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 De728631 (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 7 December 2011 (→User:Sarsathug and User:Vikas.insan reported by User:De728631 (Result: Block): comment). 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:80.78.79.156 reported by User:Plot Spoiler (Result: No action)

    Page: 2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 80.78.79.156 (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]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

    Comments:
    This IP user is edit warring by insisting on including the reactions of Kosovo and Albania to this diplomatic incident, against the wishes of multiple editors. The user argues that "every international entity has its own importance." Yes, we understand that under international law all states are juridically equal but it has nothing to do with the relevant Wikipedia policies for inclusion of material in this case: WP:RS and WP:Undue. The RS issue is that the IP's sources are principally self-published government sources and not reliable international media sources. Secondly, it is terribly undue to include the reactions of two states that had no connection whatsoever to this incident. If we extended the IP users logic and included the reaction of all states worldwide, it would naturally be a mess. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the IP editor that they are being discussed here. Let's wait and see if there is a response. There are many contributions to this article by good-faith IPs so semiprotection might not be wise. There is already a talk thread about whether the positions of Albania and Kosovo are important enough to include. If you can't get the IP to join in discussion on the talk page, then editors might consider removing the excessive material from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result:' No action. The IP has not edited the article since 3 December so imposing a sanction at this time would not make sense. Editors who are confident that consensus has been reached on the talk page about the Albania and Kosovo paragraphs are welcome to act in accordance with that. The IP made no response to my reminder about this 3RR. If edit warring flares up again, report it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Flyspes reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: No action for now)

    Page: The Amazing Kornyfone Record Label (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Flyspes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [7]

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

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

    Comments:
    Flyspes seems to believe that his own original research belongs in the article, even though he cannot provide a reliable source. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm not questioning that Flyspes was edit warring but I did want to let the deciding admin know that there is a calm conversation going on at both Flyspes' talkpage and my own talkpage. I began talking to Flyspes after seeing part of their first conversation [deleted] from MikeWazowski's talkpage. The level of frustration and confusion seemed pretty high so I began talking to Flyspes to help them understand the situation. Cloveapple (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think its only fair that I try to give my side of the story.Adding the labels discography to the general information about TAKRL was my first contribution to Wikipedia.I just did as Wikipedia encouraged me to do,share information.I admit that I did 2 mistakes as a beginner.I uploaded the information partly without being logged in to my user account and partly logged inn.I can see now that it was a mistake.I also appologize for re-entering the information after it had been deleted.However,I think Mr Wazowski could handled this is a more polite way.He could had informed me about the need to verify the information from a reliable source BEFORE he deleted everything.I also find the remark..quote " edits appear to constitute vandalism" quite harsh and unfair.Finally,I DO HAVE a reliable source for all the information,it is not my personal reseach.Everything can be found in the book HOT WACKS "THE LAST WACKS" issued by THE HOT WACKS PRESS.BOX 544.OWEN SOUND N4K 5RI.CANADA in 1992.The book have been on sale through Amazon.com.If anybody can tell how to link my information to this source,then I will be happy to do so.I notice that there are already other users who have started to link part of the discography to valid sources.It is also my intention to finish the discography with the last part of releases and I apply to the Administrator to not lock me out of wikipedia..regards runeFlyspes (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting - not once did I use the phrase "edits appear to constitute vandalism" in my messages to Flyspes, either in template messages or regular conversation. Perhaps you could show me where I supposedly did this, as you appear to be mistaken. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to inform the Wikipedia administrators that I will try my utmost to obay the rules layed down and play by the book.I have now linked the TAKRL discography I have uploaded on Wikipedia to a valid source.The book Hot Wacks "The last wacks" is still on sale on Amazon.com and I have also supplied the page numbers and ISBN number.I would like to be informed that I can go on and Flyspes (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)update the TAKRL article with the last part of the discography.[reply]

    Comment Flyspes is a new user and seems genuine enough. I would say this requires no further action, it's easy enough for someone to open a dispute at a later date if this proves unsuccessful. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action for now. Since the cited editor made a conciliatory response, let's wait and see if they will accept consensus. The case can be resubmitted if this doesn't work out. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MathewTownsend reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: Closed with no action taken)

    Page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MathewTownsend (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: [21]

    Comments:

