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:BlueSalix reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] 12:26, 15 January 2014

1. [3] 14:26, 15 January 2014

1. [4] 15:14, 15 January 2014

1. [5] 15:26, 15 January 2014

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

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

Comments:
BlueSalix, who has a long and contentious history with this article (see its talk page), claimed in his edit summaries that 108.50.220.60 is a sockpuppet and so 3RR didn't apply, but that IP does not appear at the relevant SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive. At no point did BlueSalix attempt any discussion with 108 or on the article talk page.

(1) This is a heavily PR-gamed entry involving 15 socks that have been blocked in the last few months, all at my initiation (not just FortyTwoAndAHalf but others). (2) 108.50.220.60, by his edit pattern and based on common sense, was clearly a sock and I made a 3-revert under NOT3RR. The sheer volume of PR agency socks active in this entry precludes an investigation on each one, in light of the backlog at CheckUser and the fact these are full-time paid socks; common sense must be applied. (3) Tenebrae has exhibited an unusual pattern of supporting these socks and opposing attempts to investigate them (see here among many others). (4) Tenebrae has established a pattern of making deceptive statements about me to Admins (e.g. "other editors have opposed his edits" in reference to sockpuppets opposing my edits) and engaged in a strange pattern of some of the most vicious name-calling toward me I've seen on WP (please see here among many other places I am happy to cite). I make this last point only to explain that this will be my only comment in this ANI in my defense; I have learned I need to avoid Tenebrae or risk being treated in a manner I've never seen a single other editor on WP treated. Therefore, I'm not going to revisit this page. I'm certain Tenebrae will levy additional accusations against me or make claims about how a broad swath of editors support his position, as has been his M.O. in his past attempts to get me blocked - if the patrolling Admin feel there's validity in them, please alert me on my Talk page and I'm confident I'll be able to address them succinctly and also reference you to other editors who can provide a neutral POV on the history of Tenebrae's unusual behavior toward me. I apologize, in advance, to the reviewing Admin your time had to be occupied by this ANI; this is something I have to endure regularly and it's unfortunate others get dragged in. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cutting through all the clutter, he is saying bluntly that an IP who disagrees with him is "clearly" a sock without any proof, any checkuser request, etc., and that based on this assumption he feels he's allowed to 3RR with impunity. I would disagree we're allowed to make unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry to justify edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And much as I hate adding to irrelevant clutter, I have cut a great deal of promotional-seeming edits to this article, as the edit history shows, so how I'm colluding with people he claims without evidence are publicists, I have no idea. In the Ronan Farrow talk page, you'll see him accusing me of "campaigning" and getting together with sockpuppet users behind his back to thwart him. There's a word for this kind of baseless accusation. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Regarding the socking issue, 108.50.220.60 (talk · contribs) geolocates to Ridgewood, NJ. There are only two IPs listed in the SPI. One, 173.70.40.227 (talk · contribs), also geolocates to Ridgewood, and the other, 99.192.69.120 (talk · contribs), geolocates to Canada. Both SPI IPs made edits only to the Farrow talk page. Ridgewood made one, and Canada made two.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is good to know, albeit not definitive. In any event, it doesn't change the fact BlueSalix was edit-warring since he was reverting based not on this checkuser background or an SPI but simply on his own assumptions. He also made no attempt at discussion, but simply went on a reverting spree.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23! BlueSalix (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected three months due to BLP issues by User:Mark Arsten. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston! BlueSalix (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Civatrope reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Antifeminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591036129 by Roscelese (talk) Sorry I disagree with you. The two paragraphs are in violation of due weight. But are included in an appropriate section."
2. 00:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591050763 by Roscelese (talk) I posted a message on your talk page."
3. 05:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591063032 by EvergreenFir (talk) See talk page."
4. 05:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591078196 by EvergreenFir (talk) Sorry, I just disagree."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

User was warned about revert count here and here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits by Civitrope and Roscelese */"

Comments:

• Blocked – 24 hours to Civatrope for 3RR violation. I tried to negotiate with this user but couldn't persuade them to make any assurance that they would stop warring. They do not seem to grasp the concept of consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you EdJohnston. They're editing on Sociology of gender recently and adding nonsense. Something tells me user is WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohnohedinnit reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Herpes genitalis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 15:10, 16 January 2014 (edit summary: "restored perfectly valid sources and important edits")
2. 16:15, 16 January 2014 (edit summary: "added references")
3. 00:54, 17 January 2014 (edit summary: "added references")
4. 06:21, 17 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 591067786 by Zad68 (talk)")
5. 14:40, 17 January 2014 (edit summary: "added more references, highlighted unsourced material")

• Diff of warning: here

In each one of these reverts, Ohnohedinnit re-adds a large number of unacceptable sources, for example you can see the addition of the self-published website "chastity.com" to support biomedical information in each one of the edits. Sourcing issues were explained to Ohnohedinnit here, again here, here, and in explicit detail here. Flyer22 has been trying to help explain the sourcing issues as well but with no success. There are a few helpful things in Ohnohedinnit's edits but they are largely problematic. Attempts to get Ohnohedinnit to engage with the WP:MEDRS issues pointed out are met with reverts back.

