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 BeenAroundAWhile (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 11 January 2013. 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:Reyk reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Declined )

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    • 1st revert: [2] 2013-01-01
    • 2nd revert: [3] 2013-01-01
    • 3rd revert: [4] 2013-01-05
    • 4th revert: [5] 2013-01-05


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Extended discussion, click to view
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Comments: From the beginning of this dispute on Template:Arguments, this user has yet to respond to my initial edit comment.  The user frequently does not provide edit comments.  A review of the talk page discussion, the edit history of the template page, and the edit history of the talk page, shows that the user stipulates that he will not participate in discussion, including, "I will not be sucked into this...argument. The material stays."  At one point the user formally withdrew from the discussion and it appeared to be over; but now he insists that since he is being trolled, he can revert both the Template page and the Template talk page and there is no need to reopen the talk page discussion.
    Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm hearing the sweet sounds of a WP:BOOMERANG flying through the room here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarek, Your edit comment states, "what was that football player's name again?"  How is that edit comment related to this discussion?  Also, please review the diffs at WT:ATA#History of TMBS if you have not done so.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What we know after 24 hours is that your viewpoint has not been sustained by the regular admins working here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The ruling that declines to provide sanctions has suggested the benefit of a third opinion.  Sarek, will you provide such an opinion, or initiate a request at WP:3O?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep... a13ean (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably a mistake to dignify this vexatious complaint with a response, but for the benefit of those playing along at home here is the background. I am a major contributor to the essay WP:MUSTBESOURCES, which Unscintillating disapproves of. Links to it in WP:ATA and Template:Arguments existed for over a year without challenge. After I dismissed one of Unscintillating's irrelevant quibbles in a way that did not allow any follow-up trolling, he went around the same day to remove them. I consider this behaviour to be petty and peevish, and I just reverted him because I have no intention of getting drawn into an argument with him. In any case, it is futile to try to discuss anything with Unscintillating because these are the kinds of responses he gives people who disagree with him: example 1, example 2, example 3.

    This seems to be the origin of Unscintillating's grudge against me; this exchange seems to have festering in his mind ever since. I make no secret that I think Unscintillating is trying to troll me. I don't think he should remove material from other pages as retribution for the grudge he holds me. I do not think he should unilaterally close discussions he's involved in in his own favour, particularly not with such a self-serving and dishonest rationale, or call me a vandal for objecting. And now I see he's admin shopping: User_talk:King_of_Hearts#request_for_opinion.

