigle (Result: both warned)

Page: Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]
• 3rd revert: [6]
• 4th revert: [7]

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

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

Comments:

I can't figure out how to report this right. LOLThigle (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Try the 3rr helper tool, linked at the top of the page. You need to insert diffs of each revert in the above template. The helper tool will help you do that, but you'll still need to review its results.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, see WP:Boomerang. You're both edit warring disruptively. You need to stop, and use the talk page, too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the reported person (Thisthat2011) only reverted once, and the reporter (Thigle) tried to revert to a previous version (by SudoGhost and then followed by his/her version) four times within a period of less than 26 hours [8], [9], [10], [11]. The reporter was blocked twice back in May, and seems to be edit-warring again, despite the fact that she/he is participating in the discussion page. Minima© (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Try looking through that again - both users have violated the 3rr. I've left messages on both of their talk pages. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've spotted it now, and have displayed the diffs above, showing how many times the reported person wanted to "Move contents to the History again". This was harder for me to spot because the number of bytes kept changing, but the edit summaries showed what Thisthat2011 wanted to do. Minima© (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Ajraddatz's messages seem to have had the desired effect. Please open a new report if discussion at Talk:Hinduism breaks down. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

FOUNTAINVIEWKID is breaking 3RR!!!

See the article on Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. He has made multple reversions as you can see here. I've been trying to remove an unsourced claim that some people were "progressive" and he keeps readding it without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both of you are violating 3rr. Please stop reverting and talk it over with the other editor on the article's talk page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pipim article needs help from the veterans here at wikipedia. I have described my concerns at the BLP Noticeboard. I think that the Pipim article, at least the Resignation section, needs to be protected from edits for a while, after the section is reverted back to its basic, verifiable, properly cited text.

Malformed – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <!-- --> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:50.72.159.224 (Result: Protected)

Page: Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]
• 5th revert: [16]
• 6th revert: [17]
• 7th revert: [18]
• 8th revert: [19]
• 9th revert: [20]
• 10th revert: [21]
• 11th revert: [22]
• 12th revert: [23]
• 13th revert: [24]

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

I've been trying to stop him from readding false information that certain scholars are progresssive under WP:BLP. User:50.72.159.224

Comments:

I have a feeling, based on editing styles, that user User:50.72.159.224 is the same as user:75.128.235.12 is the same as user:BelloWello. Not that there's anything wrong with editing as an IP, but, you have to play by the rules. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not this was BelloWello or his helpers is hard to say; the IPs evidently are familiar with BelloWello's off-wiki postings. The article has now been locked until 18 June. The IP was restoring information that directly violated WP:BLP. In comparison the issue of the internal labels progressive/conservative amongst Seventh Day Adventism editors is becoming so disruptive that the subject of topic bans in this area might have to be discussed again. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was a bot they could run to do a comparison of styles, etc., and make a determination, but when Lionel reported IP 75.128 as a possible sockpuppet of BelloWello, the lame response was "we're not very good at matching IPs and named users." Go figure! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll throw in something to the ring on the two IPs and say that it's  Unlikely that the two IPs are related directly to the same user, (Just from a geolocation lookup). However, if a CheckUser can't confirm/state that such is likely to BelloWello, it may just be someone that has the same opinion as them. It is possible to match IPs and named users via Geolocation in certain cases assuming at least a high amount of data matches, in most cases, it could only be likely or unlikely. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 01:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Crashdoom. I didn't check the times of the edits. You can't be in Wisconsin and British Columbia at the same time, can you? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're correct on that. There is a chance that one of the results could be a false-positive due to the potential risk of a proxy being used, either that or, as previously stated, there is more than one person with the same view on the matter. As such, I believe that's the reasoning behind the CheckUsers being not very good matching users and IPs without direct links. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a 16 hour break between Wisconsin and Vancouver, so there's no overlap. Both IPs are SPAs. Should I take this to the right (SPI) forum? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful since there's a chance due to the match in editing as stated. However, you may get told the same with only an opinion of it being possible/unlikely, due to the IPs not having a directly verifiable link. The time differennce does pose the question that it may be possible via a proxy or such. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I can be in Ontario Canada and Delaware at the same time. If I were to edit from my IP on this computer it would say I am in Delaware. If I edit from my cell phone it says I am in Ontario Canada. GB fan (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With all these ambiguities, how do you ever prove an account is a sockpuppet? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, with great difficulty. This does return to the point, that CheckUsers can't say anything is certain unless everything is explicitly linked. Also, the fact that the IP can be edited is unlikely to be used in most cases with average users on Wikipedia. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Protection applied by SoWhy. Minima© (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwami reported by User:Ibibiogrl (Result:No action taken)