    Editor demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of 3RR, edit warring, and numerous other WP policies including how to not use edit summaries, personal attacks, and civility and has been notified of same on his talk page several times over the last 24+ hours. Before his latest revert on the page noted above, I filed a report at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard here because of his behavior at the Talk:Natalie Wood page. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response I am a new editor here, although I have been watching for a while, and I'm trying to learn the rules. I repeatedly tried to remove/redact comments I had made from the noticeboard that I regretted. No one had responded to them and I believed that redacting or removing such a comment was ok. I was repeatedly reverted and told that it was against the rules to remove or redact comments, but that was contrary to what I have observed. Finally I asked at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and was told that there was no rule against removing such a comment.[22] The last revert was due to a mistake by an editor who apologized to me on my page for doing so.[23] I merely restored what he had mistakenly removed. Please assume good faith here. All the "reverts" were me trying to clarify my own comments, nothing more. Unlike Lhb1239's reverts, where he reverted my attempts to clarify my own comments, all my changes were confined to my own comments which had not been responded to on the Noticeboard.
    In truth, I am just trying to be clear in my comments on a discussion page and have no interest in edit warring over article content. Rather, I am interested in explaining myself on the talk pages. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two reverts that returned my redacted comments by Lhb1239
    • [24] "Undid revision 463846292 by MathewTownsend (talk)on noticeboards, you can strike your comments with a '<s>/''</s>' but not remove)
    • [25] "(Undid revision 463869286 by MathewTownsend (talk)as stated previously, you can't remove comments from a noticeboard - striking is sufficient and transparent)"
    • [26] Accidental reversion by User talk:Leaky caldron for which he apologized.[27]
    • Lhb12339 also file an action against me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance [28] but the responder agreed with me:
    • "Is there anything more? The four diffs show pretty ordinary back-and-forth on a user talk page. When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with "There is no deadline in Wikipedia". I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level". It may well be that some inappropriate behavior is going on somewhere, but WP:CIVIL is not a guarantee that editors will not face frank opinions when raising an issue at a user talk page."
    • I don't think that trying to clarify one's own comments on a discussion page (comments that have not been responded to) should be considered a "revert", especially since such removal/redaction is allowed.[29] This would mean that editors could not reword their comments, which I see them doing frequently. I see editors making multiple edits to their own comments on talk/discussion pages and on ones gets them for a "revert". This is not the same as article content edit warring in my eyes as the "war" was over my comments, but maybe I am wrong. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. Lhb1239 has made 29 edits to my talk page over the last day or so. I'm really unable to understand what is going on and can't understand the information in so may posts to my page, mostly with threats and warnings, so it has rattled me. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something. I apologize for any wrong doing. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting your own actions is a clear exemption to the three-revert-rule so, while striking comments is more appropriate, the 1st and 2nd reverts are not counted for the purposes of 3RR. The "3rd revert" isn't a reversion at all, it's an addition of comments made necessary by Lhb1239's inappropriate reversions of edits that MathewTownsend had made to his own edits,[30] as is the "4th revert". The "5th revert" is also a case of an editor reverting his own actions, so that also is an exemption to 3RR. Lhb1239's restoration of MathewTownsend's comments after they had been removed was inappropriate,[31] as was the reversion of the changes that MathewTownsend had made to his own comments.[32] It is disturbing to see Lhb1239 continue to edit-war with editors despite a recent block, a warning and nawrrowly missing a block only 4 days ago, where it was stated "Lhb1239 should not expect that continued reverting on this article is a safe activity".[33] It is even more disturbing to see that he seems more than happy to report others for edit warring, while he seems to believe himself to be immune from such action. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If any administrators do look into this report, I would hope that they would not take AussieLegend's biased viewpoint in regard to me at face value. Aussie has within the last few days suggested I leave editing a TV article he frequents. One of Aussie's TV project Wiki-friends is one of the editors who placed an edit warring notice on my talk page prior to the report mentioned above being filed - and that editor has stated that wherever I go in Wikipedia, I will be "shouted down" because I do not see eye-to-eye with their views on certain television project articles. Aussie has an agenda with the above comments. Whether something is done about this report by the hand of an administrator should be determined by an administrator, not a non-sysop editor who tries to muddy up with waters because he has a personal beef against the person reporting the offender. And, just for the record, it was determined by at least one admin that I wasn't edit warring in the situation Aussie is referencing (hence, the reason I wasn't blocked). I'm not the issue here - MathewTownsend's edit warring behavior is. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As pointed out above, self-reverts are permitted under WP:3RR - the only issue on a discussion area would be if another editor had already responded to those posts, which does not appear to be the case here. As no one had responded there's no issues caused by removing the text, although striking the comments would still be preferred; or as an option, to remove the text and clearly mark that it had been redacted (as MathewTownsend did in at least two of the edits). Regardless of the underlying content dispute - the claimed 3RR issue described here is not actionable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RoslynSKP reported by Anotherclown (talk) (Result: article fully protected)

