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 Faulknerck2 (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 5 November 2012 (→User:Faulknerck2‎ reported by User:Zad68 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    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:Rhode Island Red reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: Closed)

    Report was withdrawn after contentious "discussion". I am not deciding the merits of the report because in the past I have been involved. However, no more discussion is permitted here. This report may be reopened ONLY by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1] Rhode Island Red prefers the version on the left, and GeorgeLouis prefers the version on the right.

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red#3RR_warning_on_vanderSloot_BLP

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Improving_GLBT_section

    Comments:

    I am trying to get the Gay-rights section into proper shape by proposing one new paragraph at a time. A previous attempt at a wholesale improvement to the entire Section was reverted by a different editor (not Rhode Island Red).[6] Perhaps narrowing the focus would help move the article off dead center. Editing was Blocked for one week, and the conversation was taken to the Talk Page.
    There was also a reversion by Rhode Island Red of an entirely different Section.

    Reply

    I’m getting really tired of Frank’s disingenuous conduct in general, and this trumped up edit warring accusation in particular. First of all, I did not violate 3RR -- Frank knows it -- but he’s trying to use one innocuous edit, which he knows full well is innocuous, to back up his charge. The 3rd revert he listed was a self-reversion,[7] made because I had previously reverted to the wrong version – it was a simple self-correction so as to not lose one set of minor intermediate changes. I would normally be reluctant to even go that close to the 3RR line, but in this case, George’s edits were so ridiculously tendentious that I didn’t think the situation would escalate as far as it did.

    George was previously making tendentious edits on the article, and the page was protected for a week.[8] During that time, he requested comment on the OR noticeboard and his proposal got shot down.[9] Nonetheless, as soon as page protection expired today, George made the change anyway and then started edit warring when I reverted his edit. [10][11][12] He did not comment as to the reason for his reverts.

