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 128.59.171.184 (talk) at 17:31, 23 December 2011 (→‎User:POVbrigand reported by User:128.59.171.184 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Israelite1 reported by User:DePiep (Result:Declined)

    Page: Israelis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Israelite1 (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: -

    Comments:

    -DePiep (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment User has not broken 3RR yet, does seem a bit odd that a user has only made 4 edits and 3 of them are all reverts. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Those kind of edits are clearly covered by 1RR under WP:ARBPIA and the use of Joan Peters as a source doesn't suggest the editor belongs here at all. I've added 1RR/sanctions headers. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious, how does one know that an article is under 1RR restriction?, surely we can't just assume a new (or even an experienced) editor knows about WP:ARBPIA. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, just seen the warning on the talk page. Never seen that before, would be very easy to miss. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined but only because the warnings were put on the editor's talk page after their last edit. They now should be clear about the 1RR restriction and if they break it or take other actions which appear to be edit warring should then be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get this. I did not refer to 1RR. I know is might be I/P related (and so ARBPIA), but I did not claim 1RR transgression. (The 1RR has only been notified after my notification here [6]). And all together: no 1RR was in scope (except for the accused user).
    I am here for a 3RR. Factual: R1=10:36 (Dec 17), R2=04:44 (Dec18), R3=09:35 (Dec18). The user did 3 reverts withing 23h. All were show "undo" as by automate (btw User did mark all as "minor", which requires a personal action).
    You could have killed me here for "not engaging in dispute solving".
    Oh, and by the way: I posted here (1st time I guess), but I did not read that I was writing a request that could be "denied" (exactly what was denied?). Just wanted to note a 3RR user. -DePiep (talk)
    3RR was not broken, since it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR rule. The editor was forgiven for their 1RR violation but is warned not to repeat it. I have notified User:Israelite1 about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, so that's the way to read it. I learned 3RR-counting was a maximum, not a right (which is a good idea). IMO, the "just three" reverts looked suspicious enough to warrant a note here (new user, no es, no talking). Well, thanks anyway to take care. Consider matter closed. -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what was said, and you know it. If you'd warned properly in the first place, a block might have occurred ...but right now it's simply punishment. After all, discussion is the intent of the entire thing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is what EdJohnston said [7].
    New to me is, that a "warning" counts as a "discussion". I actually added the warning as was advised on this page in the Listing instructions (and in the preload) as part of the reporting here. Both BWilkins and the declining editor (!) think different.
    Also in the Listing Instructions block, actually above it in red, is the main line on this page worth reading. As I did earlier.
    If one wants to improve from what was said, one could revisit my note that the wording of this page & its reporting preload does not make sense logically.
    Straight from WP:3RR I dare quoting: any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.
    Now what do I supposedly know? -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    re BWilkins: To me, your reply is a non-AGF [8]. I think I responded extensively and sincerely [9]. I might expect a response, don't you think? -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, never mind Bwilkins. While I was expecting a response on my first report here, and while you were contemplating your post here (without AGF, as I pointed out), the User I reported here got SPI'ed, CUéd, banned, recreated an account for the same edits, ranted my talkpage twice with libels before getting banned again. Now if I only had a AN-page where I could report such suspicious behaviour. This page is not working. I do have diffs, but since no one is interested, I will provide then by request. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry ... I thought this thread was um, over? I hadn't look at it until I politely suggested you re-read what was originally said. Now, please stop the tantrum and go back to what I always thought was your normal reasonable and respectable behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding and you know it was not polite; you opened 'closed' thread; you keep skipping that this page is unintelligible. Sorry for posting here, if I knew it was by invitation only I'd have asked you beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doncram reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: nv)

    Page: William H. Allen (architect) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: First addition of extended quote


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Undid revision 466760357 by Doncram (talk) Your use of verbatim quotes in stubs was determined to be unacceptable by an uninvolved admin. Stays out unless you get consensus for inclusion"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. Original uninvolved admin decision was quite clear.