—Zad68 15:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This wildly misrepresents my edits. In response to concerns of other editors, I have added additional sources from journal articles. Yet User:Zad68 continues to revert. User:Zad68 and User:Flyer22 continue to use an unsourced quotation in the first paragraph - a point that I have continued to raise but has not been addressed. If they are so concerned about adequate sourcing, why not just delete the unacceptable references? The text is supported by medical journals, which I have added, in addition to the popular press. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

After this report was filed, the problematic edit was reverted by Alexbrn and Ohnohedinnit reverted back:

• 15:28, 17 January 2014

edit summary "improved language, removed 'popular press'". Although a few bad sources like chastity.com were removed the edit still used NPR, CNN, Village Voice etc. for sourcing so it's still not fixed. Either way the issue is the continual reverting instead of leaving the article alone while the challenged edits are discussed and engaging in material discussion on Talk page. Zad68 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, if the sources are really so problematic, I'll remove them. I'm confused why the editors who take issue with those sources can't just remove them and leave the text in tact. The text itself is accurate, verifiable, and supported by journal citations. Why revert to an obviously inferior version just because there are sources from popular press? Anyway, I've gone ahead and removed the sources that have created this issue in the first place. Hopefully that will resolve this matter, though why this couldn't be done by the editors concerned instead of a wholesale revision leaves me questioning their intent. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should we take care to maintain the decent material you've added to that article when you don't take care to maintain the decent material in it, such as the WP:MEDMOS format? You speak of wholesale reverting. Look at your reverts. You repeatedly added back in material without care, format changes and all; if you are only focused on particular aspects, then your edit should reflect that in this case, instead of bringing all the bad aspects with it. And do read WP:BURDEN. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Lewis07030 reported by User:Anupmehra (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Dawn Zimmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lewis07030 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591130526 by Anupmehra (talk)"
2. 15:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591128530 by Anupmehra (talk)"
3. 14:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591126904 by I feel like a tourist (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on Dawn Zimmer. (TW)"
2. 15:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "New message notification."
3. 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dawn Zimmer. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He just keeps on reverting. Comments? AnupMehra ^✈ 15:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

{{uw-ewblock|time=24 hours}} is my only comment. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Over the Orwell reported by User:Blackberry Sorbet (Result: Blocked)

Page: Guto Bebb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Richard Bacon (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Steve Baker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tony Baldry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Harriett Baldwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stuart Andrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
David Amess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gregory Barker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
John Baron (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Adam Afriyie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ben Gummer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Richard Benyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
David Amess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Over the Orwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]
6. [13]
7. [14]
8. [15]
9. [16]
10. [17]
11. [18]
12. [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]
7. [26]
8. [27]
9. [28]
10. [29]
11. [30]
12. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User talk:Over the Orwell, particularly User talk:Over the Orwell#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion and User talk:Over the Orwell#Try this.....

Comments:
See report here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive232#User:Over the Orwell reported by User:Blackberry Sorbet (Result: Blocked). A classic case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Tendentious editing of BLPs of politicians, edit warring, followed by a 48 hour block. Several editors try to help the editor to see where he is going wrong. Editor returns and immediately begins edit warring on same pages. The editor is disruptive, is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and their behavior indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly, despite warnings, explanations and a previous block just days ago. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The editor's sole interest is to insert this material on behalf of his 13 y.o. son, see [33]. Regardless of the fact that numerous editors agree that the intended content is not encyclopaedic for numerous policy and content reasons, they have returned from a block only to insist that the material is a fact worth recording. It is a classic example of seeing only a single issue and failing to accept very good explanations and alternative suggestions made on their talk page. In addition to a further block, a well authored Admin. commentary referring to WP:BALASPS and WP:COATRACK might be useful. Leaky Caldron 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nekomata3 reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: Blocked)

Page: Unobtainium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.190.183.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Nekomata3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:
Users changing "unobtainium" to "unobtanium" - using what seems to be a global replace which is also changing the spellings used in the sources & references. The two editors seem very similar - in both attitude and edits. Quack, quack in the duck test. I have requested that they engage on the talk page to justify the changes, and had little useful response - "LOL"[44] as a talk page comment, and a simple "NO"[45] edit summary to asking for talk page discussion.

