Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

User:Nick.mon reported by User:RJFF (Result: )

Page: The People of Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nick.mon (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]

User is edit-warring at Lega Nord The Right, and Democratic Party (Italy), too, but hasn't breached 3RR yet.

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

No attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page so far.

Comments:

User:Kusunose‎ reported by User:World historia (Result: canceled)

Page: Emperor Gwanggaeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: World historia‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This report is page moving warring, not 3RR violation.

Previous title reverted to: Gwanggaeto the Great

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6][7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Homunculus (Result: )

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

All reverts pertain to a short paragraph about allegations that Chinese politician Bo Xilai was involved in torture against Falun Gong adherents in northeast China. In particular, editor tried repeatedly to delete reliably sourced information that Bo was indicted by the Spanish National Court on allegations of genocide and torture, and found liable for torture in an Autralian court.

4 reverts within 24-hour period:

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]

The only time that Ohconfucius contributed to the talk page discussion during this 24-hour period was to make this WP:FORUM-like comment[13].

Ohconfucius was warned about breaking the 3RR immediately.[14] He responded by calling this very "droll".[15] I decided to hold off on filing this report for a few days, as I wanted to see if he would become more constructive after the warning. That didn't happen.

Yesterday, I restored some deleted references and information.[16] I explained this edit on the talk page, and several other editors had previously expressed support for the inclusion of this content. I also believed (perhaps wrongly) that Ohconfucius agreed to allow me to correct the inaccurate information on the page.

Ohconfucius again promptly reverted with very terse edit summaries:

• [17]
• [18]

When I asked him to explain on talk page why he deleted this content again, he declines and makes what I think was intended to be an insult against me (?).[19]

I encouraged the editor to self-revert.[20] He refused.[21]

Attempts to resolve constructively: After his first revert, I asked Ohconfucius in his talk page if he could explain.[22] He did not answer. I then tried numerous times to advance a constructive talk page conversation about the disputed material: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] I also asked three previously uninvolved editors to weigh in so as to enable a clearer consensus to emerge.[30][31][32].

Additional comments on my involvement: This edit war was catalyzed by an edit that I made[33], which added some references and noted the outcome of the legal actions. I did not anticipate this change would be controversial. The dispute that ensued was regrettable, as was my involvement. When my repeated attempts to engage Ohconfucius were ignored, I reverted him several times.[34][35][36] I did not violate the 3RR, though I came much closer than I would like. After Ohconfucius' most recent revert, I've resolved to stay away entirely from the 'undo' button, and I am going to make a concerted effort in the future to refrain from edit warring. Homunculus (duihua) 04:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Response by Ohconfucius

I thought we were engaged in an iterative process to find the right balance for the article, and felt frustrated that two editors appeared to tag team to impose a certain wording. To his credit, Homunculus seemed to acknowledge that his own action had set off a chain edits. Indeed, this caused Colipon to remove the paragraph outright. but thereafter, not only did he continue in his obstinacy to insert text, he did so in a much more aggressive manner. His three reverts are as follows: 123(+intervening tag-team edit - chronologically between 1 and 2)

I made my one revert. H made some comment on the talk page (at 4:05 am my time), and TSTF responded (at 7:50 am my time) and reincluded the disputed section even before any imaginary ink would have dried. He acted with such apparent haste that I reverted whilst regrettably implying he was behaving like the sidekick of Homunculus. I then proceeded to rewrite the section in wording that I felt was encyclopaedically neutral. This is what my rewritten vision would have resembled in its entirety had Homunculus not performed a blanket revert before I had finished editing after my so called second revert.

So, included in the preceding diff was one he labelled as my third revert – an accident caused by an edit conflict that crushed his version – this was clearly noted in my edit summary. Whilst I was in the middle of reintroducing the text as separate sentences, carefully copyedited, he had reinserted the entire disputed paragraph as a block, which then made it look like I reverted a third time. I don't know how he came to the belief that I had "given consent" to allow him to "correct an inaccurate description of lawsuit outcomes," but that matters little. My voice is but one that makes up the consensus. As to establishing a consensus, I and Colipon made some comments, as had some others noted above. What is ignored is the opinion of Shrigley. Jayen466, who is an expert on religious groups, has edited Falun Gong before, briefly. Ferox also seemed to disapprove of further expansion of the paragraph.

