Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

97.77.103.82 and CAtruthwatcher reported by User:DC (Result: 48h)

Page: St. John's University (New York) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (most likely the same person)

Previous version reverted to: 5:42 11/3

• 1st revert: 2:44 11/4
• 2nd revert: 0:33 11/5
• 3rd revert: 3:35 11/5
• 4th revert: 6:12 11/5
• 5th revert: 7:59 11/5
• 6th revert: 8:13 11/5
• 7th revert: 7:31 11/6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP warned CAtruth warned

Discussions on talk page herehere and here.

Comments:
I took it here instead of ANI since it's most likely one person doing all the editing. Users both like to use the term "vandal" in their edit summaries, and refer to the three editors who've disagreed with them as sockpuppets. DC T•C 08:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The two users are confirmed to be the same editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jasepl reported by User:Stepopen (Result:User warned. )

Page: Tbilisi International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: 11:41, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "revert (yet more) nonsense from this IP")
• 2nd revert: 15:23, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 119.155.37.2 (talk); NOT a destination for PrivatAir. (TW)")
• 3rd revert: 17:00, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394391636 by 119.155.37.2 (talk)")
• 4th revert: 03:42, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394663960 by Inspector123 (talk) as before")
• 5th revert: 09:09, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Inspector123 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Jasepl. (TW)")

This report is for edit waring, not 3RR. This user keeps removing a Privatair flight with a tech stop in Tbilisi from the article. One might argue whether this is a sensible edit or not, but what is not acceptable is the slow edit-warring without any discussion on the article talk page or the involved editors talk pages. Problematic is also the labelling of edits as vandalism when they are clearly not vandalism.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past. Furthermore, [2] shows that User:Jasepl is familiar with the 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Comments:
WarnedUser is warned and I will watch the page for further violations. Hopefully we can avoid a block. JodyB _talk 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This editor now canvasses other editors to do the reverts on his behalf, see [4]. Stepopen (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Stepopen, there is a discussion going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Tech stops as destinations. I suggest that you not continue to add technical stops to airport articles until you have a consensus of other editors. Our article on Tbilisi International Airport is now locked due to this issue. It seems that your own preference is to put technical stops in the main destination list. I see nobody at WP:AIRPORT who supports this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Nsk92 (Result: 12h each)

Page: Georgy Malenkov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [5]
• 2nd revert: [6]
• 3rd revert: [7]
• 4th revert: [8]
• 5th revert [9]
• 6th revert [10]
• 7th revert [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

See the article talk page discussion in the thread that I started: Talk:Georgy Malenkov#First Secretary for more details. Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
I should say that I myself am also guilty here - I actually have 4 reverts on the Malenkov article. I did not realize that I was in a breach of 3RR when doing the last revert. I did stop, and continued the discussion at the article talk page. However, User:Trust Is All You Need did not stop, but continued to edit-war and to revert another editor, User:Str1977, even after having been given a 3RR warning. Still, whomever reviews this report may want to block me as well, in the interests of fairness. Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Str1977

Page: Georgy Malenkov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
, but exhibiting similar behaviour on related pages. User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:08, 30 October 2010

• 0th revert: Revision as of 12:49, 6 November 2010 (just outside the 24h period but still noteworthy)
• 1st revert: Revision as of 13:02, 6 November 2010 (on a second issue)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:07, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
• 3rd revert: 13:18, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
• 4th revert: Revision as of 13:49, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
• 5th revert: Revision as of 14:00, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
• 6th revert: Current revision as of 14:32, 6 November 2010 (first issue again)

• User has been blocked for 3RR before, hence he knows about the rule [13]
• He also mentioned it to me in an edit summary (in a false accusation) [14] - I then pointed his error and his violation out to him in my edit summary [15]

So its false when i say you have breached the 3RR rule, but when you do it to me its okay??? Am i missing something here? --TIAYN (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something here. At the time you reverted an edit by User:Str1977 with an edit summary accusing him of having broken 3RR [16], he only had 2 reverts on you, whereas your edit was something like your 6th revert, and done already after you received a 3RR warning at your talkpage. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussions on talk page here, involving two different users trying to reason with the user.

