Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 21 January 2008 (→‎User:BigGabriel555 reported by User:SamEV (Result: ): page protected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

    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


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: 48 hours)

    Chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    These are based upon the last 24:28 hours:

    The user has continued to edit war at Chronic fatigue syndrome and other related articles. He is the subject of numerous disputes at his talk page, has filed requests at WQA (2nd), filed frivolous requests against disputed editors at ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: The user has a previous 31h block on 14 December for 5 reverts within 24 hours at the same article, with disruption to talk pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the time, I did not understand how 3RR was counted, and did not receive a warning. It was a simple mistake for which I apologized. Note, by the way, that User:Seicer's warning was immediately followed by this report, and therefore constitutes a fake warning. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Seicer is bandwagoning on a threatening editwar that I have prevented by starting RfC's, which he ignores. I am not the subject of any disputes and do not make frivolous requests. The diffs he mentions above pertain to several different content disputes on a very long article, all of which are presently discussed on the talk page, and do not constitute a 3RR violation (in fact, I am trying to follow 2RR these days). The content issue on Fibromyalgia is unrelated and has already been solved to my satisfaction. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am requesting that User:Seicer reverts his own edit. It is good practice not to make contested edits while an RfC is running. His edit also includes reverting an undisputed edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the edit marked above as "vandalism fix" is in fact a reversion of a constructive edit by an established editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not, I undid a revert of a constructive edit. In his haste to help his friend, user - who did not partake in any discussion - didn't notice that he destroyed an undisputed edit as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misinterpreting WP:3RR#Exceptions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Please note User:Seicer's further disruptive behaviour by votestacking and discrediting on User talk:Orangemarlin [1]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Seicer has just added another diff to his list from which it may look like his report follewed a new diff, instead of what really happened, that he filed his report right after a (therefore) fake warning.[2] This manner of editing is disruptive and misleading. Note that the edit in question is a reparation of damage done by User:Seicer who reverted a normal copy-edit as part of a massive revert. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for forty-eight hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked by User:Mangojuice ('not editwarring'). Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review the block/unblock situation

    I'd like to request that another administrator who has not been involved in this dispute or in the Wikiquette alerts involving Guido den Broeder review the situation. There is now a discussion going on in my Talk page (User talk:KieferSkunk#Concerning Guido) about whether Guido was edit-warring, and a contention on the part of at least one party that Seicer was executing an agenda against Guido in this 3RR notice. Here is the approximate order of events surrounding this entire issue as I've seen it:

    • Guido den Broeder filed a Wikiquette Alert against User:Orangemarlin claiming abusive behavior and false accusations regarding edits in the Fibromyalgia article. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Orangemarlin (2)
      • User:Cheeser1 told Guido that the WQA appeared to be frivolous and that the diffs did not appear to support his accusations against Orangemarlin.
      • Guido filed a second WQA against Cheeser1 accusing him of making false accusations and "bad edits". Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Cheeser1
      • I gave guidance to Guido letting him know why I felt the situation had gone the way it did. I also advised Orangemarlin that some comments he'd made about Guido were incorrect and unhelpful.
      • Cheeser1 closed the Orangemarlin WQA as frivolous. I closed the Cheeser1 WQA as frivolous.
      • Upon Cheeser1's request, I took the resulting discussion on the Fibromyalgia content dispute to Guido's talk page.
    • Guido received a 3RR warning from User:Seicer after the WQAs were closed, regarding reverts in Chronic fatigue syndrome. By his count, there were 6 reverts within 24 hours and 7 within 25 hours.
      • This 3RR notice was posted here shortly afterward. (It does stand to reason that more time may need to have been given between the 3RR warning on Guido's talk page and this noticeboard.)
      • User:Tariqabjotu issued a 48-hour block on Guido for violating WP:3RR.
      • Guido requested a block review, stating he was not edit warring and had done nothing wrong.
      • User:Mangojuice said he would consult with the blocking admin.
      • I reviewed the diffs in Seicer's warning and the full edit history of the article in question, then declined the unblock request on the grounds that it was a clear violation of 3RR.
      • Mangojuice unblocked Guido shortly afterward and went to my user talk page saying that if I felt Guido should be blocked for his behavior on the WQA page, I should block for that, but not for edit-warring. He asserted that Guido had not been edit warring, and that he had initiated two RFCs for the article and was discussing the issues there.
        • Mangojuice also stated that Seicer appeared to have an agenda against Guido ("...because Seicer felt the need, based on the WQA interactions, to try to have Guido blocked (after all, he wasn't editing the article in question)..."), which I also disagreed with and Seicer has denied.
      • Tariqabjotu stated that he disagreed with Mangojuice's rationale for unblocking.
      • Discussions ensued on my talk page and on User talk:Tariqabjotu#User talk:Guido den Broeder as to whether Guido had been edit-warring.
      • To Mangojuice, I've said that I disagree with his assessment, and that we'll apparently have to agree to disagree on this issue.
      • Seicer suggested that we get a third opinion on this matter. I agreed on the ground that it would be good to have a neutral opinion about each admin's handling of the situation.