Page: Efik Language

Previous version [Ibibio Language Page]

reverted to: [Efik Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efik_language]

• 1st revert: [(cur | prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs)

• Efik Language is not the Same language as Ibibio language and the 2 languages are spoken in different states of Nigeria.
• There is no language that is called Ibibio-Efik as there is no language that is mixed with the two. Just like there is no language called Spanish-French.
• There is also another similar language known as Annang, which is similar to Efik and Ibibio just like Italian language is similar to French and Spanish.
• There are also others like Oron, Eket etc. Which although spoken in the same area are not similar to Efik, Ibibio and Annang, but Kwami is linking all these languages to a Single page.
• Kwami is not from Nigeria and does not know anyting about these languages. But I am a native Ibibio, I have also lived in the States and areas where Efik and Annang languages are spoken, that is how I learned to speak Efik, so I understand the differences.
• If you allow this editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia of Lies!

[25]

If You Allow This editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia of Lies! Ibibiogrl (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It does appear that you haven't been discussing properly with the editor in question over the issue, also I note: "(cur | prev) 23:09, 31 May 2011 Ibibiogrl (talk | contribs) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo) ", so it does appear that you have been causing problems for the article, whether it was on purpose or not, I don't know + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 23:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this case is suffering from some personal attacks. Closing and leaving note on reporting editor's page. m.o.p 08:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:CartoonDiablo reported by User:CWenger (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [26]

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]
• 5th revert (though not within 24 hours, just to show that edit warring continues): [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32] (disclaimer: this was done just now)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] and [34]

Comments:
Thomas Sowell is a BLP and we should have a high threshold for what we include. Biased sources like Media Matters for America are not appropriate. There is very clear consensus on the article talk page against including this, with 6 editors (4 usernames, 2 IPs) for removing it and only 1 (User:CartoonDiablo) for keeping it. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously not valid based on the fact that I was not given a 3RR warning prior to being reported, I attempted to resolve the issue multiple times (diffs: [35] and [36]) and feel the consensus is based on a violation of NPOV. I will attempt to reach a resolution of whether or not removing the section violates NPOV in the respective noticeboard. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Despite awareness of a discussion on the article's talk page in which several users agreed the source was not reliable, you, CartoonDiablo, edit-warred to keep it in. If that's not grounds for a 3RR block, then it is grounds for block under Disruptive Editing -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Minphie reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: No Violation)

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

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

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert: [40]
• 5th revert: [41]
• 6th revert: [42]
• 7th revert: [43]
• 8th revert: [44]
• 9th revert: [45]

Discussion of why this source should not be used [46] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] On further investigation this user may be a sock puppet and thus will also report there on time of here. He/she has been edit warring across a number of pages.

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is not exclusively 3 reverts within 24 hours per Wikipedia:Edit_warring Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. However, I do not feel this user deserves a block; they edit Insite sparingly, and appear to be acting in good faith. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Brookster22 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: 24h)

Page: George Demos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brookster22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

There are many more identical section blankings in the past few days, but these are the four most recent:

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 4th revert: [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] and [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Note: There is also a related sock investigation pending at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410

Comments:

• Brookster22 claims that the reason for their reverts is WP:BLP concerns, and has discussed this extensively on the article talk page with other editors. User:Thecheesykid also appears to have broken WP:3RR on this article (in reverting Brookster22's edits). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:67.155.175.34 reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.155.175.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60] (rv. + vandalizing
• 5th revert: [61] rv. to vandalized version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

• Result: Blocked two weeks for edit warring and violations of neutrality. One of the above edits makes ACORN be 'an ongoing criminal conspiracy.' This IP may be the return of User:Syntacticus, whose past efforts are described by Will Beback at the bottom of Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now:

  A couple of years ago there was a concern that this IP was also user:Syntacticus, who in turn may have been someone with a clear conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Syntacticus and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive498#Neutrality dispute at ACORN. These latest edits are consistent with that hypothesis.

  – EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Francisco luz reported by User:Inks.LWC (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [64]

• 1st revert: unable to be linked due to removal of copyrighted info. Edit was on 22:30, 16 June 2011 here: [65]
• 2nd revert: [66]
• 3rd revert: [67]
• 4th revert: [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Boleto

Comments:

This user continues to add copyrighted information, after being told multiple times not to do so. He claims he is the author of the article on the website; however, the website clearly states "You cannot copy any text, either in English or translated to another language." Inks.LWC (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)User blocked by User:killiondude for 24 hours. - SudoGhost™ 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours by Killiondude for copyright violation and edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee reported by ΔT _{^{The only constant}} (Result: 72h)

Page: User talk:Rd232 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 03:07, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Suggestion */ rm trolling")
2. 03:28, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434699663 by Ched Davis (talk) I may remove obvious attacks directed at me wherever I find them. Let it go, or we can air this at ANI and have a massive drama fest")
3. 03:30, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700460 by Δ (talk) per previous")
4. 03:31, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700743 by Δ (talk) per previous")
5. 03:32, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700867 by Δ (talk) per previous")
6. 04:05, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434703923 by Dayewalker (talk) please don't restore posts that compare editors to members of highly offensive organisations")
7. 04:18, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434705541 by Jrtayloriv (talk) per previous")
8. 04:22, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434705981 by Jrtayloriv (talk) per previous")

—ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours In all honesty I wanted to make this indefinite given the ridiculous block log and history of past edit warring, but I didn't want to have to deal with the pending arbcom case or whatnot. I'll gladly increase the block duration if he keeps at it, though. --slakr^\ talk / 04:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Chester Markel (Result: Declined)

Page: User talk:Rd232 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: block log as Δ block log as Betacommand