At no time has Homunculus proposed to revert to the version prior to the one that precipitated the chain reaction, so his mea culpa seems hollow and disingenuous. This diff shows that despite his acknowledgement, the final version of the offending paragraph is much more aggressive, and has a much weaker consensus supporting it. He attempted to justify it, but the wording remained disputed. I refused his invitation to revert myself, and instead asked him to reexamine his own actions. Of course, I also pointed out that blocks were not meant to be punitive. I warned him he could be blocked pre-emptively "if you are intent on warring"; the underlying implication of my comment was that I would not revert again. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh this is a yawn. I don't know the issues (and I do have a CoI in that OC is a wikifriend of mine). The reverting is most unfortunate, but the "warring" status is a bit fuzzy. I wonder why both parties don't agree to take this to WP:DRN, where there are people who are prepared to work hard to extract fact, edit histories, and any emotional aspect in such scenarios, to try to find a resolution. Tony (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I would be open to the idea of dispute resolution, and prior to filing this I inquired with another veteran editor about the best mediation or dispute resolution process to address this. I was advised to file this report. It's my understanding that there is a bright line on the 3RR. Ohconfucius crossed it. He did so while refusing to discuss on the talk page. Given warnings and advised to self-reverted, he responded by calling this funny, and suggesting he would be immune to blocks declaring that no one would punitively block him. Maybe these details were lost in my verbose report above (sorry). Homunculus (duihua) 12:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You're lying again. I never said or implied that I was immune to blocks. I already corrected you once above. And you have the temerity to continue to misrepresent me in this way. Or could it be you're still trying to get me blocked for appearing to be arrogant and blasé? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd amended my comment above
• I don't know what's intended by "you're still trying to get me blocked for appearing to be arrogant and blasé". I have never before tried to get you blocked for anything. In this case, I'm trying to get you blocked because you broke 3RR, continued edit warring after being warned, refused to answer good faith questions on the talk page, and refused to self-revert when given the chance. I will say no more.Homunculus (duihua) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for refactoring. Anyone who said they were immune to blocks would rightly be termed "arrogant and blasé", and that's what you implied when you misrepresented my comment. Of course, if you kindly offered me the opportunity of eating/doing something I did not want, I would decline. In the case in question, I did not believe the stance adopted in the article was a reasonable one, so I naturally refused. Voilà! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Musicfreak7676 reported by User:219.79.91.156 (Result:No violation (although filer *should* have been blocked) )

Page: User talk:Musicfreak7676 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Musicfreak7676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]
• 4th revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not applicable, the revert was already on a talk page.

Comments:
Hi there, I don't know if this is the correct way of resolving this. I am not asking for anyone to get blocked, I would just like to get a third opinion on this. I feel like I have lost all possible avenues of engagement with User:Musicfreak7676. I do recognise that my initial bid might have come across as harsh, and yes, I do see the irony of that and I am sorry for that. I have tried to remove what I thought was causing offence in my subsequent attempts, but this was reverted on sight.

All I would like is for my comment to stay on that page, which I believe WP:TALK permits, or in fact encourages. Thanks for any insights. 219.79.91.156 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, quoting from WP:TALK, this is why I think my comment should stay. I have also posted this in my last edit, but it was also reverted.

Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.