Comments:

I came into an already existing conflict (partly about another issue) and started my report, not knowing that the user had already reverted that often. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. Unbeknownst to me, User:Nsk92 reported the same case as well. I therefore make this section a subsection of his report. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I said to you early on stop and lets discuss this, why are you blaiming me??? Come on, I mean seriously, you are blaiming me for everything here. Secondly, saying that I contined the edit war is false, I never started removing information from the Malenkov article, you did.... When a person is First Secretary and you remove the information it is called "vandalism". Instead of actually trying to solve our problem you have been stuborn the whole way through, even claiming that Stalin and Malenkov were not First Secretaries, which they both are seeing that the General Secretaryship was abolished in 1934.. Just as i wrote on the Malenkov talk page, I'm beginning to become exhausted.. This discussion is going nowhere, and you won't listen, which makes it even worse!!! I won't denie it however, I did break the 3RR rule, and for that i'm sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This page is for reporting your behaviour violating Wikipedia's rules. No more, no less. I will not discuss content issues with you here. Please read what Vandalism actually is. I will not respond here anymore. I advise you to do the same. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Nsk92 reported by User:Trust Is All You Need

Page: Georgy Malenkov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
, but exhibiting similar behaviour on related pages. User being reported: Nsk92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 13:41, 6 November 2010

• 0th revert: Revision as of 13:41, 6 November 2010
• 1st revert: Revision as of 14:02, 6 November 2010 (on a second issue)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:03, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
• 3rd revert: 14:11, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
• 4th revert: Revision as of 14:43, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
• 5th revert: Revision as of 14:59, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
• 6th revert: Current revision as of 15:26, 6 November 2010 (first issue again)

The user does not want to discuss the future of the article, instead he edit wars.. Its simple (see above for more info). --TIAYN (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm new on posting others at 3RR, so if i did anything wrong... sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you provided above involve edits by two different users, User:Nsk92 (me) and User:Str1977. Are you saying that me and User:Str1977 are the same user?? Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked All three blocked for 12 hours for a 3RR vio and a tag-team edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:NeutralityPersonified reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: warned)

Page: Coffee Party USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NeutralityPersonified (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original insertion of disputed text

• 1st revert: 00:14, 5 November 2010
• 2nd revert: 00:57, 5 November 2010
• 3rd revert: 02:09, 6 November 2010
• 4th revert: 03:01, 6 November 2010
• 5th revert: 20:54, 6 November 2010
• 6th revert: 21:13, 6 November 2010

Diff of previous edit warring / 3RR warning for the same article: One of several warnings

See the article talk page discussion in this thread: Discussion for more details.

Comments:
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthfulPerson/Archive for more information on this editor's history. This editor has been previously warned and blocked several times, and is quite familiar with policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Warned There are definitely some ducky concerns, but the SPI was inconclusive. I have notified the user that edit warring is not on, which may hopefully solve the issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:LokiiT (Result: Protected)

Page: Russian Census (2010) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20] (reverted wording and removed unreliable source tag)
• 4th revert: [21] (reverted wording and removed unreliable source tag)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22] (He responded with a "no you are" response [23])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page discussion ignored; Discussion on both our talk pages, amounted to him calling me a conspiracy theorist for questioning the validity of a self-published blog.

Well, I'm not the only one who has questioned your take on this. Your attempts to "discuss" with me started off with you quoting nonsense blogs, how can you expect me to continue on this road to nowhere? --Львівське (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

LokiiT (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note he added a fifth revert, after warning editor should be blocked. Secret ^account 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here are the diffs for Lvivske on this article as generated by the 3rr.php tool:

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

1. 23:20, 5 November 2010 (edit summary: "revert removing of cited material; Paul A. Goble is an award winning expert in this subject field and is very much a reliable source")
2. 23:22, 5 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ another source on the subject")
3. 00:40, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
4. 04:23, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 395085074 by Lvivske; I don't care if you have a personal vendetta against him, KyivPost and Eurasia Review are RS. using TW")
5. 22:07, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ + ref, not just Goble but Globalsib.com also confirming")
6. 22:14, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
7. 22:48, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "KP is a reliable publication and news outlet, don't remove. This is reliable news, not Goble's opinion, adding a journal article on the topic. good grief.")
8. 08:36, 7 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv. please use talk page before section blanking, this content is being discussed anyway")

The diffs on the same article for LokiiT are as follows: Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 22:03, 5 November 2010 (edit summary: "Paul Goble's blog is not a reliable source")
2. 04:06, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "I don't care what "awards" he's won, his blog is not a reliable source. WP:RS")
3. 04:09, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:48, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "for now")
5. 21:49, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
6. 22:02, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
7. 22:03, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
8. 22:36, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ still an unreliable source. Perhaps it should be removed in favor of the new one you found?")