    I request that this meritless complaint be closed, and I will consider asking for an interaction ban on Unscintillating commenting on me or WP:MUSTBESOURCES, broadly construed. Reyk YO! 04:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reyk, it appears to me that your edits are showing a pattern of [hubris].  Your belief that your essay "was spun out because it was long enough to constitute a stand-alone essay" is incorrect as documented at WT:ATA#History of TMBS, and consistent with a hubris-type of issue.  What might help is more effort put into fact checking.  No one has called you a vandal, you choose from your own ideation to bring paranoic words into this discussion such as troll, grudge, self-serving, dishonest, vandal, and admin shopping.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked you to leave me alone. Please stop talking about me or to me. Stop following me around to "flag" my comments with your irrelevant twaddle about my edit summaries. Stop inserting your old grievance about "undermining" the banning policy into unrelated discussions; everyone you've asked has told you you're wrong about it anyway. If you have a problem with WP:MUSTBESOURCES, MfD it now or forever hold your peace. I now consider these matters closed. If you hassle me again, I will ask for that interaction ban and I will almost certainly get it. Reyk YO! 03:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion in which you asked me to leave you alone was at DRV and the context was just that one discussion.  The post that I made drew attention to an edit comment, and there was no invitation or even suggestion for you to respond.  Above in this conversation you make the statement that you found yourself trolled into responding, and that you successfully made a response that left me unable to respond.  You seem proud of your skill in this regard.  A more-objective viewpoint is that you asked a question, that questions are designed to induce a response, that it was polite for me to respond, and that I did so.  Moving forward, in contrast with saying that you wanted to be left alone, you brought the DRV discussion to this AN3 page.  In doing so you have successfully recruited the closer of this AN3 section to mention the DRV conversation.  Moving forward again, in your world of logic, you are now likely to argue that by making this response I am not leaving you alone and you requested it.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't like the attention that you get as an editor engaged in "undermining or sabotage" of banning enforcement, then why did you open up the topic in this discussion?  If you really don't want to talk about this, you need only make one edit and the issue goes away.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding MfDing your essay, that is fine if someone wants to MfD it, but I have no interest.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your initial edit in response to the filing here (on your talk page) was to call it "rubbish".  Your first edit on this page was to characterize the readers of this discussion as "playing along at home".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:Consensus#Reaching consensus through discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even going to dignify the bulk of your diatribe with a response. For someone so obsessed with semantic quibbling, you're remarkably obtuse when it comes to understanding peoples' intentions. Do you do this on purpose? (that's a rhetorical question, the answer is, yes, you do). I will, however, explain once and for all why I will never, under any circumstances, revert myself on that old AfD.
    • (1) Because I would be reverting User:Penwhale as well; my edit was a revert back to theirs. Since I value Penwhale's opinion infinitely more than yours, I won't be doing that.
    • (2) Because here and on User talk:King of Hearts you are making implied threats to continue hassling me if I don't do as you say. I do not knuckle under to threats, because you'd interpret that as an invitation to make more. Never mind that threatening my reputation with an 18 month old revert is about the most feeble threat I can imagine.
    • (3) Because nobody but you thinks there's anything wrong with that edit of mine. Several other editors have defended me on it when asked. If I were to revert it, that would be making an edit that I know to be wrong, ie. vandalism. And I do not vandalise.
    • (4) Because if I can end the "dispute" with one edit, you can end it with zero. By leaving me alone. By the way, it's not a "dispute"; the matter's already been settled in my favour. You being butthurt and continuing to whine endlessly isn't my problem.
    Is anyone reading this surprised that I want to be quit of this tiresome windbag? Reyk YO! 05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined: The link was added more than 1 year ago. It remained in the template for all that time with no comment whatsoever. Following a kerfuffle with Reyk, Unscintillating removed it. This could have been good faith tracking down of what Unscintillating perceived to be a problem, or it could have been being pointy and stalky. Either way, the status quo was the inclusion of the link. As such, Reyk was merely restoring the status quo. At no point did Reyk cross 3RR. Thus, the default assumption is that Unscintillating is the one guilty of edit warring, not Reyk. Since Unscintillating also didn't cross 3RR, and hasn't revered since this was submitted, I won't boomerang this back on him, but at this point it is up to Unscintillating to establish that there has been a change in consensus to remove the link. If one cannot be reached among the two editors themselves, Unscintillating should pursue dispute resolution, with WP:3O probably being a good first step (unless xe thinks the linked essay is so egregious that it ought to be taken to MfD). If Unscintillating continues to remove the links, that could be grounds for an edit warring block for xyr. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2013 (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:KodaKarr reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 3 days)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [8]


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

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

    Comments:
    Long term POV SPA editor on this one issue, with a variety of IPs and this account. Heiro 16:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    His only talk page response has been to tell an editor to " ohe, putain. va te faire foutre" - just swearing at them. Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia and if I weren't involved I would have indefinitely blocked by now. A short term block won't help as he'll just be back. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And he's at it again...