[It's OK to] Remov[e] harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

219.79.91.156 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note. You are quoting from a section that refers to article talk pages. Please see WP:OWNTALK, Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, which appears to be all Musicfreak is doing. My advice is to forget about it - your comments were read and continuing to re-add them will achieve no further purpose. QU ^TalkQu 23:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that. The sentence does continue saying though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. This however seems inconsistent with the policy I quoted above. 219.79.91.156 (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You would be well to recognize that WP:3RR does apply to your own reverts of someone else's talk page, so beware of the WP:BOOMERANG that your own edit-warring may cause. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. I was modifying my comment and trying to accommodate user's complaints about it. I also added the quote of the policy above as a basis of further discussion. You may also notice that I was the one who stopped the war. 219.79.91.156 (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The section I quoted from WP:OWNTALK is a different guideline to WP:TALK and are deliberately inconsistent. That is, the guidelines are intended to be different. You can't rely on WP:TALK to cover actions on a user talk page because it is a guideline related to article talk pages only. QU ^TalkQu 07:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Aaah OK sorry my bad, I didn't read your first post properly - nor the policy unfortunately. Still, the "archiving is preferred" clause applies, and I still think that it doesn't make sense to allow users to selectively remove comments that they do not like, for the same reasons why archival of a talk pages makes sense, or the same reasons why removing warnings from your talk page is disallowed. But I guess this should be brought to a different forum. Thanks for your help. 219.79.91.156 (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Since it's only preferred and not required, the "archiving is preferred" clause really doesn't matter. Oh, and removing warnings from your talk page is not disallowed either. --Onorem♠Dil 13:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• No violation WP:OWNTALK is the valid related policy. Edit-warring do keep your comments on someone's talkpage usually leads to a block of your own. When told to "go away", you're best to actually go away. Removal of comments from one's own talkpage is implicit notification that it has been read. Do not ever replace them in the future (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Theleftorium reported by User:Scott93205 (Result: Scott93205 blocked for 24 hrs)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott93205

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

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

 Done.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott93205

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

Comments:

Sorry if I’m doing this wrong, but I’m engaged in an “edit war,” and find it difficult to navigate this site. I’ve done my best with this template, and understand that before reporting a problem to you, I must notify the contributor with whom I am in conflict that I have taken this action. I don’t know if I’m in conflict with one contributor or two, but I will notify Theleftorium after leaving this page that I have mentioned him/her here.

Theleftorium, according to his/her profile, is a huge fan of THE SIMPSONs on TV (even his/her Username is a reference to the series), and has a problem with a paragraph I wish to add to the page on Harry Shearer. Harry Shearer does eleven voices for THE SIMPSONS, but among film buffs, his biggest claim to fame is that he is (allegedly) “one of only eight individuals” who have seen Jerry Lewis’s unfinished film THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED. Shearer’s name and Lewis’s are intertwined in countless magazine articles, books in several languages, and all over the Internet. I did a Google search on JERRY LEWIS / SHEARER and stopped counting at the thirtieth instance of an article on Lewis containing remarks from Harry Shearer, who is viewed as an authority on Lewis due to his having (allegedly) viewed the clown film, as well as for having written extensively (and negatively) about Lewis’s work for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. I did a search on THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED / SHEARER and stopped counting at the hundredth consecutive instance of Shearer’s name being attached to Lewis’s film, again with wholly negative remarks.

This is what I find significant enough to warrant adding a paragraph to the Harry Shearer page: Initially Shearer’s story was that he had been shown the film “by Lewis himself at a private gathering.” He told Lewis the film was terrible, and Lewis flew into a rage. But recently Shearer changed his story entirely. He says that Lewis didn’t show him the film after all. Rather, a secret acquaintance of Shearer’s somehow obtained the film from Lewis’s private vault and shared it with him. I think this information is worth sharing, and I believe I have the necessary citations.

It’s troubling that footage of the making of the film (which can now be seen at YouTube) contradicts most of Shearer’s assertions (i.e., that Lewis wears expensive shoes and jewelry while locked away in a Nazi concentration camp, and that he wears his hair jet black and oily as an aged, starving clown – in fact, his hair is gray). I dislike that Shearer’s remarks carry weight with those who aren’t aware that his credibility is faulty. When a public figure deceives the public (in this case, at the expense of another public figure), I think his page should reflect that. I’m willing to work on my paragraph, and even to place it elsewhere on the page if necessary, but I can’t accept that what I have to contribute is mere “trivia”. Below is my paragraph, removed for a third time without a word to me:

“Shearer has attracted attention as one of a handful of people purported to have seen Jerry Lewis’s unfinished film, The Day the Clown Cried. In May 1992, Shearer told Spy magazine that Lewis had shown him a rough cut of the film, only to fly into a rage when Shearer told him it was terrible. More recently, however, on the Howard Stern Show, Shearer changed his story and said that he had seen the film behind Lewis's back. Shearer has yet to explain how an unnamed acquaintance of his acquired a copy of the film from Lewis’s private vault. Production stills and footage of the making of the film reveal a number of innacuracies in statements made about the film by Shearer, MDA telethon director Joshua White, and unauthorized Lewis biographer Shawn Levy.”