I've pointed Lvivske to the discussion here and asked him to respond. It seems that both users should be blocked for edit warring, unless they will agree to settle the dispute in a way that accords with policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a total of two reverts as part of this edit warring (three if you count my original edit, however that wasn't part of any edit war). I stopped as I did not want to be blocked; however my attempts to compromise were met with more reverts and unwarranted accusations of having a "personal vendetta" against the blogger in question, hence this report. I don't understand why you're threatening to block me. I stopped reverting (despite not breaking 3rr), yet the edit warring didn't stop as you noted. How can you consider my actions on equal grounds with Lvivske's? LokiiT (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy was deleting info from reliable sources and going on about some anti-Russian conspiracy theory. Majority of my reverts were re-inserting blanked material that I and GreyHood edited, reinserting reliable sources, and restoring while adding additional sources to comply with WP:PROVEIT. I contacted User:Greyhood in to get a 3rd party opinion and was fine with what he removed, figuring we'd come to a sensible, edited down and neutral conclusion. LoKiit then got one of friends (user:DonaldDuck) to come in and continue the section blanking (WP:MEAT). I've washed my hands of this nonsense; if GreyHood agrees it should go I'm perfectly fine with that consensus, just leave the conspiracy theory junk and deleting of reliable sources w/o regard for discussion out of this. Lets let cooler heads prevail, shall we?--Львівське (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(also) I did not ignore the talk page, you can see I responded to it; I also discussed on GreyHood's talk page. Lokiit kept calling the Kyiv Post a "self published blog" while in turn pointing me to a self published conspiracy blog to "prove" the author, Paul A. Goble (a respected professional in the field) is a CIA propagandist. I mean, come on, how can I be expected to deliberate on such screwy grounds?--Львівське (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You responded on the talk page after I made this report. And as you can see from the discussion that resulted, it has become abundantly clear that you are using an unreliable source in order to propagate a non-issue/hoax, and therefore my deletion of it was warranted. Also I never at any point called Kyiv-post a self-published blog. That's a complete fabrication. As for DonandDuck, I have never contacted him before; he came on his own. If you're going to make accusations of WP:MEAT I highly suggest you present some evidence for your claims. I don't appreciate being defamed. LokiiT (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are well aware I responded to the talk page before you filed this ridiculous complaint 1. You did call the Kyiv Post an unrelaible source and kept calling the Goble article, which was cited properly in the article, a "blog". I'm not making things up here, you've made the "blog" argument many times so far. Also, it's questionable whethere he (DonaldDuck) is a MP, considering he came in during your reverts and had an identical MO and argument. Do you want me to file a sockpuppetry case? I think you're making a much bigger deal out of this article than anyone should be. Calm down, use the talk page, work things out. You're getting really worked up over an issue that could easily be resolved if you just cooperated and kept your cool.--Львівське (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Look closely at the dates. First came my report[24], then came your response[25]. There's almost an hour's difference there. And once again, I did not call Kyiv-post an unreliable source. Ever. I read Kyiv-post regularly and would never do such a thing. And if I did, it would be pretty easy to prove with a diff. And repeating myself, again, if you're going to accuse me of WP:MEAT (and now WP:SOCK, back it up with evidence. I would very much like for you to file a sockpuppet report. Everyone who's been involved in Eastern-Europe articles for a while knows who DD is. He's been around longer than I have I think. Anyways, I suggest you either retract your accusation, or file a report if you're not simply trying to defame me. LokiiT (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering I wasn't notified of this filing until a day later 1, and I was engaged in discussions on this matter hours prior to the filing itself (2, 3), why would you file something like this and claim I wasn't discussing before I even had a chance to discuss things? We had already talked on our talk pages on this matter; seems to me you're trying to inappropriately represent my conduct and willingness to work matters out so far. --Львівське (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly saw my message on the article discussion page (as you referred to my "personal vendetta" in your edit summary) and had a chance to discuss it there first. But instead, you ignored it and reverted me. I had to bring the issue to your talk page. Therein you simply ignored everything I was saying and continued to revert my attempts to compromise. You didn't respond to my original thread in discussion until you had already broken WP:3RR and I had already filed this report. LokiiT (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You made no attempts to compromise, you continually blanked the information or tried to skew it. Compromise is getting Greyhood involved to trim it down for neutrality and verify the sources; you on the other hand, just kept making unfounded libelous claims about the source author...how can you expect someone to take you seriously? --Львівське (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Compromise is leaving the content there but adding an unreliable source tag, and attributing what was said to Goble. You reverted my attempt to compromise, twice. LokiiT (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected three days. Neither side gets much credit for diplomacy. Consider an WP:RFC or other steps of dispute resolution. You could ask at WP:RSN for an opinion about using the the Goble quote in the article. I see that there was already a discussion at WP:RSN about Goble's resport but the result looks inconclusive. If the fairness of the Russian Census to the members of various nationalities is truly in question, a wider search might turn up additional reports, and the article wouldn't have to depend solely on Goble for this possible fact. It is funny that Goble's observation would deserve so much space in an article which is hardly more than a stub. If the article were expanded with referenced content, that imbalance could be addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This already was done, but he didn't like the responses he got 1, 2--Львівське (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:87.114.90.86 reported by User:Dmol (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Qantas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.114.90.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:Several users have explained that this incident is not notable, but the user continues to edit war