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked both the named SPA and their IP, not just for edit warring, but also for editing that rose almost to the level of vandalism, and a non-collaborative attitude. Chaheel Riens, please notify editors you report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:BjeliRabac reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Template:Yugoslav Front (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591333736 by Peacemaker67 (stop the disruptive behaviour, there is no consensus for your edits)"
2. 22:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591331147 by Peacemaker67 (stop the disruptive behaviour, there is no consensus for your undo edits)"
3. 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591243054 by Peacemaker67 (talk)"
4. 05:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 588725928 by Joy (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Template:Yugoslav Front */ new section"
2. 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Template:Yugoslav Front (3) */ new section"
3. 22:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of AfD templates Battle of Zavlaka (1941) and Battle of Banja Koviljača */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring over large number of redlinks and addition of battle articles that are currently being AfD'd */ new section"
2. 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC) on User talk:BjeliRabac "Notification: proposed deletion of Battle of Zavlaka (1941). (TW)"

Comments:

The user concerned has breached AN3 against consensus of three editors, but has also deleted AfD templates on two pages. A short block would probably be sufficient to get them back on track. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The user in question is new editor. Instead of block it would be better to explain them more clearly where they made mistake. PROD-ing and AfD-ing multiple articles they created without providing them more time to present sources for their articles was wrong and could have provoked new editor to violate wikipedia rules unknown to them. It would be good to follow WP:INVOLVED in this case. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The "new" editor in question was fully aware that three other editors considered their actions were inappropriate, they were warned, yet continued. Doesn't show a collegiate attitude or interest in cooperation. They have already been given a 24 hour block by User:Joy for continued deletion of the AfD template, I believe 72 hours would be an appropriate corrective for the 3RR violation. Whether that will be effective remains to be seen. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

PROD-ing and AfD-ing multiple articles they created without providing them more time to present sources for their articles was wrong. I understand that new editor can make mistake and repeatedly remove it. It was additionally wrong to block them for this, especially by an involved administrator (there is no result filled above, I am uncertain if involved administrator followed procedure in this case). Requesting "an appropriate corrective" and prolonging this block after AfD-ing multiple articles they created is not constructive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming it is an entirely new editor, I still believe it is completely appropriate. If editors are not corrected now, when they clearly have got off on the wrong foot and failed to understand the collaborative and consensus-based foundations of WP (despite reasonable attempts to correct them by experienced editors), when exactly are admins supposed to do it? We just let them continue on their merry way ignoring all attempts to correct their behaviour? This is not just 3RR when consensus was clearly against their edits, it is deleting AfD notices as well (which clearly state they are not to be deleted). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was appropriate. I am concerned if administrator involved in this issue followed procedure and I am concerned about your request to prolong block for this editor after you insisted to PROD and AfD multiple articles they created. Independent input is necessary. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Joy for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Petesmith2013 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Indef)

Page

Emma Kenny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Petesmith2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC) to 07:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
   1. 07:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591354223 by Flat Out (talk)"
   2. 07:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591346810 by Flat Out (talk)"
3. 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Ownership of articles on Emma Kenny. (TW)"
2. 07:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of Interest on Emma Kenny. (TW)"
3. 08:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "‎3RR Warning on Emma Kenny."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ unreliable"
2. 08:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */"
3. 10:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ done"
4. 10:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */"
5. 10:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */"
6. 10:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ WP is never a reliable source"
7. 10:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ response, lead rewrite, notability"
8. 11:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ""
9. 11:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubified article */ provide sources"
10. 11:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ""
11. 11:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ""
12. 08:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "response."
13. 08:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "response"
14. 08:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "response"

Comments:

Author of article works for the subject and has a declared COI, tedious editing and exceeded 3RR Flat Out let's discuss it 11:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Petesmith2013 is clearly here exclusively to promote Emma Kenny; thus, I've blocked him indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... and the article has now been deleted. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:96.241.218.72 reported by User:Lvivske (Result: Blocked)

Page: Svoboda (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.241.218.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. RR1
2. RR2
3. RR3
4. RR4
5. RR5 (against another editor)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see warnings. Talk page discussion didn't really take off since interaction began with his accusing me of a conflict of interest to disqualify me from editing, and then accused me of disruptive editing in retaliation for my warnings. On the article talk page he accused me of "political propaganda" so I just didn't see further talking going anywhere.