    Comments:

    Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs, "There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates WP:NFC (#Another question regarding consensus on article quality)."

    Argh. I have had it with SarekOfVulcan following my edits and contending at every step. Today he put a speedy-delete tag on an article i was working on, which led to a DRV restoring the article (because the Speedy was wrong). He 4 times moved another article I was working on, article now at Charles E. Bell. Look at its edit history to see his actually exceeding 3RR. And this. And perhaps more. In each case I opened discussion sections and SarekOfVulcan has chosen not to discuss, but rather to escalate and confront. About the William H. Allen (architect) article, why the hell has he not deigned to comment at the Talk page item.
    Something stronger is needed to address this pattern of following and warring. --doncram 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider recent, bizarre, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:SarekOfVulcan reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Move protected), about another spat of determined edit warring against me. Closed with no negative consequence for Sarek, oddly. I am working to develop articles; SarekOfVulcan is following, interrupting, actively choosing to combat. --doncram 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Orlady has also removed your extended quotations as "inappropriate". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, this is an Edit Warring noticeboard that you opened a discussion at. Whatever about your buddy Orlady's kneejerk opposition to me, about a matter not properly addressed here. Is it your intention to cause edit warring by your confrontationally fighting at the article, and raising it here? I fully get the idea that you are trying really hard to provoke me. Yes, I said "F u" in an edit summary earlier today. Great. Please do try to escalate further. --doncram 00:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That uninvolved admin is free to take action himself. As far as my personal opinion, given the article and editor you reported, there was insufficient recent activity to meet the three-revert rule, and there was insufficient long-term activity (again, from what I was able to see) to consider it a protracted edit war. That said, another admin has since blocked Doncram (talk · contribs) for 1 week due to personal attacks/harassment. --slakr\ talk / 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Polaron reported by User:Doncram (Result: Reporter blocked)

    Page: 12 different articles
    User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Multiple contested redirects going on, implemented by Polaron by use of Twinkle, redirecting multiple articles to newly created List of historic sites preserved along Rochambeau's route.

    Articles include (with recent Polaron edit summaries):

    1. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Plainfield Pike ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800150 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    2. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Palmer Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800181 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    3. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Manship Road-Barstow Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800171 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    4. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Bailey Road ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Doncram (talk): All useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    5. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Old Canterbury Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800158 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    6. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Hutchinson Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800204 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    7. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Reservoir Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800210 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    8. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Scotland Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800194 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    9. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Ridgebury Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800217 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    10. Forty-Seventh Camp of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Doncram (talk): All useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
    11. Fourth Camp of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (all useful content in target) (top)
    12. Camps Nos. 10 and 41 of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (all useful content in target) (top)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see User talk:Polaron#Rochambeau march route historic sites, at which I sought dialogue some time ago. His not responding, and proceeding with redirects now, plus re-reredirects using Twinkle after I restored many of the articles, is not constructive. --doncram 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mentioned above. --doncram 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See edit history for any of the above. At a minimum, i ask that Polaron's Twinkle privileges be revoked. --doncram 03:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Just to let everyone know that Doncram has been blocked for a week for personal attacks by Jayron32. Minima© (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 86.** IP reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 48h)

    Page: Global warming conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 86.** IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [10] (removes fringe and POV tag)

    Note: this page is under 1RR (and probably ARBCC type stuff, too)

    • 1st revert: [11] (restores POV and fringe tags)
    • 2nd revert: [12] (ditto)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, you can see the article talk page if you like, also the warning above [14] was an attempt to help, though it didn't go down very well [15] [16].

    Comments:
    William's claims of trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page are laughable: he actually tried to escalate the dispute there. His reversion contains a personal attack,[17] and he has explicitly attempted to shut me up repeatedly surrounding this event [18] [19] [20]

    His warning on my talk page was actually an attempt to blackmail me into stopping all discussion, in the entire area of global warming. [21]: "The usual procedure in this case would be to self-revert, but you can't. The usual fall back is to offer to leave the area alone for a while"

    This is a blatant attempt to abuse process by William. He comes to my talk page, points out something, and then tells me that, because there's nothing I should do, I should stop all editing in the entire area - then comes here to get me blocked when I note that option as the attempt at abuse of process it is.