Comments:
*I'm not an admin, but what troubles me is that many of his image removal edits seem to be bot-like. For example, at Notre Dame-UCLA rivalry, he removed the UCLA image but left the Notre Dame one (which clearly suggests not paying attention to the context of the article, either both should be there or both should be removed), left the same edit summary that he's left on dozens of other pages, and after I undid his revision and explained why it was fair use in the edit summary, he just made the exact same edit with the exact same summary and no acknowledgement of my reasoning. He needs to remember WP:BRD. We have bots that can do bot work. We don't need editors acting like bots Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry, wrong forum Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • First, Delta's reverts in this are to revert the remove of a message on a user's talk page by neither that user nor the user that left the message. That's a violation of talk page usage (you don't refactor others comments). So the reversion is correct. In your image case, Delta is also correct and that logo as he put in the edit summary does not have a non-free rationale for that page, which is required and explained on the page linked. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What image? I redacted the above comment, and there is now fair-use rationale. My point was mostly about the way he goes about his edits, not whether he was right Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • The talk page comment that MickMacNee was removing could be construed as an egregious personal attack. Or not. There was a genuine dispute over which the edit warring occurred, as a result of which MickMacNee was correctly blocked for 8 reversions. But Δ also breached the 3RR. The reverts don't seem like removal of vandalism or any other exceptions to the 3RR. Chester Markel (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the disputed section myself, as I was the person who posted it. I was not attempting to make any personal attack on anyone, least of all MickMacNee. I was attempting to compare discourse, not people. I grant it is a subtlety that could be lost in the text, and that a personal attack could be construed. It was not intended in any respect as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding the situation with MickMacNee, I do believe that arbcom will ban him, as a most unfortunate and regrettable necessity, so the situation should be resolved in a month or two. Chester Markel (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm the one that made the first revert that restored your (Hammersoft) comment. I also didn't see it as an attack on MMN, just comparing how conversation with someone who ... ahhh ... was unwilling to compromise with that of beating ones head off a brick wall. To be honest, I was hoping that Mick would take my edit summary to heart, and I was shocked to see what transpired over the next hour. Considering his current situation of being before Arbcom, I think it was a HUGE mistake to edit war over such a thing. I guess he was deeply offended, though I fail to fully understand why, and he felt it worth fighting for. Hammer, I applaud you for removing the post, as well as for attempting to offer sound advice to Rd232. <sigh>, I doubt this is the end of it all, either for Delta or for Mick, there's just too much history for this to slip quietly into the night I fear. — Ched :  ?  06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm trying to have delta added as a party to the MickMacNee arbitration. Hopefully, we can resolve the situations with both users at the same time. Chester Markel (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW .. I personally would be opposed any block for Delta on the Rd232 issue, I think he had solid footing in policy for reverting this time. — Ched :  ?  06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) The reversions that Δ was performing in this case were also done by several other editors. I.e., several other editors identified MickMacNee's edits as improper. Removing someone else's comments from a talk page that is not yours can be considered a form of vandalism. In that sense, Δ's edits were undoing vandalism that had also been undone by several others. That said, there's extenuating circumstances here. MickMacNee is most likely under a lot of stress from the ArbCom case. Further, I know full well his extreme distaste for me. Given these, it's very understandable that the comparison I was trying to make in my comments could easily have been lost, with it instead being construed as, as Chester notes, an egregious personal attack. It's a misunderstanding, pure and simple. I don't think MickMacNee's block should be in place in part because of that and in part because of the ongoing ArbCom case. I think we should slap some wet fish around, remove the block, and close this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that no action should result from this report. It confuses too many issues already being discussed on other noticeboards, in an ArbCom case and in the report immediately above. Chester Markel trying to add Delta as party to the ArbCom case suggests that Chester Markel's editing of wikipedia is getting out of control. Two other users previously added as parties have had to request their removal (Beyond My Ken and Sandstein), with the approval of ArbCom. Please stop this Chester Markel: it is very unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some mistakes in formulating the initial list of parties, as this is the first time I've filed an arbitration case. However, it's obvious that the dispute between MickMacNee and delta is longstanding, heated, and current. I have only requested that delta be added as a party, rather than adding him myself. Chester Markel (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Increasing the scope of an ArbCom case by adding a second user, associated with a different set of problems and only tangentially involved, can create a giant mess. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RPA#Removal_of_text While not fully supported by policy it suggests that blatant personal attacks can be removed, even other other people's pages. If he felt it was a blatant personal attack, I could see why he felt he had policy on his side for removal. Being compared to a highly controversial and negatively viewed organization seems like it could easily be interpreted as a blatant personal attack. As pointed out, there are no exemptions on 3RR for this restoration--Crossmr (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Per consensus above, and because Betacommand was reverting inappropriate edits by MickMacNee. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this report existed at the point I blocked Δ, but I don't think that undoing the block would be appropriate at this time -- as Crossmr points out above, MMN had reason to believe he was removing a blatant personal attack, and Δ was doing rapid-fire reverts without discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't find this block appropriate at all. For one thing, the other user has been blocked and the edit war will not continue - so therefor, why are we blocking a user to punish them? There is nothing to prevent, so this block must be being used as punishment, which is something that I strongly oppose any day. Second, considering that his reverts were appropriate, that should exclude him from 3rr. There are many people on this encyclopedia that revert edits quickly, so that's hardly a good reason. And finally, he wasn't the only user doing that. If we're going to block him, we should block the other user as well (though they technically only have three reverts). This is ridiculous - let's save blocks for people that are causing harm to the wiki. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Considering that his reverts were appropriate, that should exclude him from 3rr". This is not general practice... (Fastily should take note of this too) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked – for now – without prejudice to any party. This discussion had reached a consensus conclusion prior to SarekofVulcan's block. While SoV was unaware that this discussion had taken place and blocked Delta in good faith, it is one of our guiding principles that decisions reached by community consensus in open noticeboard discussions should nearly always supersede the judgements and opinions of individual Wikipedia editors. Once SoV became aware of this discussion's conclusion, he was bound to respect it even if he disagreed with it. I have therefore undone the block. (To do otherwise would be to encourage admins to do an 'end run' around noticeboard discussions they didn't like. Any admin who didn't like a discussion's outcome could override its conclusions simply by not commenting, and waiting until after it closed to place whatever blocks he liked. While that is emphatically not what happened here, it's a loophole that we don't want to open.)

Any party, SarekofVulcan included, is welcome to appeal the outcome of this discussion in an appropriate venue. (I would imagine that that's going to be either here or AN/I.) If a new, broader consensus can be established that a block is necessary and appropriate, then SoV (or any other admin) is welcome to restore it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Lecen reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24h each)

Page: Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Why Dr Kiernan's editions were reverted

Comments:

Do I have the right to explain myself before any measures are taken? --Lecen (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that would be useful. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. How long do I have to gather all evidences and explain here the reasons to my actions? --Lecen (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite time, since the edit war occurred hours ago and no good admin should be blocking a user for an action which has stopped. I personally recommend that rather than justify your actions, you make an effort to not edit war in the future - if someone reverts your edit, start a thread on the discussion page and don't edit that page again until some consensus has resulted from the discussion. Good luck, Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lecen has broken WP:3RR. I suggest this case might be closed with no block if Lecen will restrict himself for one month from editing the English translations of Portuguese-language personal names, on any articles. He may still present his views on talk pages. It is worrisome that the dispute about these names has continued for such a long time. Lecen has made good contributions but he is expected to abide by consensus like anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comments by Lecen

I believe none of you actually know me, so I'll introduce myself. I'm a quite experienced Wikipedian who focus on Brazilian history-related articles. The ones I wrote were successfully nominated and are now Featured Articles and at least three of them were Today's Featured Article in the main page. I'm saying all this to make sure to all of you that I'm aware of Wikipedia's rules and that I have my share of good contributions.