    Another warning issued Revmqo (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Huysmanii reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 1 week)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [16] and [17]

    • Continued edit warring immediately after this block expired: [18]
    • 6th revert: [19]
    • 7th revert: [20] (different revert to, from [21]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] (see [24]

    Comments:

    • Note Only because Huysmanii has not reverted in 24 hours, I'm giving them a chance to avoid a block. I've left a note on their talk page. If they agree not to edit the article at all for 7 days, they can avoid a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Huysmanii not only didn't fully accept the terms but their edit to the article talk page, which I reverted, was extraordinarily disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Rape during the partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mrt3366 (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: [35]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

    Comments:

    I have asked the user to self revert and he has refused, he is removing a well sourced satement for no reason other than he does not like it.

    I will not try to justify what I did. I will not say this report is invalid, just consider this that it was not my intention to edit war. but with DS there can be no other way. He has reverted my edits multiple times. See talk. I asked him quote the passage from the book he was referring to, he ignored it and reverted me. Now, if I am guilty then he is too. I will like to notify that I am not going to war over that again so no need to "BLOCK ME". I simply wanted to take it to ANI, but DS did it first. Sorry for the inconvenience. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you are not going to war over it again, I cannot revert you can I? You need to self revert and discuss your continual removal of a well sourced statement from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you suggested to me, If you want the article to speak of rapes of Hindus by Muslims then add it to the article. I simply followed your advice and balanced the article. What is wrong in that, DS? You are the one who said only Rape of Muslim women by Hindu Male were "well-documented" but basing on what, DS? Also, that's a highly biased and communal claim. The irony is that the very sources used there do speak of the atrocities and retaliation from both the communities. Therefore, I asked you to balance it. What did you do in return? You chose to revert me. You can do much better as an editor. There is no animosity between you and me, bro.

    Besides, its weaselly well-documentedness is your subjective synthesis. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you removed it. That is not balancing. Just self revert and justify your removal on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point, now that I am reported? BTW, I think you need to start justifying yourself first. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing sourced content is a revert. You are being given a lot of chances to self revert, yet will not. Why? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get it, do you? The source was correct the content was not. The claim was not a fair representation of the source; it is not a revert. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:190.46.98.195 reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: 1 week)

    Page: Cleo Rocos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 190.46.98.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    This is a continuation of a previous edit war, where the editor was subsequently blocked for their actions. From the editors actions and edit summaries it seems apparent that they will not deviate from their behaviour or intepretation of BLP. 3RR has not been reached this time around, however should I, or anybody else, revert him again there's no reason to suspect that it wouldn't be reverted again.

    The user also shows little civility in dealings with other editors.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

    Original issue

    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] - no response from user
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] - no response from user
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46] - original attempt, 4th December, and response

    Latest issue

    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47] - latest attempt at discourse
    • Personal attack response: [48]

    Comments:

    It takes two to edit war, and there's been a lot of back-and-forth on the phrase "best known for" between various people. I have put in a reliable source from the Daily Telegraph and three other sources on the talk page, which should hopefully quell this dispute before it goes any further. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on wikipedia. The phrase "best known for" is clearly and obviously POV, regardless of whatever reliable sources it might appear in. The attempts to force this completely unnecessary phrase into articles are tantamount to vandalism. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can quote just about any Wikipedia policy under the sun, and use it to advance your position, so let me do likewise. If you look at Wikipedia's pillar of neutrality, you will see the following : "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person." That means you should not be in any position to argue for or against the state of an article without providing sources that advance your case. I have provided four sources, you have provided none. Furthermore, if you look a little more closely at one of the other pillars, you'll notice it says "Find consensus, avoid edit wars". Calling other editors "retards" is probably not a good way to get consensus on an issue.
    All of the above put to one side, here's the situation. You've reverted the article three times today here, here and here, so a further revert today will mean you run the risk of being blocked for violating WP:3RR. You should take that at face value. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're asking me to provide sources for what exactly? I'm changing the opinion "is best known for appearing" to the fact "appeared". What exactly needs sourcing? Fact is, there's an absolute prohibition on including POV material in the encyclopaedia. End of story. Putting it in repeatedly is vandalism. I'm reverting simple vandalism. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are describing is not vandalism at all. Anyway, you have reverted here for a fourth time in 24 hours, which means you may now be blocked per WP:3RR. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maurice07 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Sending to WP:AE)

    Page: List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    This is a case of long therm edit-warring by Maurice07 on this article and multiple similar articles. He insists on adding Turkey to the european section of multiple embassy-related articles without consensus. This is an example of a revert from September which also shows his massive edit-warring back then and for which he got blocked. Please see also relevant report at ANI back then: Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07.