    Page: Battle of Romani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 07:59, 1 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463293680 by Jim Sweeney (talk)Stop cutting information from this GA")
    2. 08:09, 1 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463299635 by Jim Sweeney (talk)This is a GA please discuss edits on talk page")
    3. 08:11, 1 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463303595 by AnomieBOT (talk)unnecessary")
    4. 08:15, 1 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463299224 by Jim Sweeney (talk)This is a GA do not edit without first discussing on talk page")
    5. 00:18, 2 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463471714 by Jim Sweeney (talk)move on")
    6. 00:19, 2 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463471680 by Jim Sweeney (talk)deletion of info general readers won't be aware of")
    7. 00:20, 2 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463470740 by AnomieBOT (talk)unnecessary")
    8. 00:21, 2 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463468934 by Anotherclown (talk)undone because previous wording awarded GA")
    9. 00:24, 2 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463468827 by Anotherclown (talk)undone because information does not improve article")
    10. 02:15, 2 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* British forces */ move photo and map to more clearly set out deployments")
    11. 02:26, 2 December 2011 (edit summary: "cut reference to India as no India units mentioned as being involved in this battle")
    12. 02:27, 2 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
    13. 00:48, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463860861 by Jim Sweeneyreinstate information the general reader may appreciate (talk)")
    14. 00:50, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463859995 by Jim Sweeney nothing wrong with Anzac(talk)")
    15. 00:54, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463808868 by Jim Sweeneyscattered is a better word (talk)")
    16. 00:59, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* British forces */ cut clarification, do the reserarch and improve the article if you can")
    17. 01:06, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* German and Ottoman force */ reinstate link")
    18. 01:10, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Prelude */ correct name")
    19. 01:12, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463796653 by Anotherclown (talk)No its not")
    20. 01:14, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463796008 by Anotherclown (talk)given the context the term is fine")
    21. 01:16, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Background */ reinstate para")
    22. 01:21, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Casualties */ Anzac is not incorrect")
    23. 01:25, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Aftermath */ Anzac not incorrect Battle proper noun")
    24. 01:27, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Casualties */ Anzac not incorrect")
    25. 01:31, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Action of Bir el Abd – 9 to 12 August */ Anzac not incorrect counterattack not incorrect, firefight not incorrect")
    26. 01:35, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Chauvel's force advance on Ottoman rearguards */ reinstate information general readers may appreciate")
    27. 01:42, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Battle on 5 August */ southeasterly not incorrect Anzac not incorrect infantry not wrong")
    28. 01:52, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Battle on 4 August */ undo red links not required, reinsert infantry counterattack not wrong, firepower not wrong; reinstate Falls quote")
    29. 01:54, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* British forces */ firepower not wrong; red links not required")
    30. 01:59, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* British forces */ reinstate links; reinstate info;this was an all arms operation and the fact that they were infantry or mounted units needs to be provided particularly for the general reader")
    31. 02:04, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Development of defensive positions */ reinstate infantry this is an all arms operation and these units need to be clearly differentiated for the genral reader")
    32. 02:06, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Light Horse patrols before the battle */reinstate counterattack")
    33. 02:08, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Prelude */ reinstate link")
    34. 02:09, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* German and Ottoman force */ cut links to nowhere not required")
    35. 02:11, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Prelude */ reinstate infantry; reinstate affair")
    36. 02:13, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Background */ reinstate affair, Anzac both not incorrect")
    37. 02:17, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Affair reinstated cut red links not required;reinstate substantial not POV")
    38. 02:18, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "reinstate names of countries involved in Battle of Romani")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to endorse theses comments, with the caveat that I am an involved party. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This has continued today:

    1. 03:40, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Casualties */ reinsert sandcart")
    2. 05:48, 5 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463989038 by Jim Sweeney (talk)there are too many red links in this article")
    3. 05:51, 5 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463988641 by Jim Sweeney (talk)Cut hyphen reinstate brackets cut more red links")
    4. 05:54, 5 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463988420 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate infantry division name")
    5. 05:56, 5 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463988154 by Jim Sweeney (talk)cut another red link")
    6. 05:58, 5 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463987695 by Jim Sweeney (talk)cut another red link")
    7. 06:02, 5 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463987573 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate brackets cut more red links")
    8. 06:07, 5 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 463979208 by Jim Sweeney (talk)The whole British Empire did not fight at Romani, cut more red links, counterattack, Anzac, Affair of Katia not incorrect")

    — Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:3RR says, "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." In the above list of diffs, 1-4 count as a single revert, as do 5-12 and 13-38. In the list of diffs added today, #1 is part of the previous revert involving diffs 13-38 and diffs 2-8 are also one revert. RoslynSKP has provided edit summaries for all but one diff. In total these constitute 4 edits over 4 days. This is a content dispute and the page has now been protected as a result.[34] --AussieLegend (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theseus1776 reported by User:Aciel (Result: No action)

    Page: Talk:Lance Kennedy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Theseus1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 06:23, 4 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

    Comments:

    This guy reverted my additions to his talk page, which included a discussion of the neutrality of the article and links to the autobiography guidelines. He also reverted some template additions to his regular article page, which were related to the discussion page information he removed. This really needs another editor's attention because the editor in question believes I'm personally attacking him. —mohawkjohn (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.27.194.185 and User:Cookiehead reported by nprice (talk) (Result: articles protected)

    Page: Angelo Mosca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Page: Joe Kapp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Users being reported:

    70.27.194.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Cookiehead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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

    • Angelo Mosca
    1. 19:08, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "trivia")
    2. 19:22, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 464080487 by 70.27.194.185 (talk)")
    3. 19:38, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Its useless fluff that has nothing to do with this man's notoriety. This is the kind of crap that gives wiki a bad name])")
    4. 20:43, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 464085047 by 70.27.194.185 (talk) Mosca was a pro wrestler, so this hardly violates BLP standards...sourcing is impeccable this media sensation event")
    5. 21:46, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Have a little class and restraint. Its people like you that make wikipedia the place where you go to smell stale internet farts.")
    6. 23:08, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 464105162 by 70.27.194.185 (talk) docuemnting mosca class and restraint")
    7. 23:28, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 464117543 by Cookiehead (talk)")
    • Joe Kapp
    1. 19:10, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "useless trivia")
    2. 19:21, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 464080713 by 70.27.194.185 (talk) story is national sensation in Canada/US, extensive media coverage")
    3. 19:37, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Its useless fluff that has nothing to do with this man's achievements or accomplishments. This is the kind of crap that gives wiki a bad name.")
    4. 20:24, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 464084887 by 70.27.194.185 (talk)")
    5. 21:48, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Have a little class and restraint. Its people like you that make wikipedia the place where you go to smell stale internet farts")
    6. 23:07, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 464105411 by 70.27.194.185 (talk) thanks for the laugh with that last comment")
    7. 23:28, 4 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 464117342 by Cookiehead (talk)")

    Comments:

    Apparently the subjects of these two articles recently got into a scuffle, which was covered by a significant amount of media. A user added information about the incident to both relevant pages. The IP editor in question has then removed the information from both pages repeatedly, deeming it "fluff." He appears to have otherwise edited constructively.

    —nprice (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither editor crossed the 3RR threshold (narrowly defined) and they seem to have stopped edit warring for now. They haven't started discussing this content dispute though, so I've protected both articles for one week to encourage this and prevent further outbreaks. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarsathug and User:Vikas.insan reported by User:De728631 (Result: Block)

    Page: Dera Sacha Sauda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Users being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: [36]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Vikas.insan had previously been contacted on their talk page about promotional edits on that article: [37], and Sarsathug has announced that he will continue his dispruptive editing despite of several warnings [38].