Having said that, I'll divide my explanation over my behavior in three pieces.

1) Lecen-Dr Kiernan relationship. Dr Kiernan and I have a troublesome relationship since we bumped into each other in the FAC of Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil (which I had nominated). Things were ugly enough to the point that we were both asked to not talk to each other, which I complied. A few days ago I nominated Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil to FAC. Dr Kiernan placed a comment there but suddenly removed it and erased it from the nomination page's history log. Anyone who is an administrator can see that. Why did he do that, I don't know, but I believe he did it once he saw my name as one of the nominators and thought it would be better to avoid it. Nonetheless, he returned to the nomination page and opposed my article.

On June 15 I wrote: "Please stay alway from the FAC which I'm part of. Due to our past troubles, I want to avoid any issues. I would be very grateful if don't get near me."[80] A reasonable appeal, since Dr Kiernan never had interest over articles about Brazilian royals and because whatever was his opinion it would suffer from past judgements about me. However, that's all harder since he made edits in the article itself with no edit summary to explain the reasons for each one of them.[81] Not happy with that, he went over to Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies, the Brazilian Empress and made several changes.

2) The problem in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies: Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is a Featured Article which I worked on and successfully nominated. As a Featured Article, common sense would dictate that any major change to the article, specially in an article which is fully sourced, to be discussed in the talk page. Dr Kiernan did not do that. He simply made major changes and even removed a source without a good reason![82] He said in my talk page after having reported me here that "you consistently refuse to discuss the issue civilly".[83]

That's false. It was I, not him, I repeat, I, who created a discussion in Teresa Cristina's talk page to discuss his changes.[84] Since it's a featured article, he was supposed to have opened a discussion before erasing sources and removing information from the article. Instead of discussing the matter first he persisted on erasing the source and removing information from the article.[85][86] Notice that in the first revert he did not even bother to explain in the edit summary why he did it.

3) What is exactly being "discussed" in Teresa Cristina's article? Many articles about Kings, Emperors, Queens, Princes and ohter royals in Wikipedia have their names anglicized, that is, translated to English. This is the case with Fernando VI of Spain (Ferdinand VII of Spain), Nikolay II of Russia (Nicholas II of Russia), Francesco II of the Two Sicilies (Francis I of the Two Sicilies), etc... Others, however, have their name unchanged, which is the case of Pedro II of Brazil (Peter II of Brazil), Franz Joseph I of Austria (Francis Joseph I of Austria), Alfonso XIII of Spain (Alphonse XIII of Spain), Amadeo I of Spain (Amadeus I of Spain), etc...

Next to Teresa Cristina's name one can see the Anglicized versions of her name. This is no more than a "quick guide" to a reader who would like to know which is the name in English of this historical person. No big deal, since other articles do the same (as the ones cited above).

What DrKiernan did? He simply removed them or changed as he liked. He went as far as to add sources to "Theresa Christina" which are incorrect.[87] He said that "It's quite clearly spelled "Theresa Christina" as anyone can see simply by looking at either book: e.g. Longo". The biography of Isabel (daughter of Teresa Cristina) written by Longo which I used as source to write this featured article have all names in Portuguese. Afonso (not Alphonse VI [88]), Pedro II (not Peter II [89]), João VI (not John VI [90]), Leopoldina (not Leopoldine [91]), Maria Amelia (not Mary Amelia [92]), Carlota (not Charlotte [93]), etc...

I tried to explain him that "Theresa Christina" and "Thereza Christina" which sometime appears in a few books is because Teresa Cristina's name was spelled like that in Portuguese before the early 20th century ortrographic revision. That's not the English "Theresa Christina". I told him: "But please, do NOT use sources that use Portuguese, not Anglicized, and claim the contrary. If you're going to use sources, use them correct, or else, just don't" [94].