Comments:

I realized I got to the 3-line and stopped right there. I apologize for this and am stepping back from the article while this is ongoing. The accusations of bad faith, "soap boxing" and "pushing propaganda" I think were over the line in establishing any sort of positive collaboration. User's edits removed sources (including scholarly sources) to fit their original research insertions...just messy, sticky stuff.--Львівське (говорити) 00:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Lvivske, just to be clear, my finding that the IP violated WP:3RR says nothing about the content dispute. Therefore, the fact that I blocked them does not give you permission to revert their latest edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that not like telling me I'm not allowed to edit the content at all? The user's reverts removed sources, and inserted a bunch of OR in there; any move to fix the content would fall under a 'revert' IMO --Львівське (говорити) 01:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As you yourself stated, you were up to three reverts and were (sensibly) "stepping back". I'm not saying you can't edit the content forever, but in the short-term, I think it would be wiser to get others involved in the content dispute on the talk page and for an uninvolved editor to decide what is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

oohh, sorry, thought you meant just in general to leave his as the status quo.--Львівське (говорити) 01:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Golden Prime reported by User:Flat Out (Result:24 hours)

Page

Tiger versus lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Golden Prime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC) to 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "If you persist in saboting this topic with no reason, higher authoritys will be notified"
   2. 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "You are the one using fictious sites like your self made jackjacksonj, and opinions are in the opinion catagorie jacky, as the death accounts are from credible sources along with everything crybaby"
2. 05:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Again sabatoges revision, with no reasons, if you have a complaint, post in the talk section"
3. 05:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "You have no reason to undo the more accurate and reliable/credible changes"
4. 23:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591481763 by EvergreenFir (talk) whats the reason ofr undoing the post, it states the exact content on the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tiger versus lion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring here after 3RR warning. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• And again here, here and here for good measure Flat Out let's discuss it 06:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note- User:BigCat82 has also exceeded 3RR but they stopped after receiving a warning and engaged in discussion at my talk page, so I haven't reported them. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Blocked for 24 hours due to extensive edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Stack:prism reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: No action)

Page

India–Nepal relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

[[User:Stack:prism]|Stack:prism]]] ([[User talk:Stack:prism]|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Stack:prism]|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/Stack:prism]|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/Stack:prism]|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/Stack:prism]|block user]] · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. on User talk:Stack:prism

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps inserting the unnecessary content, won't ever explain the reason behind inserting it either. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indian government, which has the power to close these brothels,police the border,repatriate these enslaved women, has done virtually nothing to curb this humanitarian crisis. India's disregard shows great callousness towards Nepal. If one really believes that the governments have no responsibility in what goes on within their borders, even if it is greatly hurting another country's sovereignty, then the section about human trafficking in China-Nepal relations should be removed first, since compared to India, trafficking between China and Nepal is virtually nonexistent. It doesn't change India's situation, and I don't think either should be removed.Stack:prism (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2014 (EST)

• In general, we block after four reverts, not three (the 3 in 3RR refers to the maximum before the rule is breached, not the minimum to breach). While we do have discretion to block for non-3RR edit warring, I don't see anything here to suggest it's needed. Please discuss on talk, and pursue dispute resolution as needed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, he tried to discuss though, now if he resumes edit warring now, may file a complaint. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Marathon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

Page

Napoleon Chagnon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "The issue is not Sahlins. the issue is that the reference is just a rehash of the same work covered elsewhere."
2. 08:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "And this is nothing less than a book a review of "Darkness at El Dorado", already covered in detail below. Failed reference checks. Material removed."
3. 06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverting. Referrnce check failed. See talk."
4. 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Not a reliable source. See talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* 3rr */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
2. 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
3. 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"

Comments:

Since I only reverted each those references once at the time of reporting, this should be fairly easily resolved. The fact that one editor keeps posting the exact same material in a BLP with different, but still unreliable, references, does not violate 3RR, nor constitute edit warring. Each removal of a different reference is a different edit, not in any sense a revert. Each edit had achieved consensus on the talk page, at least to the extent that the editor didn't challenge that the reference check had failed. Instead the editor added the same sentence with a different, still unreliable, reference.