    I left a comment with the admin who originally looked into the issue and protected the page, alerting him to the nascent conflict and requesting that page protection be extended for another week,[13] reasoning that this would nip things in the bud. George knows this as well; he already left a comment there. He knows that this 3RR complaint is unwarranted, and it’s not the first time he’s tried to pull vindictive shenanigans like this (e.g., harassment). This sort of thing has become a chronic problem and I’m on the verge of filing a user conduct complaint with the admins as a last resort. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    RIR has been a long term edit warrior on this BLP, and was rather upset when DRN failed to agree with his POV on using a primary source in the article. Frankly, there is a whole lot of UNDUE stuff in the article, and RIR's belief that everyone who disagrees with him is "acting in tandem" for "vndictive shenanigans" when he was politely told that his edit war tactics were likely to cause him problems (I believe he called my required notice and request to self-revert "disingenuous" on his own talk page, and that I was "threatening" him [14]). Over two hundred edits on one BLP is a lot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect failed to identify himself as an involved participant, and his off-topic ad hominem and suggestion that I'm "rather upset" about some prior incident was entirely predictable given that he and George Louis (both members of the NPOV-challenged WP Project Conservatism)[15] have been marching in lockstep on the VanderSloot article, and one always pops in to back up the other in virtually every dispute. Together they have been trying to game the system and whitewash the article since long before I first visited the Vandersloot page.
    But background details aside, notice how Collect's mudlslinging has no bearing whatsoever on the 3RR issue (i.e. the fact that I did not violate 3RR and that George's accusation was off base) or George Louis's attempt to bypass the outcome on the noticeboard by pushing a tendentious edit the instant that page protection was lifted. Nor did he acknowledge that it was I who requested page protection to avert an edit war. The red herring about my edit count was particularly puzzling since I've contributed a substantial amount of carefully written and reliably sourced text in the article, while Collect has probably racked up 200 comments on the article's Talk page alone and still hasn't contributed more than a sentence or two to the entire article. If there were a barnstar for obstructionism...Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Involved"? Risible in excelcis. I have ZERO edits since the protection, and only TEN ever on that article. But let's look at the record which RIR seems intent on pushing here: RIR has 67 and I have 37 total edits on the talk page. Period. And anyone reading my posts there will note that I discuss based on the WP:BLP requirements, and not from any desire to attack or defend any person. BTW, following policies is not generally considered "obstructionism" but exaggerating about editors and making uttely risible claims about them is likely to cause problems. Cheers - but your posts here do not seem aimed at preventing any admin from acting on your edit warring. BTW, there is no doubt that this is edit war from you - 3RR is not an "entitlement" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was 39 comments actually, and negligible contribution to the article itself; thanks for proving my point. But you really shouldn't have brought up the issue of edit counts in the first place. It's a needless distraction and it just adds another layer of pointless bickering to the situation. Doesn't exactly set a good example. Popping in to make an ad hominem attack just adds fuel to the fire. Again, I did not violate 3RR, and George jumped the gun without consensus, but why let pesky facts get in the way of a good witch-hunt eh? Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave you a very polite warning (not a template) and your reaction was to attack me. I made no ad hominem attack on you unless we are in topsy-turvy world. And that you find it somehow wrong that I do not edit war on this BLP is a very interesting concept indeed. Meanwhile, I do not engage in "witch-hunts" as you seem to think that everyone else is somehow collaborating against you -- that is a quite unwise attitude. Lastly, edit war does not require a 3RR violation -- the edit war you have engaged in is now quite long-running indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand by my previous comment. You did not offer a fair, balanced, or constructive perspective on the situation and made no comments about your buddy's disruptive behavior because, as usual, you two are marching in lockstep, as you always do (which is why I referred to your history of collusion and obstruction). You simply railed about how you thought I was upset about some past event, called me a long-term edit warrior, made a silly off-topic observation about edit counts, and completely ignored the fact that George's complaint was misleading and that I did not in fact violate 3RR as George alleged in his trumped up accusation. Your input has done nothing but exacerbate the conflict, as usual. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I count four reverts. How do you figure that there are not four? Are you saying that No. 37 above, the second one, is not a revert? But the Edit Summary says, "Reverted to revision 520771488 by John of Reading: restoring version with innocuous edits." GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I already provided an explanation. One of the reverts was a self-correction of my own revert because I had reverted to the wrong version and inadvertently missed an intermediate edit. That fact is obvious and surely it must not have escaped you; hence my statement that your 3RR complaint was trumped up and unwarranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-reverting does not count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR. That makes three reverts, and taking into consideration that RIR self-reverted one of those three, it's two reverts in 24 hours, not four. - SudoGhost 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to RIR: I am not a member of any Wikiprojects AFAICT, and I consider the claim that I am a member of one to be false. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That little note of yours is misleading in the extreme. I don't know whether or not you are a card-carrying member of WP Project Conservatism but you are a regular contributor to the Project's talk page and to articles that fall under the project's umbrella, and you have been called out there as a biased contributor, for example in the following comment: "I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism."[16] You are even edit warring on one such article in the midst of your bloviating about this 3RR complaint.[17] If there were a barnstar for hypocrisy...Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    GHuh? You have made enough false claims here to fill a bushel basket. I have nearly 3000 pages on my watchlist, and I am neither a memebr of a wikiproject nor a "regular contributor" to one. And when 3RR is noted on one's talk page, it is proper to self-revert as I did -- so your personal attacks are actually angering me now - you seem to be more interested in roiling waters than in collaborating on an encyclopedia. And that is actually worse than your edit war problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21
    29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    You've completely avoided commenting on the facts at hand and you seem to be more much more concerned with smearing and evasion than with conflict resolution. It's now becoming disruptive and is making matters worse. I've done my part to provide facts and context relevant to this charge, but now this pointless bickering serves no purpose, so if you you want to continue we can do it on your Talk page where it won't be so disruptive. Let's move on now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have earnestly sought to avoid problems with you - hence my polite suggestion that you self-revert. Instead you seem to think that having battles is wise. I assure you such is not the case. You seem to think that attacking a person who actually wished to prevent this discussion is at fault, whilst it is more likely that the person who refuses polite suggestions is the one at fault. And I hereby disinvite you from posting on my user talk page. Again, I assure you that treating Wikipedia as a battleground is about as grieous a sin as is possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. Time to step off the soapbox and lighten up. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawing this complaint

    Carefully examining the reverts as listed above persuades me that the second revert from the top was not an actual Revert. It was a correction of RIR's previous Revert. His Edit Summary, stating "Reverted to revision 520771488 by John of Reading: restoring version with innocuous edits" was not at all clear to me (very confusing, in fact), and I apologize to all, and particularly to Red, for not figuring out what he had done. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I said, pointless tag-team witch-hunt. An apology after the fact doesn't make up for the hassle or wasted resources. This is emblematic of a chronic problem. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow -- you do not seem to grasp civility much -- your accusation of "tag team" and "witch hunt" is a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, as well as a violation of the Five Pillars. And again- edit war does not require a breaking of 3RR (subtractng one from the 4RR leaves you at the edge of the brght line, in any case. I ask you redact all your charges of "tag team" as being a violation of WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop attacking this editor Collect. There was no reason for you to get involved here. There are many admins watching this page, and they are fully capable to process this report. It is completely ridiculous for you to explain this editor what is edit war and 3RR, while at the same time edit warring and breaching 3RR yourself. Please back off. Cheers.--В и к и T 09:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Kabulbuddha (Result: WP:BOOMERANG)