Scott93205 (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Scott93205 -->

You have to understand that on Wikipedia, everything needs to be cited to a reliable source, especially information about living persons. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Since you have not cited a source that supports the last part of your paragraph, your information is nothing but original research and that can't be used on Wikipedia. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scott93205 (talk · contribs) has been Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. I see no violation by Theleftorium (talk · contribs). — Scientizzle 17:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Carthage44 reported by User:Despayre (Result: No violation)

Page: Adam Dunn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: N/A
• 4th revert: N/A
• This is more of a slow-burn case of constant reversions due to WP:OWN issues. I could revert him again, and he would revert again I think, and be at 3RR, but I have no interest in this article or in provoking an edit war. I saw the issue reported recently at DRN (here) and tried to help out. I left a note on the talk page in the relevant section, here, to which he had already responded to previous editors by saying "there is no need to update these stats daily or even weekly.". I think I was straighforward and neutral in my description of the problem, and the expected behaviour of all editors. He waited a few days, and has now started doing the exact same thing again. Notes on his talk page get deleted by him without response. I have not warned him of 3RR because technically he has not (unless you mean did I leave the {{subst:uw-3RR}}), yes, I have done that, here, it's more of (as I've said on the talk page) issues with WP:IDHT and WP:OWN, esp. when you factor in his other comments on the talk page, such as "You might want to stick to updating other pages and stay away from the sports pages because you clearly do not know what you are doing. Leave the updating to me since I know how to update stats on sports pages."

I've also added a link on his talk page to this section. That has now also been deleted (his talk page, he can do what he wants, but I wouldn't want you thinking I didn't notify him. His deletions are here and here).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

My specific diffs on the talk page (it's a short section): [52], and [53]

Comments:

If you feel that since he has not technically violated 3RR I should take this to a more appropriate noticeboard, please point me there and I will re-file. I considered filing this an ANI, but that seems to be for items that are more urgent. This doesn't seem urgent, just needs a little behaviour correction I think. Since he started using edit summaries, his last two were "WRONG game on the 16th has not been played yet so date is through 15th HAHAHAHAHAHA" and "Updated stats, BEAT YOU TO IT!", doesn't seem to be helping the adversarial attitude he's creating over there. When he reverted the last user, I checked the stats with baseball-reference.com, and confirmed they had been correct, I left the following edit summary when I reverted him, "Undid revision 494057698 by Carthage44 (talk) Unless there is something wrong with the stats (which should be in the edit summary), stop deleting updates, you have already been informed", he reverted my revert with a summary of "Undid revision 494076938 by Despayre (talk) Stats are not correct", but that is not true. The stats are correct. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I left this problem here 2 days ago, and not 1 comment yet, helpful or not. I can only assume it's not important. I will close this and re-file with the inevitable edit war instead, I'm sure that won't take long. A little help here would have avoided some disruption on that article. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• No violation No attempts to discuss directly with the other editor, and no attempts to redress through WP:DRN. I see no 3RR vios, but perhaps some WP:TE that is not the purview of this board. Perhaps this discussion has already prevented the "future" edit-war, but the whole idea of warnings from one editor to another is to advise the other party of correct behaviour to prevent blocks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No attempts to redress through DRN? There was definitely an attempt to do so in the "Adam Dunn reverts" thread. Furthermore, both I and another user (Zepppep) posted messages on Carthage44's talk page, messages that were deleted. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Stumink reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Warned)

Page: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stumink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57] (89.168.123.112 is Stumink's IP address - see: User talk:Stumink#Keep the main page simple and note the similarities in contribution histories between 89.168.123.112 (talk · contribs) and Stumink (talk · contribs) )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Very lengthy discussion of this at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) a few weeks ago resulting in consensus to not include these figures.