At no stage was the edit reverted for any reason other than it failed a reference check, and hence had to be removed immediately as per WP:BLP. So clearly no edit warring on my part. It will be interesting if the mods find otherwise since the first 3 edits to reject the references had achieved consensus, and leaving the material in the article unreferenced would itself violate WP.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The material as supported by a reference to something by Marshall Sahlins in the Washington Post is by no means a BLP violation; not sure what it means to say it "failed a reference check". And no-one was proposing to leave the material without a reference. I think it's obvious there's a problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The material with the reference to Sahlins has only been reverted twice by me, and twice by you. I will point out that even you don't dispute that one of your references was not RS, and was just a Blog repeating a reference that had already been judged not RS. Some of us are now engaging in good-faith discussions about your second reference on the talk page. Meanwhile you are here making accusations of edit warring after just two reversions. There clearly is a problem here.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope others can see through the inaccuracies here. This edit adds information to the reference a different editor provided and so is not a revert; that means I've reverted once [49]. Moreover they're not "my" references (though I'm happy to stand behind the Sahlins one). The edit-warring by Mark Marathon here is obvious; it's just a case of seeing through the red herrings. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:75.73.193.200 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

Page

DISC assessment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591443250 by Aiko (talk)"
2. 14:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591531277 by Aiko (talk)"
3. 14:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591564480 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
4. 14:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Please read entire report before posing as an expert: http://www.everythingdisc.com/UserFiles/Everything_DiSC_Research_Report_AT.pdf"
5. 16:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "The previous statement could be said about EVERY psychological assessment (e.g., NEO-PI, CPI, 16-PF). There are, for instance, whole peer reviewed articles debunking the big 5, but this is not, and should not be, included in the headline for the big 5."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on DISC assessment. (TW)"
2. 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on DISC assessment. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

75.73.193.200 has now made five edits to this page today. I did not report on the fourth edit as I hoped if I re-worded it and, more importantly, added sources, that would suffice as a compromise. However, the editor continues to remove the sentence. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Obozedalteima reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Blocked)

Page

Rape in the Bosnian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591579797 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
2. 16:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591576690 by PRODUCER (talk)"
3. 15:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591282656 by Praxis Icosahedron (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[50], [51], [52]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[53], [54]: "What you personally think about ICTY and newspappers IS utterly irrelevant, adn no one cares what one Muslim thinks. You are not going to send warnings to me, nor to edit my page, because NO ONE asked you about opinion, especially ahving on mind who you are"

Comments:

I reverted one instance of edit-warring by this editor, but have not contributed to the article myself. That said, the persistent edit warring and the tone of the comments above indicate that this editor is not willing to discuss the edits constructively. Ruby Murray 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week by Ohnoitsjamie.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Later changed to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:132.254.68.86 reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Albert, Prince Consort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 132.254.68.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61][62]

Comments:

User being reported has self-reverted their fourth revert [63]. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ParkinsonProject reported by Zad68 (Result: )

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

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

Time reported: 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

This is an edit warring report, the editor keeps reverting unsourced and poorly-sourced challenged content back in without discussion despite multiple attempts to get the editor to engage, without any indication of stopping.

• Initial addition of unsourced and poorly-sourced history section: [64]

1. 01:48, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Notable historical examples */") -- revert back in Charles I of England, unsourced
2. 01:53, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590601531 by Flyer22 (talk)")
   • [65] -- adds a bunch more unsourced and poorly-sourced
3. 11:44, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590633517 by Frze (talk)")
4. [66] adds more poorly-sourced to wiktionary.org and urbandictionary
5. 19:39, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590860243 by Zad68 (talk)") - reverts wiktionary.org and urbandictionary back in
6. 21:05, 19 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* In law and forensic psychology */ Putting back the history section.") - reverts unsourced and poorly-sourced "history" section back in
7. 20:13, 20 January 2014 (edit summary: "Stop removing the history section. Expand it instead.") - and again

• Diff of warning: here. Both Flyer22 and I tried to detail the problems with ParkinsonProject's edits on their User Talk here. ParkinsonProject not join Talk page discussion regarding history section here despite being ping-notified, and despite being aware that the Talk page exists as ParkinsonProject commented in another section.

—Zad68 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I might be a rubbish wikipedian, but nevertheless I sincerely think the Pedophilia article needs a history section. You cannot just brand this predilection a "mental disorder" from a modern perspective, you need to have a historic perspective.

User:ParkinsonProject (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ephestion reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:55
2. 20:09
3. 20:21
4. 21:47

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion ongoing on article talkpage.

Comments:

Highly aggressive and opinionated editing, previously through various IPs (58.170.183.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Note that the first three reverts include what appears to be a case of rather blatant source falsification: the editor is turning several statements into their exact opposite, but is leaving all the footnotes unchanged, making it seem that the previously used references now support the opposite of what they were thought to support earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Highly biased and unfair report. The edits are done because of the lack of any credibility to the current article's page and it's content. The entire page is riddled with fabricated facts and the user Future Perfect at Sunrise has refused to acknowledge the illegal use of a flag claiming to belong to the island. The article has fabricated a flag for the island and it is not even the official logo of the municipality.