--Dmol (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Note - I knew this looked familiar: this exact edit is cited by a recently retired user less than 48 hours ago[33] as an example of why they left the project. 87.112.207.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is pretty clearly the same user as the reported IP, so it would be 5 reverts instead of 4. I fixed the diffs in this report, as they were off. Doc talk 05:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and fixing my links. I suspect the user is experienced as edits are properly formatted and show previous practice. He is even trying to issue warnings against me.--Dmol (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected two weeks. The 87.* editor clearly broke 3RR, and it is hardly worth it to block a dynamic IP, so we need to semiprotect for a while, while apologizing for the inconvenience to the good-faith IP editors. Parties on the other side of this dispute did not break 3RR but Dmol is pushing the limits of the edit-warring policy. I suggest that nobody revert again until consensus is reached on talk. Use WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Bijuts reported by User:Binoyjsdk (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Reverts from the first to last. The latest reverts are listed down:
29 September

• 1st revert: [35]

15 October

• 2nd revert: [36]

24 October

• 3rd revert: [37]

25 October to 29 October

• 4th revert: [38]
• 5th revert: [39]
• 6th revert: [40]
• 7th revert: [41]
• 8th revert: [42]
• 9th revert: [43]
• 10th revert: [44]
• 11th revert: [45]
• 12th revert: [46]
• 13th revert: [47]
• 14th revert: [48]
• 15th revert: [49]
• 16th revert: [50]
• 11th revert: [51]
• 17th revert: [52]

04 November

• 18th revert: [53]
• 19th revert: [54]

03 November

• 20th revert: [55]

The user seems to have a strong and biased POV towards Kochi. His edit patterns are similar. For instance, He wanted to remove the sentence "second largest city behind the capital", as he do not want it to be told as second behind another city. He even tried to change the Thiruvananthapuram article (which is the larget city in the state): [56], and was edit-warring in that article also for some time.

He wanted to remove the negetive images of Kochi:

• Line 329: [57]
• Line 501: [58]

He has not shown interest in Article talk pages and never participated in the discussions there :[59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [60]
• [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Discussions on User talk page: [62]
• Discussions for Article improvement in Article talk page: [63]
• Advising the user:Bijuts to use WP:3O or WP:DISPUTE to handle content disputes: [64]

Comments:

BINOY ^Talk 08:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Fully protected by SpacemanSpiff. Try to reach consensus on the talk page. If reverts continue after protection expires, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Das Baz reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: )

Page: September 18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Das Baz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]
• 5th revert: [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

The above two fields are really irrelevant here; this editor has been warned in the past about edit warring and blocked for the same. Editors have tried to discuss it with them, but they have refused, they haven't even used any edit summaries. As they have seemingly learned nothing since last time they were blocked for edit warring, I would ask that this block be made longer, as they are doing exactly the same thing as the first time; slow edit-warring and refusing to talk about it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Going back over the article history, I count about 19 attempts to add this in the last 14 months. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified Das Baz of the discussion here, and invited him to participate. In my opinion the best option is a long block, which might be lifted if the editor will agree to follow Wikipedia policy. He hardly ever edits his own talk page except to remove warnings and comments by others. The problem may be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope that his cooperative response here will avert the need for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And what if they don't post here? What if they just decide to 'disappear' for awhile, then come back and resume edit warring after everything has 'calmed down'?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