Comments:
This is a report of serious edit warring, though it's not a 3RR violation. A couple of weeks ago there was a discussion about whether to include figures for Taliban casualties apparently calculated from the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article's infobox at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and WP:DRN. This ended with a clear consensus against including these figures. The List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article was also deleted yesterday per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. Despite this, Stumink has started trying to edit war the figures into the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) referencing a mirror of the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article on another website, and has now done so twice. He or she explained their rationale for doing so here, in which they acknowledge that this is a Wikipedia mirror but also try to claim that it's somehow different to the article previously hosted here and as a result the consensus doesn't apply. Stumink had been invited to take part in the original discussion about these figures at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) at the time ([59]), [60]), but prefered to just edit war then as well rather than provide comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring. You guys wanted a different source and i gave it. I did acknowledge that they originally came from wiki, but it is different because the consensus was to not use an accumulated figure from that page which in your eyes would of counted as original research. This is different because this source had a total on it, so how are the figures original research which is what the consensus was about. You guys asked for a source that wasn't original research or from a wiki article and i did get one. The first time undid the revision was because it was unfairly reverted before for apparent edit warring. The first time i added these figures i was without a doubt not edit warring becuase i was using a different source with a total on it so not original research. May someone please give me a reason why this source isn't good enough other than your consensus argument from weeks that does not apply for this source?

Also might i add that the information on this source is nowhere to be found on Wikipedia so what is wrong with it? The figures i used were never on the wiki fatality page. All i did was find a source which i thought was good enough for what was required and i added it and i still think it is good enough. I was just trying to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What you "referenced" is an exact copy of the former Wikipedia page, and is clearly marked as such. You edited that page when it was still here. I note that you're now continuing to edit war by logging out and using your IP, and have added an extra diff above. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that continuing to edit war. I know it contains the same info but the total was never on that wiki page and i explained my points above. I wasn't edit warring. If you want to convince me I'm wrong, please address each of the points i made above and tell me why I'm wrong if you can.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs)

"I note that you're now continuing to edit war by logging out and using your IP, and have added an extra diff above." What exactly are you referring to here? How can I edit the Afghan page without logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Also the source i used is not a wiki mirror. It is not an exact copy. The yearly totals and overall total were never on the wiki page and neither was all the info at the top. The source i used calcultad all the yearly totals themselves. As the casualties were taken from a website which made the totals themselves and this is not actually a wiki mirror as they made the totals themselves so this is not original research and the consesus weeks ago was not to use the an accumulated figure from that wiki page which was never actually written on that page so you said it was original research but how does that apply to figure calculated from an independant website. As the consensus was about original research, that only applies to wiki, how could it apply to figures made by another website. Also will someone please try and argue each of my points becuase nick-d failed to adress any of my points.

Parsecboy (talk · contribs) has warned Stumink about this. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Well if no one wants to answer my points, cba debating on this page. If i didn't realise i was edit warring, i wasn't edit warring. Finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:TheSoundAndTheFury (Result: )

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: reverted to this version by reverting this edit

• 1st revert: [61]
• 2nd revert: [62]
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert (consecutive): [64][65][66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The edit warring happened when I was sleeping, so I didn't warn the user. See comment below on why that's not really necessary in this case.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page discussion is here Talk:Cult_suicide#Falun_Gong_etc; the user is in another 3RR dispute on a Falun Gong topic below and has edited this area for some years so he knows the rules.

User is notified of this 3RR case here. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Response by Ohconfucius (bis)

• No case to answer, as the evidence is rather contrived:
  1. Diff 1 in no way satisfies any of the conditions of a Revert as defined in the policy - reinstatement of material removed months ago by a blocked editor that I was unaware of until reading a relatively recent talk page comment.
  2. Diff 2 was a modified text that attempted to address the concerns raised on the talk page and was accompanied by a talk page comment
  3. Diff 3 – revert enhanced with a suitable citation in response to additional concerns raised about "synthesis"
  4. Diff 4 – in no way satisfies any of the conditions of a Revert as defined in the policy removal of material newly introduced by Homunculus in the edit immediately preceding. I sincerely thought we had reached some sort of understanding that the material clearly belonged and were beginning to cooperate in editing. I further added sources where they were deficient, and the diffs relate to my editing the added material down to integrate and better summarise.
• I have not edited the page nor the talk page since the edits in Diff 4, except to supply evidence requested and further discuss same.