    Comments:

    Note also these IP edits where accusations to the article's subject are made in the edit summary [39] that are similar in wording to Sarsathug's first revert. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarsathug has now been blocked temporarily by Materialscientist for edit-warring and violation of WP:NPOV. Vikas.insan is however continuing his promotional campaign [40]. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Viriditas reported by User:Taylornate (Result: stale)

    Page: Climatic Research Unit email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [41] - Admitted revert per a not very nice edit summary.
    • 2nd revert: [42] - I had just added the dubious tag [43] and he did not justify removing it.
    • 3rd revert: [44] - a reversion of the previous edit [45] - Per the edit summaries, the intent of the first edit was to add the word speculate, and the intent of the second was to revert that.
    • 4th revert: [46] - I would think pure removal of text would be a revert in any context.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] - This section of the talk page is regarding the dubious tag, which is the dispute that pertains to me. I have skimmed through the talk page and seen discussion pertaining to the other reverts, but didn't want to wade through that mess unless I'm asked to.

    Comments:

    This is a 1RR article. Viriditas disagrees that he has violated 1RR and has invited me to make this report to decide.[49] With the definition of 3RR on this page, I think it's clear he has.--Taylornate (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    May hit "bright line" on a 1RR article with edits which I count as reverts being at 3:40 on 3 Dec and 3:37 on 4 Dec -- looks like he was trying to exactly pass the 24 hur mark and failed. Removing a tag (first revert) has long been held to be a "revert" and counts. Second one at 3:40 is a clear revert. 23 hours 53 minutes < 24 hours, I fear. Collect (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale T. Canens (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.123.232.186 reported by User:Hans Adler (Result: blocked for one week )

    Page: Roy Spencer (scientist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 88.123.232.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [50] (first removal of the information by this editor plus movement of footnotes, 3 December)

    • 1st revert: [51] 8:55 (removal/footnotes)
    • 2nd revert: [52] 8:58 (removal/footnotes)
    • 3rd revert: [53] 9:09 (footnotes only)
    • 4th revert: [54] 16:26 (removal and footnotes)
    • 5th revert: [55] 17:57 (removal only)

    (The reverting editors in the opposite direction were Stephan Schulz, Ryulong, Ryulong, VsevolodKrolikov, Hans Adler.)

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Roy Spencer (scientist)#IP removing material about the 2011 paper.

    Comments:

    Warning was after the 5th revert, but user had a 3RR warning for a related article on 1 December, followed by a 24h block for breaking 1RR. Hans Adler 18:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP editor for one week, which may have been generous given the extent of their edit warring and the sensitivity of this issue. Drop me a line directly if this re-occurs. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:108.64.173.236 reported by User:Kansan (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

    User being reported: 108.64.173.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Has been edit warring constantly. Kansan (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been blocked for 24 hours by Syrthiss (talk · contribs) Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.154.106.199 reported by User:De728631 (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: Paloma Faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 91.154.106.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [57]

    • 1st revert: diff Edit summary: "i have created paloma faiths own discography page!" (referring to [58])
    • 2nd revert: diff Edit summary: "stop DISCOGRAPHY HAS OWN PAGE!!"
    • 3rd revert: diff Edit summary: "discuss before starting to do something else, its better to have this way, because every singers page has it like this." where I had already begun a discussion on the article's talk page [59] and notified the IP about that.
    • 4th revert: diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:
    See also the comments the IP left on my user talk page: [60] et seq. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 5th revert by User:91.154.106.199, edit summary: "singles are already shown in the dischography page, only albums are shown on the main page, look: Jessie J." Obviously the IP thinks that there is a rule that if a discography exists we must not have other recordings listed in the artist's article than albums. And obviously they didn't read the discussion on the article talk either. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ElSaxo reported by User:Allen3 (Result: Indef)

    Page: Media Matters for America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ElSaxo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of notification user that WP:STRONGNAT calls for articles with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country to use the date format common to that country: [64]
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

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

    Comments:

    User with a past history of edit warring apparently attempting to impose UK/European style dates in an article about a US based organization in clear violation of WP:STRONGNAT. --Allen3 talk 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do note the following cases here as well:
    Note that the last talk space comment is on the 14th of June, regarding the mentioned block (typo fix) (see also edit history - other edits are moves of pages in talk space or removal of comments without answer: diff, diff). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Blocked indef. Any admin may lift or modify this block if they are convinced the editor is now willing to follow our policies. His edits during last May's dispute (which led to a two-week block and a talk page ban) indicate extreme stubbornness. "Imagine how I am willing to 'discuss' with a coward anonymous user"; " in peace and quiet - please go to the hell." The whole discussion is still visible at User talk:ElSaxo. His recent edit warring was accompanied by no discussion whatsoever. In my opinion he should remain blocked until he expresses willingness to discuss his edits and agrees to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gabe19 reported by User:ADKIc3mAnX (Result: page protected for three days)

    Page: Immortal (Michael Jackson album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gabe19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463454977

    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463576785

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)

    Comments:
    I keep fixing this page with official information and Gabe19 keeps reverting it every single time.