Dr Kiernan never read any of the books. I did. He does not know how to speak Portuguese. I know. He does not know about Brazilian history. I know. He has no interest at all in Brazilian history and is only doing all this to cause me trouble. He did not try to discuss the matter first and went foward removing sources and information from a featured article, which is not correct.

EdJohnston said "I suggest this case might be closed with no block if Lecen will restrict himself for one month from editing the English translations of Portuguese-language personal names, on any articles". Why should I, if I'm correct? I'm not creating translations out of nowhere. I'm not saying that "John" is "Carlos" (Charles). I attempted to open a discussion and deal with the problem first, but the other editor kept removing sources and information from the article. What am I supposed to do, then? --Lecen (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You are supposed to do absolutely nothing. Wait until the discussion is finished, and after it has, carry out whatever the consensus of that discussion was. If the other editor continues to take actions which oppose the consensus, then he can be blocked. However, edit warring is never a good thing. Remember, if your edit is ever reverted, start a discussion on the talk page. If nothing comes of that, contact a neutral administrator. But whatever you do, do not continue to edit that page until some sort of consensus has been achieved. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

All I want is to someone stop Dr Kiernan from harassing me. I want him to leave me alone. I want him to stop making unhelpful edits on articles which he has no knowledge at all of the subject. Dr Kiernan writes on my talk page [95], he writes on my friend's talk page [96][97] even though he was not invited to the conversation. What is that? What for?

He doesn't like me, I don't like him. Why he keeps following me wherever I go? He never contributed to articles about Pedro II of Brazil, Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies and other Brazilian royals and all the suddenly he appears at them? [98][99]

In two days only since I asked him to leave me in peace he became all interested in Brazilian history? In the exact articles about Brazilian history which I contribute and have nominated before? Then he creates a situation where he demands to have me blocked? He also harasses me on my friend's talk page. Why for? Why doesn't he leave me alone? I want the harassment to end. That's all. Can't you understand that this is not simply a small discussion over translation of names in an unimportant article? Someone has to ask him to stay far away from me. --Lecen (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This specific case is entirely about the edit warring which you did - something which should not happen again. If you want to bring up complaints with that user, please do so at this page, since that is not the function of this one. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. The first three edits he showed I tried to restore removed sourced content. The fourth edit I added a source and another variant of her name. Check bey yourself. They are not the same. Lastly, you have no idea how much I feel powerless and frustrated. --Lecen (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

-

• Not this again? Lecen is technically in the wrong, and has been previously cautioned for edit-warring in similar circumstances, which doesn't bode well for him. However, DrKiernan is aware that this is controversial and that Lecen (from whom I believe he has previously been asked to stay way) would likely feel provoked by his (DrKiernan's) initial edit. I don't know what to do for the best. I'm tempted to block both for 24 hours, because both should know better and an admin should know that "I started an edit war, but he broke the 3RR because he made one more revert than me" is not going to impress. However, I'm not sure such a block would serve any purpose beyond postponing hostilities. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours On further deliberation (the above took me half an hour to think and write), a 24-hour cessation of hostilities is a good enough reason. Upon their return, I suggest Lecen and DrKiernan find a relevant talk page and start an RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:RaptorHunter reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: )

Page: Anthony Weiner sexting scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RaptorHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

• 1st revert: [101]
• 2nd revert: [102]
• 3rd revert: [103]
• 4th revert: [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:
Within a few hours, and in the face of near-unanimous consensus against adding any information regarding hecklying of AW, RaptorHunter has repeatedly added to the article what the consensus of editors view as non-notable information, even after being warned civilly that he was edit warring (both on his tp and the article tp). He lacks support for adding any such information; the fact that he added only part of the non-notable information in his most recent add does not avoid the fact that that is non-notable info that he has now added four times, now clearly against consensus. Just two months ago, RaptorHunter was blocked for a 3RR violation on another page I was editing, so I see this as an unfortunate pattern.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1st : [107]

Not a revert. Just the initial attempt to add material to the article.

• 2nd : [108]

I reverted and explained that the sentence I was adding had notability.

• 3rd : [109]

I reverted and included more sources to back up the claim of notability including a new york times source.

After only 2 reverts I took the issue to the talk page. [110] After the input of another editor [111] I significantly scaled back the added sentences to the bare minimum stripping out any quotes. That is the forth edit

• 4th : [112]

Let the record show I only reverted twice and both times explained my reasoning with clear edit summaries and used reliable sources. After discussing the issue on the talk page I attempted a much reduced 3rd edit that I thought would be an effective compromise. This was rejected so I gave up.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)