--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." The diff 1 edit summary identifies it as a revert; as for diff 4, a revert is defined under the WP:EW policy as "undoing the actions of another editor." The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

I thought I said this before; I guess it's gotten lost. In any case, Diffs 2, 3, and 4 are clearly reverts. Diff 1 is a revert unless the editor removing the material had been blocked at the time, and was using sockpuppets to edit. If that is the case, then OC has not violated WP:3RR, although WP:EW needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• The user HappyInGeneral was not blocked at the time of editing (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Log_of_blocks_and_bans); I am not aware of any evidence of the editor using a sockpuppet. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JamesM403 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: )

Page: 5AA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JamesM403 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 10:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 07:39, 25 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* On-Air Schedule */")
2. 10:22, 25 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Program Guide */")
3. 10:28, 25 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Program Guide */")
4. 10:38, 25 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* History */")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:
I've tried to inform the editor that it breaches WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE (policy) however the editor has not responded to the edit summaries and talkpage. Bidgee (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:The Modest Associate reported by User:Equazcion (Result: Blocked as sock/edit warrior)

Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Modest Associate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]
• 5th revert: [72]

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

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

Comments:
User is sock of banned puppetmaster User:CentristFiasco. SPI reopened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco‎. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Disregard, already blocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: )

Page: The White Ribbon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [76]

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

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

Comments:

The repeated edits of Andrzejbanas and Lugnuts are in contradiction of the text of the article. There is a discussion in progress about the nationality of the film. There was a previous discussion on this subject on the article's talk page. The subject is addressed in the article but their changes contradict it. They were aware of that issue but continued to change the article. I would suggest protection for the page so the discussion can continue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My "repeated" edit was just one edit to restore the status quo. You made four reverts within 12 hours, which is not acceptable, esp. for an editor with your experience and history. Lugnuts (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Except they aren't, you just claim I haven't read the page and are ignoring when I make my points just saying how ridiculous things are or how much of an "interesting idea" someone says something. I've bloody well copy and pasted information explaining when I'm right, you just assume I "haven't read things". You have a reputation for not backing down until you get your way which is not civil if you ask me. You do not own the article and until you get your points across with some actual respect. Your edits are considered vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comments contain falsehoods. I was restoring the status quo, as you are aware. But I thank you for acknowledging the validity of that. There is a discussion about your proposed changes that is ongoing even now. Your attempts to include incorrect material is not good, and, since you do not understand your error, I would suggest you pull back until you comprehend it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporting this as a 3RR violation would seem almost part of intentional baiting, if I were not to assume good faith. I would agree that Ring Cinema could have stopped reacting, but it is valid to perceive this insertion as some kind of peculiar POV pushing by Italian and French film advocates. Again, not knowing the history between all the parties, but knowing that Ring Cinema is a very active editor on many film articles, it is hard to see the labeling of the country from which this film originates being Italy and France in a good light. Assuming good intentions, I think all editors should wait for consensus on the talk page, determine what the general practice has been in other articles, and if necessary use dispute resolution. Reverting this as vandalism (or POV baiting etc.) is I think a valid response, or at any rate should not be punished. The quickness to litigate against other editors is disruptive in and of itself. Obotlig (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:OSX reported by User:MarcusHookPa (Result: )

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

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

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]
• 5th revert: [81] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusHookPa (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

This user keeps clearing the warning off of his talk page, and deleting my contributions to the talk page of the article and article. I made a proposal to undo the article merge, and it was deleted without any consensus to do so. This user may have already deleted the link on his page where I have warned him. He has been extremely unreasonable and chooses to ignore consensus. This user has also been undoing edits that I have made that had nothing to do with any of his work. He has also been making personal attacks against me in the edit history of the article Subaru Outback. MarcusHookPa (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue may be resolved very shortly. OSX and I are coming to an agreement. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved, no need for any used to be blocked or penalized for this report.MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)