    I think there's a problem with these articles. William doesn't. Instead of engaging in discussion, Williaam prefers to revert all attempts to discuss it.

    Further, the first supposed reversion (it's at least ambiguous) was simply obeying a talk page request to wait to tag until after an AfD closed, and requires looking back a week, ignores the stated reasons for the reversion, which, however invalid I think they are, certainly don't apply now. William is attempting to use a technicality to get me censured, and is lying about his own escalating behaviours.

    Surely one can't be given a warning, which tells you there's nothing can be done to undo the 1RR, and then be told to stop all edits in a field or have process be pulled down on you - especially when giving that warning is a requirement for use of that process? 86.** IP (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.** IP, WMC is correct in stating that an offer to leave the area alone might be accepted when it is too late to self-revert. Since you have broken the 1RR on this article, which is under WP:ARBCC, any offer from you would be carefully listened to. The alternative would seem to be a conventional block for breaking the WP:1RR, a restriction which is clearly marked on the article's talk page and is logged here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I seriously don't see how I could do anything, given that it was already reverted when the first warning about it came into play. I was actually attempting to follow 1RR, but was not aware the first edit would count, because of the changed circumstances and being a somewhat different edit, created de novo.
    This was a simple misunderstanding, I cannot see how a topic ban - which is what William wanted me to agree to for this minor mistake - is justified. Had I been told that the first edit counted when there was something I could have done, I would have happily reverted. But to be told to stop all editing in an entire area because I made a minor mistake by putting up a variation of an edit I made, which edit is no longer on the page seems ridiculous.
    Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I fail to see how this discussion serves any purpose. It was an honest mistake, which William is using to troll me. 86.** IP (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want folks to give you the benefit of the doubt over a simple misunderstanding, perhaps you should treat them that way when they make mistakes of their own? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked — 48 hours. Noting that the user declined to make any offer to limit his future edits in this area, as an alternative to a block. A quick look indicates there is some dispute among the parties about when articles ought to be tagged. Tags fall under the revert rules like any other article content, so far as the WP:EW policy goes. Adding to the excitement, User:86.** IP made what looks like a third revert to the article within 24 hours, while this very discussion was in progress. I guess the 1RR wasn't already broken enough. The editor has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. He is urged to edit more carefully in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A welcome respite. However, the problem here is not an isolated, possibly accidental 1RR, but a broad pattern of disruptive editing. And, unfortunately, will only continue in full blast once the block expires. As this editor seems immune to correction, a permanent block may be necessary. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:AussieLegend (Result:not blocked )

    Page: Russell Crowe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    • 1st revert: 22:03, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466657383 by Bidgee (talk)it is normal ng releases to filmography. Please, before reverting again, take it up on the talk page.")
    • 2nd revert: 03:09, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "i requested you bring this to the talk page before reverting again, i guess you didn't see that. It's common to add upcoming films to the fimography. If it's cancelled, remove it, date changed? change the date. No reason whatsoever why they can't be.")
    • 3rd revert: 16:16, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466806484 by Bidgee (talk)please read your talk page AND my edit summaries")
    • 4th revert: 22:05, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466882468 by AussieLegend (talk)Final time reverting. PLEASE take to talk page so we can discuss this. I'll even start it")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [23]