    Page: History of Cambodia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [18]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

    Comments:
    User:TheTimesAreAChanging is constantly reverting my work. Everything that I have posted in the named article had been deleted by him and some of the excuses used I feel do not hold water. It is like he owns the thread and does not want any changes to it that do not agree with his own POV.In the latest revert he names the source as the problem but forgets that it was himself that added the source in the first place 1 and here he is complaining about the source he added when I used it. 2. I have tried to act within the rules here and took a source to the reliable sources board.[28] and I said I would not use that source but was still concerned about him deleting other sourced work without good reason.I also went to the dispute noticeboard.[29].I then posted another piece of info to the article page with source and he just deleted it twice.This is getting very tiring trying to edit when someone just deletes everything I have written.He has also accused me of lying which is not very nice when all I did was contradict his opinion and provided a link to prove it.[30].I posted an edit war warning to his page but he has just deleted it.[31] Kabulbuddha (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    At the DRN, the RSN, and the article's talk page several editors have all sided with my edits. Kabulbuddha, who I (and others) have reason to believe is an obvious sockpuppet with a grudge, is just hoping that by some fluke he'll get me in trouble here. The source he accuses me of adding was first provided by User:ColaXtra, who also misquoted it and used other dubious sources like "Covert Action Quarterly". Kabulbuddha already rejected my proposed compromise, but his vision for the article is an enormous violation of due weight that has garnered no support from others. I have been trying to compromise: When ColaXtra deleted his own work, I restored it; I created a version of the text that was not reverted by User:Stumink, who had previously battled with ColaXtra. Kabulbuddha's complaint is groundless because I have accepted some of his text (I just added a source he recommended on the talk page, in place of the source he criticizes me for "adding") and I have not reverted his text more than twice. (After the second revert, I usually end up making concessions, after which he attempts another radical overhaul in violation of every discussion we've had.) There would be no edit conflict at all if he got consensus for his edits through discussion. Instead, he ignores policy, claiming "there is no rule to use scholarly sources" and nobody "gets to decide which sources are acceptable". If he really believes that I deserve sanctions, he must believe the same about himself; after all, he is the source of the dispute, there are no editors on his side, and he has reverted me no less frequently. This game--trying to sacrifice one of many accounts to the cause of "baiting" another editor--is apparently his modus operandi.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. This is for any other admins who take a look at this report. There is no doubt that both editors are edit-warring. If it weren't for all the collateral drama, I would block both. There is an open discussion at WP:ANI. There is also an open report at WP:SPI. History of Cambodia itself has been quiet for about 10 hours; otherwise, I would probably take some action, either blocking or locking the article. Although most recently, the battle has been only between TheTimesAreAChanging and Kabulbuddha, not too much further back there were reverts by User:ColaXtra (a relatively new user) and one revert only by User:93.96.170.186, who was probably ColaXtra or Kabulbuddha not logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TheTimesAreAChanging has misrepresented my position and incorrectly quoted me adding his own assumptions which boils down to incorrect information and that is putting it nicely.I am not the one edit waring here. I have added stuff and he has deleted it,I have reverted his revert because his reasoning has been suspect,he has then reverted it again and I have stop there and taken the issue elsewhere.His claim that I said " nobody gets to decide which sources are acceptable" is untrue [32] as I stated that he does not get to decide which sources are acceptable. He also claims that I have "and he has reverted me no less frequently." which is also untrue as can be seen from the diffs provided by me.His other claim that " I have accepted some of his text" is also untrue,that was not my text,it was his and he used a source that I provided for something else he then claimed in his edit summary "Kabulbuddha assures us the sources makes the claim" which is another untruth on his part [33] His other claims that several editors have sided with him on his edits is also suspect as a few did on the Hansard edits but they all ignored his other edits of sourced material and none commented on them.He has also claimed that he had a consensus on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to delete stuff but he did not,one editor stated that I was ok to use Hansard [34] and another editor disagreed,[35], that is not a consensus..As for his claims that I am someone else and making accusations that I did this and that under another name it is an attempt to deflect from what he has been doing. Kabulbuddha (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.116.21.163 reported by User:Vcohen (Result: First IP blocked, article semi-protected)

    Page: R160 (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and F (New York City Subway service) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 98.116.21.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    These two pages (and several others) have long history of edits and reverts, beginning on August 3. [36] [37] The 98.116.21.163 address is only one of several addresses that did these edits, but as of now it's the active one.