    More recently we have the following: On 3 January he resumes the September edit-warring: Revision as of 18:37, 3 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) and then:

    No warning necessary. This editor is a veteran edit-warrior. This particular edit-warring is a continuation of a massive edit-warring campaign he started in September with the purpose of adding Turkey geographically to Europe. He is acting against consensus.

    Comments:
    This user has been engaged in widespread and long-term edit-warring across many articles and for many reasons. This is just another bout of such behaviour. He also got a warning of tendentious editing under ARBMAC by FPaS recently: [49] which he later erased along with a multitude of other 3RR warnings. Here is another ARBMAC warning from FPaS back in April 2012 which he also erased. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse this report, and suggest that in addition to a block, discretionary sanctions be imposed. In addition to a history of edit-warring, this is user is a textbook example of an aggressive, tendentious nationalist editor with minimal positive contributions to the project. Examples of tendentious edits [50] (tag-teaming and edit-warring over a name already mentioned a few lines below) [51] (self-explanatory) [52] (unexplained changes to the figures, all designed to make Greece "smaller" or "poorer") [53] (WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of relevant See also) [54] [55] [56] (Edit-warring even though the article name is "Tenedos"), [57] (the mere fact that he considers this "irredentist" speaks volumes about mentality) and on it goes. Examples of incivil, aggressive behavior: [58] [59] [60]. Talkpage engagement and content building are next to zero. Activity consists mostly of pushing a narrow nationalist agenda at every opportunity. This is precisely the kind of user these topics do not need. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your special attention,Dr.K.. Hopefully, you should have reported desire to edit war or 3RR warning for Aquintero82 [61] and Sir Tanx[62] To put it plainly, I do not find an objective and impartial your notifications. Your and Greek user Athenean′ contribs on wiki articles,the best proof of it. Also,Far as I know,if three-revert rule 3RR is repeated within 24 hours ,is a violation.Thank you.--Maurice (talk) 01:49, 07 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me see: You get blocked for 48 hours in September after a report at ANI about your Runaway edit-warring and now you come three months later to restart it without consensus and against two other users who are trying to uphold long-held consensus. And no, you don't have to break 3RR in 24 hours to be reported here. If you noticed this noticeboard is about edit-warring not only the 3RR rule. Given your history of tendentious and longterm edit-warring today's report is fully justified. By trying to shift the blame on other editors I think you are making the best case for your own blocking. As far as your evaluation of my contributions to articles here I honestly think you have no clue what you are talking about but I won't hold that against you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting if you are reinserting the same material over a spread out time in order to game the processes in place for edit warring it is still a violation. From what it appears this has been a long term pattern of inserting the same type of material against the consensus. that's what it looks like from the outside anyways Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored this report from the archive since it concerns long-term warring at List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, and it was not closed by an admin. I left a note asking Maurice07 to agree to wait for consensus on whether Turkey is in Europe before making any further edits on that question. That could be a way of closing the report with no sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ed for the action. But as we are about to close this report the same user is involved in two more edit wars at Xanthi and List of languages in Europe where he is cn-tagging Greek as a minority language in Turkey, although it is crystal-clear that there is a Greek-speaking minority in Turkey. It doesn't get any more tendentious than that. Clearly we need an AE action at some point under ARBMAC. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for Ed, but for me, I'd prefer to see an AE report for ArbMac sanctions. I'm not trying to be process wonky; I just find I'm a little more comfortable imposing AE sanctions when the other AE admins are also having a look at what we're doing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all. Thank you very much Heimstern for the explanation but I never intended to imply that I was asking for AE enforcement from this board; this is the reason I mentioned above "at some point", meaning not now. I realise that AE sanctions are handled differently and the admins there have different standards. So no pressure on you or Ed. :) But thank you again for your advice. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:177.43.87.117 reported by Nableezy (Result: 31 hours)