    Comments:
    I happened across this accidentally. Rusted AutoParts possted on Bidgee's talk page, claiming he had breached 3RR.[24] However, a review of the edit history of Russell Crowe showed this was not the case; at the time of the post Bidgee had reverted only twice on the article's page in the previous 24 hours.[25][26] Bidgee's previous revert was 18 hours prior to that.[27] However, Rusted AutoParts had made 3 reverts in under 18 hours, so I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page, noting the above.[28] I included a note that I believed the inclusion was WP:CRYSTAL, which I expanded upon later after realising that the article on the movie being added to Russell Crowe very clearly failed WP:NFF.[29] Despite being active for a 3-hour period after placing his warning on Bidgee's talk page, Rusted AutoParts waited until 2 minutes after the 24-hour mark had passed before making his fourth revert. While this doesn't breach the letter of WP:3RR, it does breach the spirit of it. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • Not blocked I take your point, but as his last revert's edit summary says "Final time reverting. PLEASE take to talk page so we can discuss this. I'll even start it" and I see he has started a discussion at the talk page, I believe a block at this point would be inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Count Iblis reported by User:Beeblebrox (Result: warned)

    Page: Wikipedia:Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [30]

    • 1st revert: [31]
    • 2nd revert: [32]
    • 3rd revert: [33]
    • 4th revert: [34]
    • 5th revert: (really one revert over two edits, combined with above diff) [35]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    • Count Iblis has been engaging in a slow motion edit war to keep a "failed" tag off of a proposal he wrote that failed, and to keep the "proposed" tag on it despite the fact that he himself has re-written it to the point where the original proposal is long gone and was replaced with a descriptive page that clearly is not a proposal. Three users, including myself, restored the "failed tag" a total of four times. All four have been reverted by Count Iblis. The consensus at the mfd of the page heavily favors the position that this is a failed proposal. The Count is a long term active user and has been involved on the margins of many disputes and therefore is obviously well aware of the edit warring policy and has chosen to ignore not only that but common sense and the emergent consensus at the MFD for the page. (now overdue at 11 days in case anyone would care to close it and possibly render this whole thing moot.) Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The MfD debate has several well-reasoned 'Keep' votes by experienced editors, and more than one person says it it's logical to keep the proposal but mark it as Failed. In my opinion, if the deletion debate were closed now, Keep is the more likely outcome. I'll notify User:Count Iblis that he may be blocked for edit warring unless he will agree to wait for consensus about the Failed tag. Even though the Count has worked to stave off the 'failed' outcome by revising the proposal, both old and new versions still retain this nutshell, which appears to differ from current policy: "This page in a nutshell: A government is a group of editors who have the de-facto exclusive right to make certain types of edits to articles, policy pages, or administrative decisions for a limited time. Governments are always agreed to by consensus." EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I don't have time for these stupid tactical games that are played here and on the proposal page. I was just in it for writing up something that would have cnsensus and the first iteration was just that, one to gauge the opnion the feedback of that would be used in the next version. But I forgot about this proposal for a while and was too busy with other things. But Beeblebrox and a few others are only in it to mark the original version as failed and don't want me to write up something that is acceptable to the community. Yesterday, I had some minutes to spare for Wikipedia and I though "let's write in the proposal itself that a formal government system is not acceptable to the community". But then that's acknowledging that the first version is not acceptable, so it would then not be appropriate to mark the latest version as failed. Of course, one can also say that this should be an essay or something else. I really don't care that much, except for the failed tag on any new text. If Beeblebrox wants to copy the original proposal and put a failed tag on that, then he can always go ahead and do that. Then one perhaps needs to discuss if the present version needs to be moved elsewhere. But no such constructive discussions are going on at all, all I hear is a few people shouting "Failed, Failed, Failed" and I can hardly edit here in the little time I have, all the time gets wasted on this and other boards where I basically need to defend the fact that the page was edited. Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Count Iblis, extensive discussion shows that WIkipedia:Government is a failed proposal. If you remove the 'failed' tag again you will most likely be blocked. Edit warring to keep that page looking like a live policy document in Wikipedia space is not acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This report is obviously not about the validity of the proposal but rather about the manifest fact that he has edit warred to retain his preffered version of a page that is in WP space, not user space. He's been warned to stop already, and has ignored those warnings. Logic and reason have been tried, he has ignored them as well. I'm kind of surprised nobody has done the block. It should be fairly clear that the Count has willingly ignored consensus repeatedly over the course of this incident. The adding of the "proposed" tag at this point is utter nonsense as, by his own admission, there is no proposal, yet he has continued to insist on, defying all logic along with consensus. Another warning is just another thing for him to ignore, by his own admission (see the header on his user and talk pages) he does not believe he is bound by WP policy, andf his actions in this affair reflect that. Another warning seems unlikely to assist in adjusting that perspective. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I'll make it an essay then. Also, I'm going to raise this issue of using strong arm tactics to prevent constructive editing on AN/I. These days, parts of Wikipedia have become a cesspool, better to stay away from there until someone cleans out this whole mess. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The editing history doesn't show that I've edit warred about the actual content of the proposal at all. It does show that Beeblebrox has been acting in a rather aggressive way there. The text now says that the community doesn't want a formal government system, so I really don't see the big deal about people wanting to have the current text marked as a failed proposal, because the original objection was against a formal government system. Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't insist on making this look like a real Wikipedia policy people might not be so irritated. You have had many months to elicit any support that you were ever going to get. A statements on your user page says "Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." It is hard not to see Wikipedia:Government as part of a crusade in which you are the only crusader. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've raised the real issues with this at AN/I. Count Iblis (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You've raised the fact that you have lost all touch with reality as far as this issue is cncerned at ANI? That's just what we need, a fifth discussion of this fantasy realm of yours. Well done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:198.1.37.220 and other IPS reported by User:Eldamorie (Result: no action)