    This is for the first article of the two:



    Comments:

    Vcohen (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He is here again with the same edits from a new address, 71.183.182.248. Vcohen (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC):[reply]
    The article has been semi-protected by User:Wifione.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rdmcelligott reported by User:JoshuSasori (Result: Editor apologized)

    Page: The Hidden Fortress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rdmcelligott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    1. 19:46, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
    2. 20:53, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521104916 by MarnetteD (talk)")
    3. 21:16, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521109139 by MarnetteD (They positively did, at the very beginning. They were talking about being captured by their own army and being forced to bury the dead. That was a driving plot point.)")
    4. 21:44, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521113677 by MarnetteD (False. Tahei explicity said they were captured by their own army. Why else would they need to cross the border to get back home?talk)")
    5. 23:24, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
    6. 01:27, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521133996 by MarnetteD (talk)")
    7. 01:31, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521140732 by Rdmcelligott (talk)")
    8. 01:33, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521133996 by MarnetteD (That's the joke! They're so sad looking their mistaken for defeated soldiers. Please rewatch the opening scene, and they were not en route to Hosokawa, they were merely escaping.)")
    9. 01:34, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521141447 by Rdmcelligott (talk)")
    10. 01:36, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521133996 by MarnetteD (RE: my previous message: They're* oops.)")
    • Since no actual diffs were included by the submitter, I replaced the body of this report with the output of 3rr.php. Edits 4-5 and 6-10 were consecutive, so Rdmcelligott made five reverts altogether in 24 hours. The editor has not reverted again since getting warned for 3RR at 01:36 on 3 November. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Syrianview and User:Johnswk reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Both reported editors blocked)

    Page: Addounia TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Syrianview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnswk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Comments: This should be pretty cut-and-dried. No, I haven't warned them; no, 3RR technically has not yet been breached. However, I'm reporting two users here, and the reason is not just because they persist in readding the same content despite clearly lacking consensus (two editors, myself included, have reverted them), but because they are confirmed CheckUser matches to one another and sockpuppetry is a violation of Wikipedia rules, especially when it's used by an editor to tag-team an article with multiple reverts from different accounts. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.232.253.235 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result:76.232.252.0/22 blocked for 72 hours )