    --ADKIc3mAnX (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave enough reason for the removal of the deluxe cover in the edit summary here stating the "Image fail[ed] WP:FUC, as it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and as I stated on the talk page, "The deluxe edition cover clearly violates WP:FUC as it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It's the same image and the same text just a different color, which is not enough to warrant its inclusion. I will be removing it once again, and the next time it is added back in, I will reporting it to the Edit Warring noticeboard and request this page be locked. I'm tired of stubborn editors who fail to follow policy." Now I see User:ADKIc3mAnX is trying to turn the tables by reporting me when in fact they refuse to abide by Wikipedia Policy. — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 05:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added the picture to the article since the Deluxe cover is different than the regular cover and stores show both covers and it does NOT violate anything since it's an alternative cover for another edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADKIc3mAnX (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On what grounds, just the background color? Is that your only argument? Because its different? Not enough. Same image and text in the same place as the original. Have you not clicked on WP:FUC? Have you not read where it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."? Quit being so naive and follow the rules. — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 07:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected Both editors appear to have violated WP:3RR, but Gabe19's reading of WP:FUC seems correct so I don't think that blocks would solve anything. I've protected the article to allow for a discussion on what version of the image to use. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tillman reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 48h)

    Page: Climatic Research Unit email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: (n/a, multiple reverts)

    Note: the page is under 1RR restriction, I'm reporting here as it tells me to.

    • 1st revert: [66] (reverts [67])
    • 2nd revert: [68] (reverts [69])
    • 3rd revert: [70] (reverts [71])
    • 4th revert: (the page is under 1RR)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No explicit warning given. But PT has been around and knows about edit warring.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Misc discussion, inclunding Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#NPOV_in_opinion_quotes, but the last two reverts happened overnight; even a self-revert now wouldn't pull him back under 1R.

    Comments:

    • Reply: WMC is generally correct. I clearly lost track, and apologize for breaking 1RR. A few words of explanation may be helpful:

    "Revert#1" was discussed here at some length. Not quite a revert, but restoration of the news item discussed there, and certainly not "edit warring".

    ""Revert#3" was not a revert (except perhaps technically): See [72], which is a discussion of whether to use opinion quotes at this stage. I removed the text in question as an attempt to restore NPOV, while the subject was being discussed. I went to self-revert this as an indication of compliance with the 1RR rules, but found another editor had already reverted. Again, no "edit warring" was intended.

    I'll be taking a voluntary break from editing this page to help cool things down there. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rv #3 most certainly is a revert, there is no "technical" about it. I'm not happy with you quibbling that. I should have given the full diff you reverted though: [73]. Nor I am happy with you quibbling rv 1, either. And how long is "a voluntary break" - with no duration specified, this is meaningless William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the goal is a "preventative" block then the break is sufficient (any short block would be meaningless). If the goal is to "punish" (long or indefinite block) then this is really the wrong noticeboard. Try AE. Collect (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may be the wrong noticeboard, in which case give guidance and I'll move it, but it relates to the context of Pete's edit warring. This revert reintroduced accusations against living people presented in a questionable source. Since the end of November Pete Tillman has been pushing the boundaries of BLP, introducing blog based accusations against living people,[74] posting leaked primary sources taken out of context to attack the conduct of living people,[75] arguing that a living person has committed misconduct on the basis of Pete's own reading of leaked primary sources taken out of context, and citing a blog to back up his claim,[76] and adding criticism of a living person[77] based on a misreading of the sources he cited.[78] [see section now headed "Ramstorf lawsuit removed, why?"] In my view Pete should show more care, and perhaps take a break from the topic area rather than just one article. . dave souza, talk 19:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dave, the proper place to take a topic-ban proposal would probably be arbitration enforcement given that the article is under sanctions from WP:ARBCC (and behavior at this article was one of the primary drivers behind opening of that case, if I understand correctly). Regarding the edit warring reported here, a voluntary break of a few days from the CC pages would probably serve more good than a block at this point. Whether an involuntary topic ban is in order is a longer discussion more appropriate for other forums.... Sailsbystars (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll consider that if Pete resumes the same behaviour after his break from editing. My concern was that the offer was confined to the one page, that's now been made moot by the decision below. . . dave souza, talk 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Blocked 48 hours and notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. Tillman's edits at 23:06 on December 5 and 05:17 on December 6 were both reverts. Together they violate the WP:1RR restriction on these articles. If Tillman were a new editor we would probably close with no action if the person offered to abstain, but he is a veteran of the ARBCC debate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prinz.Deases reported by User:Reddogsix (Result: indef)