    Page: Deir Yassin massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 177.43.87.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 18:40, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "The footnoted reference is quoted in full, word for word. NPOV in a WP article requires a fair and neutral summary. If one part of the reference is cited, all the reference must be cited.")
    2. 19:02, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "Reworded the fourth sentence from the cited footnote to remove any copyright violation.")
    3. 19:23, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "The cited reference must be cited correctly. The fourth sentence of the citation clearly states that the event remains disputed. If you have other references you wish to add, you are welcome to do so. But do not misstate the actual reference cited.")
    4. 19:40, 9 January 2013 (edit summary:"As I state on the talk page, if you wish to cite other portions of the Gelber citation, please feel free to do so. But the citation clearly says that the event is disputed (sentence 4). The cite must be summarized in full to be fair and balanced")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Article under 1RR, has made 3 reverts of 2 editors' edits. nableezy - 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Now 4 reverts of 4 other editors. RolandR (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.176.5.95 reported by User:66.203.207.68 (Result: Protected)

    Page: Kaitlyn (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 75.176.5.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [63]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] [70]

    Comments:

    After explaining in edit summary what policies were being broken and why (primarily WP:NOT, MOS & NOTE), and went to editor's talk page to try and give lengthier explanation. Editor started with some good faith discussions but it quickly broke down into "such-and-such page has errors too" and "you're being a dictator". Then editor went and undid whole thing even after agreeing some of their edits were mistakes because they didn't like a dozen or so words. --66.203.207.68 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:193.92.131.230 reported by User:Lugia2453 (Result: Blocked for one week by User:Rjd0060)

    Page: List of leading shopping streets and districts by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 193.92.131.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [71]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

    Comments:

    On the List of leading shopping streets and districts by city article, this IP address is changing Macedonia to "FYROM" despite being undone by multiple users, including myself. The IP address has been warned multiple times, yet has continued to do so and has broken the three-revert rule. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I also just noticed this user removing the Macedonia content from this article without explanation. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked for edit warring in the past. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AmherstApple reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Multiple blocks and protection)

    Page: Boy Scouts of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AmherstApple (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: [85] (Page created)

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

    Comments:
    This purportedly brand new user insists that his interpretation of policy trumps the consensus of 3 other editors. He is also doing his best to force in the same material at Randall L. Stephenson.

    And it should be noted that the one bringing this up never went to the TALK page but TAG teamed to edit without talk. I asked for page protection in hopes someone would TALK. But looking at Belchfires warning history and BAN history shows he is a edit warrior that just keeps attacking until get gets his way. --AmherstApple (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Turns out this is a sockpuppet of User:Marlin1975 (indeffed long ago). Case opened at SPI. Carry on. ► Belchfire-TALK 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean this report? That pertains to User:Sonic2030, not to User:Marlin1975. Is there a connection between the two (in your view)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is definitely a connection, and it's been verified by CheckUser. See the archived reports: [86]. This is a recurring problem, and I've been reporting using the most recent sockmaster, Sonic2030, because it's familiar to admins due to recent activity. Honestly, there are so many socks at this point that it's hard to know which handle is the primary. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm dim, but I still don't see the connection to Marlin (not in the link you provided). None of this necessarily bears on the merits of the edit-warring report, but Amherst's conduct troubles me mainly because they edited as an IP and then as a registered account. At the same time, if one assumes they're a "new" user, the edit-warring warning came after their last revert. If it weren't for that one small point, I would have already blocked them. I'll be going off-wiki soon, so if another admin wants to take action, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look again at the SPI archive, the text is in the December 19 report: So I actually have nothing more, I do note that one of these socks has a sock tag for Marlin1975. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 6:51 pm, 20 December 2012, Thursday (20 days ago) (UTC−8)
    Also, the 3RR warning was the page creation edit, so you have to look at the left-hand side of the diff. The warning was given at Revision as of 13:28, 9 January 2013 (edit), and the final diff was at Latest revision as of 16:30, 9 January 2013 (edit) (undo). I may have mucked this up some when I posted the report, but procedurally it's correct. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I got this via WP:RFPP. I blocked Belchfire for a week. This is his second week long EW block. I almost indeffed him. The other two I blocked for 24 hours and the page has been full protected for 10 days. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Belchfire reported by User:Viriditas (Result: Belchfire blocked based on another report)