    Page: Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 76.232.253.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    76.232.253.235 is waging a massive edit war at Genocides in history, as can be seen from the edit history. He was warned twice on his talk page, and previously engaged in comparable (but unreported) behavior as 76.232.253.147. There have been more than a dozen reverts on the article in the past 24 hours.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this how you resolve disputes, by trying to get me blocked? Your behavior on the the page is very unhelpful: all you did here is delete information that I worked hard to gather[47]. What explanation do you have for that? You did not contribute anything to the article by adding your own material or discussing anything substantive at the Talk Page. Instead, you're more focused on undoing any and all changes made to the article (is it because I'm new and my small edit history?)76.232.253.235 (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To retaliate for my reporting him, the IP is now vandalizing articles in my contribution history. Not sure why he wants to make this personal, given that other editors have reverted him more than I, but this only demonstrates the need for immediate sanctions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    76.232.252.0/22 blocked for 72 hours.—Kww(talk) 07:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ???TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a range block of multiple IP addresses. Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that blocks 1,024 addresses starting at 252.1.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, you're right. However, if only 76.232.253.235 (talk) and 76.232.253.147 (talk) were to be blocked, a better rangeblock would have been 76.232.253.128/25, which only blocks 128 IPs... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be a narrower/more desirable range, unless there are other IPs involved outside the range. I'm not knowledgeable enough on how to see that Kevin's range has actually been blocked and then modify it, so I'm not going to do anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'm not going to do anything, because Kww has not had a chance to respond; however, to see his block, you have to click here and, to modify it, here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My block encompasses the dynamic range that 76.232.253.235 and 76.232.253.147 are on, based on the routing data provided from a WHOIS on the addresses. I expect anyone with access to the two has access to the 1024. It's a cable company, so I doubt they are statically assigned to individual fixed locations.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a Telco (AT&T) and appears to be DSL, not cable. I don't know how reliable Geolocate is, which indicates that both addresses are static. Seems more likely they are dynamic. I also don't know what the practice is here (if there is one), whether it would be better to block the narrower range and expand it if there's further disruption by addresses outside the narrow range, or to block the wider range under the assumption you made. I suppose it's discretionary. It's not a long block, so ... --Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins who want to view or modify the rangeblock can also use the handy rangelinks template, which displays as 76.232.252.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The recent contributions from the range can be viewed with rangecontribs. I don't see anybody but this one editor coming from that range in the last few days, so IMHO it is not urgent to narrow the block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rare that any large company will allocate with a finer resolution than a /24. When the range comes back as /20 or smaller, I tend to just go with the range. If it's a /19 or bigger, I try a smaller range first in the hopes that there'a an allocation boundary that isn't visible from outside the network.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks, very helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on his edits related to Mengistu [48] and geographic location, this IP is certainly a sock of User:Jacob Peters. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be sure we don't lose this information I've filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters. If Jacob continues to edit from the /22 range after the block expires a longer rangeblock should be considered. Historically JP has employed a large number of IPs so any further edits may have to be recognized on behavior. Recently he has used IPs from the San Diego area. Jacob Peters is in the WP:List of banned users. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kennvido reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Hurricane Sandy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 10:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 01:22, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Connection to global warming */ this is the 3rd time you have put this here...this is political and opinion and does not belong here, please go to the global warming article and discuss Sandy there :}")
    2. 12:41, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Influence of global warming */ Global warming in not fact. Please discuss on the Global Warming page")
    3. 22:32, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ Please stop with the GW stuff here, it is unproven, nothing concrete. Discuss it of the GW page please, thank you")
    4. 00:17, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Impact */ please leave this way so the references don't eclipse the stat board unless you can do it another way :)")
    5. 00:21, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ This has got to stop!!! There is NO scientific proof that Sandy had anything to do with GW. If is all conjecture at this point in time.")
    6. 01:05, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ nothing is settled")
    7. 01:37, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ other info")
    8. 08:28, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ 2011 is as important as 2012 regarding GW. And this is just another view no more no less please leave until the editor decides on the total GW situation in Talk, Thank you.")
    9. 09:33, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Political Impact */ What Romney said in 2011 has nothing to do with a this 2012 event")
    10. 09:39, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Political Impact */ What Romney said in 2011 has nothing to do with a this 2012 event")
    11. 10:09, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Mitt Romney's 2011 FEMA Comments */ Please bring this to discussion, it's about FEMA and NOT THE HURRICANE")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The edit-warring is clear. Indeed, there is a breach of 3RR on November 2-3. However, more important is the POV-pushing insistence, which is apparent in the continuous reversions and the edit summaries. I tried to advise Ken in this discussion about the policy issues involved in edit-warring, but he simply refused to grasp (or was unable to) the principles involved in collaborative editing. The editing on the article is difficult enough without this kind of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.84.195.0 reported by User:Tarage (Result: )

    Page: List of Eureka Seven episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.84.195.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I left a warning on his talk page stating that if he continues to remove the above section without giving a reason, I would report him. Since giving that warning he has done it three more times. These have been undone by editor User:Sjones23 and myself.

    Comments:The issue in question is the inclusion of the 51st episode of the series Eureka Seven on the episode page. The editor has made no attempt to explain the removal of information, nor has any attempt to respond to questions about the edit been made. The editor appears to be an IP not interested in communicating or contributing in a collaborative manner.

    --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Double sharp and User:Eka-bismuth reported by User:I Jethrobot (Result: )

    Page: Ununpentium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Double sharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Eka-bismuth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [49]

    Double sharp (talk · contribs):

    Eka-bismuth (talk · contribs):


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59], [60]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    • [61]
    • [62] - No discussion on article talk page, but editors are attempting to resolve issue on the WikiProject Elements talk page as the issue would be relevant to all articles on elements on the periodic table.

    Comments:

    • Editors were engaged in a content dispute over the addition of cultural information about Ununpentium. Eka-bismuth has repeatedly attempted to add this information, and Double sharp has repeatedly removed it. The current state of the article retains some of the original additions from Eka-bismuth from Double sharp's recent edit summary on the article: keep one paragraph, move rest to. This discussion seems to be constructive, and edit warring has since appeared to end, but 3RR was nonetheless violated. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bidgee reported by User:208.54.4.224 (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [63]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Note: I warned Bidgee in an edit summary. I know that this isn't ideal, but Bidgee's talk page is protected so I can't edit it.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

    Note: This isn't a diff, but a link to the current version of the talk page, since most of what's on there is me trying to resolve the dispute and being ignored.