    Page: Evil clown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 198.1.37.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This IP, as well as several others, have been repeatedly adding a lengthy list at Evil clown (as seen in [version] of the article, without using any sort of edit summaries or attempts to justify the content. The majority of this article is already a list of pop culture occurrences.

    I brought it up at the talk page today, although the IP/s have made no attempt to justify the changes in any way. Additional eyes would be helpful. eldamorie (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    There appear to be more eyes on the article at the moment. Kuru (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:129.252.69.40 reported by User:LesPhilky (Result: blocked in report below)

    Page: Carolina–Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) South Carolina Gamecocks football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 129.252.69.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [36]

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [41]

    This IP, which is attributed to the University of South Carolina computer services division, has been edit warring these two pages to delete factual, relevant, and sourced information. I cannot attempt to discuss the issue because there could be hundreds or thousands of people at the university using this IP. This IP has been blocked in the past due to vandalism of pages. I request that this IP be further blocked from these two pages. The IP may also be used by GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also tried to delete the same information. Two weeks ago, GarnetAndBlack and I were temporarily blocked from one of the pages and asked to resolve the issue together. I have since avoided reverting his contributions and tried to work peacefully to make edits, but he has once again turned it into an effort to skew the contents of the page.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments:

    Blocked in a later report. Kuru (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24h)

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

    User being reported: Zenkai251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

    Creationism
    1. 19:11, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466989498 by HiLo48 (talk)sorry, I meant the name of the linked article")
    2. 21:29, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 467071493 by HiLo48 (talk)it does need to change. do you have a good reason for it not to?")
    Genesis creation narrative
    1. 06:38, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
    2. 06:47, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466822663 by Hrafn (talk)"A" is more grammatically correct than "The" when placed before "common"; therefore it's a minor edit")
    3. 06:50, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "proper grammer")
    4. 06:54, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466823527 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk)yes, I realized my typo when it was too late. it needs "most" added in to be grammatically correct")


    Link to diff of warning:

    Comments: User is consistently violating WP:EW (but not 3rr) on a range of articles. He's been consistently warned by a variety of users, both with templates and personal messages, on his talk and article talk pages. His response has always been to remove the warning without comment, often citing claims of "atheist bias" in his edit summary. 5 EW warnings in one month is over the line. See his comment here, for instance, where he indicates that since he's "right", the EW warning is invalid. User has received plenty of chances, and needs a block to indicate this is not acceptable behavior and to prevent further disruption.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: And after this report was filed... another warning by an admin, and subsequent removal by Zenkai without comment.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly what those who were asking for "one more chance for Zenkai" in 2 different ANI-threads will get. He was given a free pass to continue his behavior by community consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: no action)