His last WP edit was 6 November. If he resumes editing Wikipedia but does not respond here, he will most likely be blocked. If he makes no edits before this report is archived, then I suggest a one-month block to be sure the matter gets his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the "Edit summary" thing. I suggest that if such a problem rises, you just have an administrator send me a message like this: "The opposition to your position on this (e.g., the date of the Catalonian Bullfight ban) comes from a majority of editors, not just from a single editor." Or words to that effect. If so, I will cease to assert my position and will not insist on it on the face of a majority opposition. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Wayne Olajuwon (Result: no vio / page semi)

• Previous version reverted to: [71]
• 1st revert: [72]
• Revision history of the page, includes four more reverts: [73]

• Warning to user: [74]

This user reverted my series of edits five times in total under the pretense of "reverting vandalism." The edits in question were clearly not vandalism, and I made edit summaries to that effect; he made no attempt to discuss with me. They were, I admit, controversial, but they clearly reflect what the cited sources say. I am willing to engage discussion with this user, but not to condone censorship on his part. Regardless of this dispute, he has clearly violated the 3RR.128.151.26.110 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Complaint is frivolous, and complainant may well be blocked for bringing this here. Wayne Olajuwon was quite correctly removing unsourced negative material, per WP:V. I see no discussion of this from the complainant on the articles' Talk pages. Rodhullandemu 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to look at the materials more clearly. They were sourced, just that they appeared in the original sources and I didn't add any new sources. I would also like to add that the responsibility for discussion lies in those who unilaterally reverted other contributors' edits. Finally, 3RR applies to any content-based edits except obvious vandalism and poorly sourced materials on BLP pages. Neither is the case here. Thus, even if the user was judged to be correct in his reverts (a judgment I would disagree with, but certainly accept), he has violated the 3RR. 128.151.26.110 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the guidelines are Bold, Revert, Discuss and WP:BURDEN. In the former case, if you are reverted, it is up to you to open the discussion, and on a Talk page not via edit summaries. If you didn't make it plain that sources already justify the inclusion of contentious material, you shouldn't be surprised at the result. I also detected a lack of neutrality in the language and scope of your edits. Accordingly, I am declining to review my decision, although you're welcome to seek a second opinion. Rodhullandemu 21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::This IP is editing under 2 IP addresses from the University of Rochester. As he/she is at 4RR and clearly knows the 3RR rule, I'll block both IPs for 31 hours. Page is now protectedDougweller (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Malke 2010 reported by User:Chhe (Result:No block )

Page: Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: [76]
• 2nd revert: [77]
• 3rd revert: [78]
• 4th revert: [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Didn't warn because the user has a long block history and knows well about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Malke 2010#Talk page post User talk:Malke 2010#Bottom line [80]

Comments:
Malke 2010 accused another editor, Dylan Flaherty, of 3RR and started a talk thread titled that. The other editor only reverted once and so wanted the title changed to make that clear. Then an edit war ensued regarding the title of the talk page section. At some point Dylan added numbering to the diffs Malke listed and then it was reverted, hence the fourth diff above and the final nail in the 3RR violation. This type of nonsense is just plain disruptive and geared to intimidate. A recent ANI regarding tendentious editing by Malke was previously considering a long block, but resulted in being given the mentor Moonriddengirl. To me this recent silly scuffle reflects that the mentoring isn't working. I'm bringing this here since this disruptive behavior is identical to past problems. I wouldn't normally report a user for such a technical violation, but this disruption isn't stopping and its scaring away good editors who don't want the aggravation of dealing with this user.Chhe (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most pointless reports I have seen for a very long time; the specific matter is being dealt with on User talk:Malke 2010, and appears to be about to be concluded, when the reporter dropped a template onto the talkpage. A review of Malke 2010's contributions will note that she had already resolved the issue with a post to the disputed page, indicating that there had been no intention of accusation (as I understand it, Malke 2010 only posted diffs to a debate about 3RR and did not make or intend to infer any accusation herself). If Chhe has any issues in respect of the mentoring, then perhaps he would be so kind as to raise it with me or Moonriddengirl. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem is not with the original 3RR violation accusation, which was simply a mistake. Rather, like Chhe, I am bothered by Malke's overreaction to my signing their unsigned post, changing the misleading/offensive subject or numbering their links so I could respond. Even though a few editors wanted to just remove the entire section from the talk page, as it was the wrong venue, Malke refused to do so and edit-warred over and over again to get their way. This sort of prickliness makes cooperative editing very difficult. I believe that Malke is very much in the wrong, but I am not convinced that a block is appropriate. Please consider giving no more than a token block, if any. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that before, but never with you. To my knowledge you are a brand new mentor to Malke and in all do respect I don't see how you can succeed where Moonriddengirl has failed. Everybody wants to be a psychiatrist these days. One other point Moonriddengirl is Malke's third mentor. The user has had past mentors to no avail. You are now this users fourth. Its becoming tedious to everytime have talk with every new mentor that comes along who thinks they can cure this person.Chhe (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What LessHeard has stated is entirely accurate. As the edits clearly show, I've not accused any editor of violating 3RR. The editor in question, Dylan Flaherty repeatedly refactored my posts to make them appear to be accusations. Chhe being here is curious to me since he's been following me since September 2009. Ever since then he appears at regular intervals whenever there's a content dispute or other issue and he reverts my edits, etc., drops warning templates onto my talk page, etc.