    Comments:

    I also want to point out that in addition to refusing to discuss the issue, Bidgee used twinkle to drop a vandalism template on my talk page here without discussing anything at all. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Faulknerck2‎ reported by User:Zad68 (Result: )


    NOTE this is both a 3RR violation report and an edit warring report.


    Page: Template:Violence against men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Genital modification and mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Faulknerck2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: final one: diff


    Note this report follows edit-warring across three different pages with two or three different kinds of content, all along the same line, so bear with me here. The gist is edit-warring in content equating circumcision with violent male genital mutilation, but without a satistfactory source. This may be a CIR issue.

    1. 03:59, 31 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Male circumcision */") modified the section in Genital modification and mutilation named "Male circumcision" to "Male Genital Mutilation", a clear POV problem. Then:
    1. 03:53, 31 October 2012 (edit summary: "") -- Added [[Genital_modification_and_mutilation|Male Genital Mutilation]] to Template:Violence against men
    2. 03:58, 31 October 2012 (edit summary: "")
    3. 20:23, 31 October 2012 (edit summary: "why not? MGM is a brutal thing that can do to a man ,and it's same as FGM. http://www.mgmbill.org/")
    4. 06:21, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "I made enough evidence why MGM should be in this list in the talk section so please refer them rather than removing this because you don't agree with me.")
    5. 08:53, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521176362 by 71.61.95.21 (talk)")
    6. 09:17, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "it's not a domestic violence, Genital Mutilation is a different category. http://www.bestgore.com/tag/male-genital-mutilation/")
    7. 23:09, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "obviously related to the topic. MGM is indeed a violence against men and boys - see the talk section")
    8. 23:45, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "added the adjective so it should be MALE Genital Mutilation to contrast from the FGM")
    however I had not provided an edit-warring warning yet.
    • At this point, Faulknerck2 created a WP:POVFORK of Genital modification and mutilation named Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) with basically the same content. I CSD'd it as an A10-dup of existing content. Faulknerck2 briefly edit-warred trying to delete the CSD tag, and then RHaworth speedy-deleted the page.
    • I then provided the edit-warring warning here. In addition to the templates, I also provided a personally written message here.
    • Then, he added similar content here at Genital modification and mutilation:
    • I provide a personal message about it here, and then revert as promised a bit later. Edit-warring resumes:
    1. 00:55, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "")
    2. 01:03, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "Show me any duplication ? no place has mentioned about "other than circumcision make damage to the penis, scrotum, testes, glans are also considered as Male Genital Mutilation."")
    3. 01:08, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "He/she vandalized my details.")
    • At this point, with very stern warnings from me to Faulknerck2's Talk page, he appeared to give up, see here. This message from Faulknerck2 contained the following, "I wish someone will cut off your genital and remind you how it affects to your mentality". I did not reply.
    • One hour later, Faulknerck2's back with a new tactic, a subset of the previous content, added to Genital modification and mutilation again:
    1. 02:45, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "I have a proper source for MGM now so don't remove this.")
    2. 02:46, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Four Types of Genital Mutilations */")
    • I assumed good faith that this was indeed a "new" edit and not a continuation of the previous edit war. Unfortunately the content was not sourced to a WP:RS, it was a self-published source. Following WP:BRD, I reverted and opened a new discussion at the article's Talk page here, and left a note at Faulknerck2's Talk page here explaining that the Talk page discussion was there and not to continue edit-warring, otherwise I would open a WP:EWN case. Faulknerck2 reverted without discussion:
    1. 04:06, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "stop messing up with my edits. source is reliable you can check it out by yourself. and you broke the 3 Edit Rule in here.") Note: I did not break the 3RR there. I did 2 reverts of the "old" edit (RHaworth reverted a third one), and one of the "new" edit.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User Talk:Faulknerck2, Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Discussion_of_proposed_new_content_.22Four_Types_of_Genital_Mutilations.22, Template_talk:Violence_against_men

    Comments:


    Refer this page. this man has been stalking me, disturbing me ever since I added about MGM into the Wikipedia Faulk (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) he started the edit war because what I have edited didn't fit into his ideology. he believes there is NO such term called MGM and it's solely a made up story by even though I made a lot of proofs about that. MGM is a threat and it's a brutal crime and if you don't know . babies have died because of circumcision. https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/548698_278766902205608_576479498_n.jpg[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=521468756"