    Page: Susan B. Anthony List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [48]

    • 1st revert: [49] 17:37, December 21, 2011. Removed the word "scholars".
    • 2nd revert: [50] 19:06, December 21, 2011. Removed the word "scholars".
    • No 3rd diff needed, article is under 1RR for abortion topics.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]
    Also, previous discussion about the word "scholars" at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#Interpreting_WP:SAY, Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List/Archive_1#Pro-choicers_vs_academic_history_experts and Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List/Archive_1#Scholars. Related discussion at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_abortion_dispute#Scholars

    Comments:

    NYyankees51 has for more than a year been intent on removing the word scholar or scholars from the related articles Susan B. Anthony List and Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. This removal of the word scholars on October 29, 2010, shows how long the dispute has been running.(Note that NYyankees51 was operating a sockpuppet at the time: User:BS24.) This string of edits in March 2011 shows an instance of NYyankees51 removing information about "Anthony scholar Ann Dexter Gordon" providing a solid rebuttal to an SBA List assertion. Again in May 2011 he removed the phrase "scholars of 19th-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion". Much of NYyankees51 work on the article has been to advance the causes of SBA List and to diminish as much as possible the scholarship of those who have spoken out against the organization or against its assertions. Included among the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NYyankees51 is one that is owned by SBA List: 70.21.119.84. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NYyankees51/Archive, another SBA List-owned IP address was listed as a sockpuppet: 75.103.237.18. This shows that NYyankees51 has a close connection to SBA List, and may explain his longterm effort to weaken any scholarly rebuttal. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more of a technical error than edit warring. I was making many edits to the page and saved one when the edit conflict screen came up because of Binksternet's edit here. I saved my edit to replace it and inserted the {{inuse}} template, finished my editing, and removed the template. I should have been more careful and actually looked at the edit conflict before replacing it, but I was working hard and I didn't. Had I put the {{inuse}} template in from the start, the issue could have been avoided, and that's my fault. But this isn't blatant edit warring as much as a technical error. Also, the conflict of interest allegation was addressed months ago, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit conflict on a 1RR article is a big red flag. It should bring your new contribution to a complete halt so you can determine whether your continued editing is in violation. I gave you plenty of opportunity to revert yourself, and you did not. You still have not as of this moment. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not solely a 1RR issue. The information about your past editing is there to show that the issue is also longterm edit warring, despite multiple talk page discussions. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We both have engaged in long-term edit warring. In a dispute between two editors, there cannot be just one editor edit-warring. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NYyankees51, is there a reason you have not self-reverted the contested material as requested? Kuru (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm tired. [53] NYyankees51 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note An accidental overwrite seems to make sense given the string of edits; presuming that the self revert covered the contested material, this seems resolved. If that didn't cover it, let me know what the problem is and I'll make the edit. Kuru (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Falconclaw5000 reported by TFD (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Falconclaw5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 03:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 01:05, 21 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Reagan, the icon of today's Right, was anti-elitist. This is a fact that you cannot reasonably dispute. Undid revision 466926587 by DanielRigal (talk)")
    2. 17:26, 21 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Please reach a consensus on the discussion page before removing entire sections.")
    3. 22:21, 21 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Actually, it does: "The so-called neoliberal right, popularized by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher..."")
    4. 23:51, 21 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")


    • Diff of warning: here

    —TFD (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I changed "terminology" to "term." I did not change the controversial part about elitism. I believe the user TFD has a personal vendetta against me because he wants to preserve the bias of the article. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You reversed DanielRigal's 22:52 edit where he changed "term" to "terminology".[54] You also made an edit at 23:52 (not included above) which changed other wording in the article.[55] TFD (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    DanielRigal's main edit was to insert the part about elitism; he only changed the "terminology" thing back because he reverted my edit in a lazy way. The other edits I made were NOT reverts. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The editor was given an opportunity to self-revert to avoid 3RR but declined. Clear reverts at 23:51,22:21,17:26,01:05; previous edit warring on same article. Kuru (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LesPhilky reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Les and IP blocked)

    Page: Carolina–Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LesPhilky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [56]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well aware of 3RR policy, having been warned about it on more than one occasion by myself[61] and others[62], and told to cease edit warring by an admin[63].