All of these actions are over edits on pages he never edits. Seems a bit of wikihounding going on here. Also, I'd like to add that this issue has largely been resolved on the article talk page and my talk page, as LessHeard has pointed out. Also, I've not had other mentors as Chhe claims. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, because this EW thread needs more. :) I am the first official mentor Malke has, and Malke has done very well. Anyone who has followed her behavior can see clear differences in the way she interacts with others. I asked LessHeard vanU in to assist me, and he kindly consented to do so. As he indicates above, the situation is already being resolved. I do not believe that a block here would serve any constructive purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So the other two mentors were unofficial then?Chhe (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Malke does not consider that she's ever had prior mentors. There's no indication that I know of that she's ever had an official one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems in agreement that there shouldn't be a block, tagging it as such. Secret ^account 23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The backstory aside...so, person "A" might have mistakenly accused person "B" of 3RR. Then person "B" mistakenly thinks that Person "C" (Malke) was the one who made the mistaken accusation, and so mistakenly accuses Malke of mistakenly accusing him/her of 3RR. Then (in this notice) person "D" says, that, in the ensuing exchange on this, the person (Malke) mistakenly accused of mistakenly accusing "B" went over 3RR ON THE TALK PAGE when they relabeled the misnamed section where they were mistakenly accused of mistakenly accusing someone, but in the report discusses everything EXCEPT the "issue" that the complaint was about. Whew! North8000 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lot more backstory here than appears---but, all's well that ends well.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:GiacomoReturned reported by User:Giftiger wunsch (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: No single revision; see below.

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (doesn't really apply, it's an ANI discussion and has been repeatedly closed)

Comments:
User has been repeatedly reverting the closure of a thread by multiple admins, and simply reverted my warning. They have also been warned by another user. (edit conflict) Addendum: Note that while they don't appear to have reverted after my warning that they broke the 3RR, the discussion up until this point has made it clear that they're well aware of 3RR and intend to make their point "by any means necessary", even if it means edit warring to keep the thread open.GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets see if he reverts my revert, he was warned after he broke 3rr. If he decides to revert, a block is in order. Giano comment's about edit warring aren't helping the situation. Secret ^account 23:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was about to block for 24h, but he's already blocked for 48h. The intention in the first revert listed above is plain for all to see. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) blocked for 48 hours. Anything more would be punitive not preventative. Agree with above that there was a clear intention to edit war and get blocked for it. So warnings are irrelevant. The community can consider whether further sanctions are warranted for disruptive conduct: this block is limited to preventing edit-warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the thread is still open and editors are still discussing the issues two hours after Giano was blocked, the de facto consensus is that Giano was right when he judged the thread was not ready to be closed. Would you now be prepared to reconsider what the block is preventing? --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My take here is that 3RR is a brightline policy applicable across all namespaces in Wikipedia. Giano is no stranger to Wikipedia policies, however much he may disagree with them; but until he succeeds in achieving consensus for changing them, he should consider himself bound by them. The thread in question has been reopened without his input, although I would have been prepared to make the 3RR block the minimum of 24 hours. Further discussion after his block does not vindicate his unblocking, as far as I'm concerned, because the discussion has proceeded in arguably more constructive terms of reference. However, overall, I am not convinced that the discussion is going to be as constructive as it might; but I am convinced that Giano's block was appropriate. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia bullshit. Giano was foolish to keep reverting himself instead of letting others do it, but the admins here who were prematurely closing the discussion because they don't like what it says about someone are just as at fault. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Being right, or having consensus with you (neither of which I see evidence of), is no excuse for edit-warring. I'll only be convinced that the block no longer serves a preventative purpose if it is demonstrated by the user concerned. I am more than open to unblocking; I have my doubts that this block will last the full 48 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Giano's block; it's the fact that everyone else got off scot-free for being disruptive (I'll say it again: closing that discussion was disruptive) that irks me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase; "Typical Wikipedia bullshit". In the absence of collusion, when three or more different admins or even editors make the same value judgement that a discussion is fruitless, that amounts to a consensus and should not be overturned without discussion on the relevant Talk page. I see no such discussion. However, I see factionalism, divisions, and irrelevance, and these are things I do not expect to see in an encyclopedia. However, children, it's my bedtime, and I wish you sweet dreams of your perfect world; my experience is somewhat different. 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:66.108.204.65 reported by User:24.239.153.58 (Result: Protected)