    Page: Sexuality in Star Trek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Belchfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous versions reverted to: version 1, version 2


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:11, 9 January

    Thread showing attempt by three editors to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sexuality_in_Star_Trek#Cast_and_crew_perspectives_-_undue_weight

    Comments:

    • As a member of WikiProject Conservatism, Belchfire has targeted Sexuality in Star Trek because it is tagged under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies due to its discussion of LGBT content. Previously, Lionelt (talk · contribs) began this disruption in 2010, which lasted two years.[87] As the diffs show above, Belchfire has continued where Lionelt left off, now maintenance tag warring on Sexuality in Star Trek, where he edit warred against the consensus of multiple editors (Nightscream, Insomesia, Pass a Method) and now he is continuing to edit war over LGBT content. This disruption of LGBT content has been previously brought up in multiple forums, including his own talk page, ANI, and the project talk page. I am asking for a lengthy block for Belchfire. Please note that the warning was given at 02:11, 9 January, after which he reverted twice. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Has BF been a constructive force on any LGBT related article? If not then perhaps it's time to start discussing a topic ban. Sædontalk 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Belchfire has been blocked for edit warring on Boy Scouts of America, as mentioned above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ankarakediler reported by User:Shrigley (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [88]


    This article is under 1RR restrictions[91] per WP:ARBAA2.

    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [92]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. This is a basic terminological conflict, where Ankarakediler does not like to use the word "denial" to describe Armenian Genocide denial.

    Comments:


    Isn't there generally supposed to be at least 3 reverts before they can be blocked? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 14:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This article, Armenian Genocide, was placed under one-revert restriction under the discretionary sanctions from an arbitration case. (1RR is enforced at the same noticeboard as 3RR.) This fact of 1RR restriction was prominently displayed on the talk page here[93], and on an editnotice here[94], and in my 1rr warning on the violator's talkpage here[95], which was deleted[96] and so acknowledged. Shrigley (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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: [97]

    • 1st revert: [98] 19:15 9 January 2013
    • 2nd revert: [99] 18:12 10 January 2013
    • 3rd revert: [100] 18:14 10 January 2013
    • 4th revert: [101] 22:40 10 January 2013 (Just outside the 24-hour window.)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102] The message was removed from his Talk Page by Rhode Island Red; to see it, you have to scroll down on this page to a header marked "The happiness of this season to you". The diff showing this removal is here

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

    Comments:

    (1) I didn't bring this particular incident up on the Talk Page this time because (1) Rhode Island Red has been warned previously about 3RR violations and he has also brought charges against others, and he is well aware of the WP policy, and (2) there are already several disputes on the page, and I did not feel justified in adding still another. If RIR were so minded, he could have self-reverted after I sent him the warning noted above. Instead, he simply removed the warning as well as a holiday message I had sent him previously.

    (2) There are some edit disputes on this page, but for the most part the editors are attempting to work things out, not always satisfactorily. The other disputants have been holding off on the knee-jerk reversions recently.

    GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=532569949"