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User refuses to seek consensus or discuss changes on article Talk page[64], and is very dismissive of established Wikipedia policies and process for doing so. 3RR warnings are summarily removed by this user from their Talk page and ignored[65][66].

    Comments: This is the second edit war in this article by this user and an anonymous IP user[67]. Both have been warned previously[68][69], article was temporarily full protected[70], and here we are again with these two, right back at it several days later. I would have filed a report on both of these dedicated edit warriors, but I see LesPhilky beat me to it on filing against the IP[71]. Ironic, since LesPhilky was edit warring right along with the IP. Even more ironic, the IP apparently pointed out this fact in a comment to that report, but LesPhilky decided to delete that user's comment from the noticeboard[72]. I've basically given up hope that this user will ever decide to abide by the policies of this project, and sought help from an admin involved with the previous edit war[73], but so far to no avail. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rast5 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Tamara Toumanova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 15:56, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv sock of blocked Biographyspot")
    2. 16:00, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
    3. 16:01, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ unreliable and in georgian language without translation")
    4. 16:01, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ rv original research")
    5. 14:10, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "sockpuppet of Bographyspot")
    6. 19:30, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv sockpuppet")
    7. 20:11, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ both are unreliable. the grave is not a reliable source, a journal in georgian too")
    8. 20:12, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ a personal site is not a reliable source")
    9. 20:15, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ a personal site")
    10. 20:17, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Vassiliev's book in English")

    —Antique Rose — Drop me a line 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several attempts have been made to solve this conflict, please see Talk:Tamara Toumanova.

    Comments: User Rast5 is conducting an edit war (although not 3RR yet), in the same manner as a previously blocked and sanctioned IP user. The article in question is Tamara Toumanova. I suspect that Rast5, strongly promoting Toumanova's Armenian descent and dismissing references citing her Georgian descent, is closely related to or identical with 85.141.14.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who hectically promoted the Armenian cause, before being blocked and put on the "List of editors warned about possible discretionary sanctions" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 [75]. If Rast5 indeed is 85.141.14.195, the user is trying to evade the sanction. Please note that Rast5 is accusing other users of sockpuppetry. (FYI: The diffs above are generated from the 3RR tool.)

    User:98.165.115.152 reported by User:TopGun (Result: 24h)

    Page: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 98.165.115.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [76]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

    Semi protection declined, recommending in favour of AN3: For reference-- [84]

    Comments: IP warring with 3 different users, gone upto five reverts. Blatantly obvious WP:DUCK of 202.3.77.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who was warring on the same content in November, made personal attacks and got blocked thrice on this IP, another and then on the range for multiple reasons. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gclrnewyork reported by User:SGMD1 (Result: )

    Page: American University of Antigua College of Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gclrnewyork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [85]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

    Comments:
    The user is repeatedly removing referenced material and appears to be advertising for the school (the username is that of the school's corporate owner) and has ignored warnings about WP:OR and WP:3RR SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:POVbrigand reported by User:128.59.171.184 (Result: )

    Page: Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: POVbrigand (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: [95]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96][97]

    Comments:

    As his name implies, a clear POV-pusher for advocating various cold fusion research and pseudoscience. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR not applicable - IP sock for banned user VanishedUser314159 [98] --POVbrigand (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really the policy of Wikipedia to encourage edit warring as long as you suspect the other person is a banned user? I have tried to engage this person in discussion, but he seems to steadfastly refuse and instead is content to simply act as judge/jury/executioner. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=467367055"