Page: St. John's University (New York) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.108.204.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous block [86]
CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 66.108.204.65 has been on the st. john's university page making nasty comments to myself and other users. calling us sockpuppets and i believe the word is volitads. he then created a user name CAtruthwatcher. he continues to edit war and revert, finally is finally blocked 10:03, 6 November 2010 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) blocked CAtruthwatcher (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Violation of the three-revert rule: St. John's University (New York)) . Immediately he uses his IP address and continues to revert war. Please, what should I do about this blatent block evasion?

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

• 1st revert: [87]
• 2nd revert: [88]
• 3rd revert: [89]
• 4th revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.58 (talk • contribs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

Somewhat convoluted... I can't really see edit-warring... besides, username is already blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected one week by User:Tcncv. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

username is blocked but he is also edit warring on education in new york. can anything be done about the ip address for 48 hours? 24.239.153.58 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any current edit war at Education in New York City. And CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs) is still blocked, as well as 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs). -- EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look here at st john's page you'll see that once catruthwatcher was blocked, 66 immediately came in and started reverting the article back to the version that Catruthwatcher wanted. [93] 24.239.153.58 (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to the activity of IP socks, I think that semiprotection for St. John's University (New York) might be considered when full protection expires on Nov. 14. No need to decide that now. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluebadger1 reported by User:Soxwon (Result: 24h)

Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bluebadger1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert: [98]
• 5th revert: [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:
User responded to 3RR warning, so they have seen it. Since then, they have opened up a discussion on BLP template and not responded to talkpage. responded with the same behaviors as mentioned below. User has been reverted by 4 seperate users and improperly marked edits contrary to what he/she wants as vandalism. User also insists that those who wish to keep contentious material out of BLP are the ones who need sourcing. Soxwon (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs as formatted by 3rr.php:

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

1. 02:41, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "WP:V Referenced water boarding/charity promises, offers, and lack of fulfilment by SH. Removed subjective comment " though there has been no public follow-up" and referenced reason/followup.")
2. 08:34, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Manual restore due to Vandalism for Section Blanking. User:Niteshift36 states "that it happened is not in dispute". Then there is no undue weight issue, as these are facts and notable events.")
3. 09:12, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Freedom Concerts */ removed "liberal" as CREW Wiki article states group is non partisan.")
4. 09:12, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Public Offer to Undergo Water-boarding for Charity */ corrections")
5. 10:05, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395514884 - No references: If you chose to redo the change, please reference according to WP:V why they are liberal organizations, not non partisan.")
6. 10:38, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Freedom Concerts */ added "VoteVets.org, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans" according to the referenced article wp:v. Added rebuttal to Freedom Alliance President comments for equal weight.")
7. 18:47, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395553148 rv: due to wp:v and wp:wellknown. Just because one might it is negative, doesn't mean it is wp:coatrack. Referenced and relevant.")
8. 19:14, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Soxwon (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Bluebadger1. (TW)")
9. 19:20, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Soxwon (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Bluebadger1. (TW)")

• Edits 2,3,4 were consecutive and so were 5,6. So I make this to be six reverts in 24 hours by the usual 3RR calculation. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I gave a slightly more in depth explanation regarding BLP issues on the user's talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)