    Page: Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Prinz.Deases (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: [84]


    Comments: Editor has habitually added hoax article Richard Andrew Deases and is trying to change Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia and Template:Prussian princes ‎ to support hoax.

    Blocked indefinitely by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.57.156.12 reported by User:Rehevkor (Result: Semi)

    Page: Sonic Generations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.57.156.12 (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: [91]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [92]

    Comments:

    User:Sabot-7 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

    Page: Doug Williams (bassist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Sabot-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:27, 6 December 2011 (edit summary: "I myself edited this page,DATES and TIMES the facts herein are true and accurate. Can you please not modify it? Thank you. Doug Williams")
    2. 21:57, 6 December 2011 (edit summary: "I only added a brief background on myself, and tried to expand the article by adding separator lines and Bold Type. I'm still trying to learn to do this correctly. ")
    3. 22:46, 6 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid deletions to page by Bot? I inserted this personal information about myself by myself. ")
    4. 22:50, 6 December 2011 (edit summary: "Douglas A Williams, a living person made these canges {{helpme}}")
    5. 22:54, 6 December 2011 (edit summary: )
    6. 04:52, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "Revision updated 11/7/2011 by Doug Williams")
    7. 04:54, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "Citations repaired by Doug Williams")
    8. 04:59, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "Removed any Non-Cited Information")
    9. 05:06, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "Added Citing Sources")
    10. 11:35, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* References */ ")
    11. 11:47, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "Attempted to rebuild page {{helpme}} if I need to add Citing Information and exactly on which parts?")
    12. 12:04, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "{{helpme}}I am confused as to exactly what needs to be Cited")
    13. 12:21, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "1 more attempt to modify {{helpme}}")
    14. 12:23, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "I drew a "Line")
    15. 12:34, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Cephalic Carnage */")
    16. 12:35, 7 December 2011 (edit summary: "added spaces")
    • Diff of warning: here

    The first edit in the list above might not be a revert (I include it here only to show that this editor is the subject of the article). But there are four subsequent edits/groups (as apparent in the history) that are reverts. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarsathug reported by User:Vikas.insan (Result: Already blocked)

    Page: Dera Sacha Sauda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:

    breaking the WP policies, earlier as well he was reported by User:De728631, for 3RR and repeatedly removing well-referenced content[93] Link to the complaint :[94] which I undid earlier because he was putting abusive language and removed almost the entire content, and continued doing that, so I undid his baseless and abusive changes, stoping someone from using abuses should be appreciated, but I got warning for the same for being a part of edit war, but i think edit war is of view with respect to some topic, when someone is using abuses, it should be strongly opposed by everyone, and this is what I did earlier. Now the moment this user is unblocked after being blocked for 3 days, He is again doing such abusive and baseless changes, so request to please block this user.


    Previous version reverted to: [95]

    User:72.231.8.53 reported by User:Snoozlepet (Result: )

    Page: Newark Liberty International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 72.231.8.53 (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: [100]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101] (started discussion)

    Comments: This IP continues to add Cathay Pacific to HKG without specifing an actual date per WP:AIRPORTS. It was reverted by me and 2 other editors. We also left 3RR message on his talk page. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    User:159.53.46.141 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: )

    Page: Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 159.53.46.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 159.53.78.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 159.53.174.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 159.53.110.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [102]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110] [111] [112]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Michigan–Ohio_State_football_rivalry#Rodriguez_firing
    User_talk:JohnInDC#Ohio_State_Michigan_rivalry

    Comments:

    This shows 4 IP addresses, all within the same range and all registered to JP Morgan Chase, making essentially identical edits adding and removing certain text to the subject page, 8 edits and 7 reverts in total within about three and a half hours. (Three separate editors endeavored to maintain the text as it had been originally.) I placed warnings on three of the four editors' pages (missed one). Final reversion came after the warnings, and by an IP address that had received one. JohnInDC (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=464642973"