    In my opinion, we should not allow users to engage in rapid reversions of edits that are not obvious vandalism (as is stated in WP:3RR), and we should furthermore not allow them to get away with it. I believe that unblocking Guido and defending his actions has sent Guido a message that he can basically do what he wants here on WP and get away with it, and I believe Guido's responses to the discussions following the unblock reflect that attitude. I am not asking for a formal review of Mangojuice, per se, but I would like additional guidance for future occurrences of this type of situation - if we're going to have the policies and be expected to enforce them, we need to do so equally. If we need to consider changes to the policies, we should do so through the appropriate channels of discussion rather than overriding each other's actions.

    Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For a short add before I head out for the evening, is this note that the user was unblocked on the basis of Tariqabjotu being offline for more than two hours that has me worried. An unblock should be carefully reviewed, not on the basis of a user being away, but upon the various policies. If the user was away for two hours (probably attending to real life duties), then that is immaterial to the case at hand. That's why we have the unblocking process, which was circumvented based upon the reason given above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Seicer, I didn't see an issue with that, since Mango's reason for unblocking wasn't that Tariq was away, but rather that he felt the block was unjustified. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. The unblock still circumvented the process, however. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above leaves out a lot of essential information and makes several unsubstantiated claims. I get the feeling that User:KieferSkunk is trying to find a backdoor and a hanging party in order to deal out some punishment anyway, after a wiser admin explained to him that that is not what policies and blocks are for, and doesn't much mind discrediting me in he process. And that's all I'm going to say, this is a complete waste of time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear, Guido: I am seeking the opinion of an uninvolved administrator to review my actions and those of the other admins involved in this case. So long as you stop being disruptive, no further action will be taken against you. I really wish you'd stop insinuating that we're all out to get you - it really doesn't help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, if you are going to undo another admins actions without being able to discuss with them, then you probably should discuss it at AN/I first and seek consensus for the unblock. Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Spartaz, that's certainly prudent but it isn't always necessary. In this case, I looked carefully through the edit history and made a decision based on policy, common sense, and the facts. If the situation had been a little simpler, I probably wouldn't have even asked Tariq; as it was, I asked if I had missed any information, only because there was a chance Tariq would respond quickly and because the situation was a bit complicated (and because it's courteous). My understanding is that's the way the unblock process works -- the point is to have an independent admin look at the situation and make their own judgement. When you do that you have to accept that admins will view the situation differently, and just because you wouldn't do things exactly the same way doesn't mean you should overturn an action, but only to overturn an action for a good reason. If you take that kind of care, you don't need to go to WP:ANI every time. Mangojuicetalk 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But you were not the admin who declined the unblock, KieferSkunk was. You decided that the reason that KieferSkunk and the original blocking admin's reason from Tariqabjotu wasn't adequate, and circumvented process and unblocked Guado yourself. That's not how the unblock process works; if Guido wanted to dispute KieferSkunk's decline, then he would have added another unblock notice and another independent admin would have come in and decided based upon the policies. Furthermore, you began discussions with Tariqabjotu on unblocking Guido, but decided that after two hours that you would unblock without even a two-way discussion, which circumvents policy. It should have been taken to ANI, if the original blocking admin was not available. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't an unblocking admin - I just declined the unblock. That doesn't automatically mean that the case is closed - I could very well have been wrong to decline the unblock. But with the original blocking admin and myself both of the opinion that the block was justified, we had a sort of mini-consensus already, and unblocking policy does state that you need to have a good reason for unblocking in situations like that. I agree that seeking consensus for an unblock (even if it's as simple as "give the guy another chance" or "the block was too hasty due to RFC discussion") would probably have been a better course of action in this situation, as it ensures that more eyes have viewed the situation and agree with the decision, rather than it being a unilateral decision that opens up discussions like this one.
    For the record, I am not trying to discredit anyone, cause extra drama, or seek extra punitive action. I simply want some feedback from an experienced admin (I am relatively new) as to how we all could handle this situation better in the future. Spartaz, thank you for your comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I mistyped what I wrote last night -- it was worded completely opposite of what I was meaning. It has since been corrected. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miyokan reported by User:JdeJ (Result: no violation; warned)

    Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [3]


    I’m not sure if this technically qualifies for 3RR, but definitely edit warring. Restoring a POV-box would not normally fall under the rule, but when the general consensus is that the box should go, it’s a bit different. None of the edits are exactly the same, but all consist of restoring the POV-box and constantly removing criticism that is very well-sourced. Primarily about criticism from inside Russia and a controversy surrounding the church. Perhaps more of vandalism than 3RR, as deleting sourced content is usually vandalism, but the strong edit warring by the user,(has been going on for almost a week now) makes me post it here. JdeJ (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • First revert isn't within 24 hours and 5th isn't a revert, so no violation but a strong warning for Miyokan. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:samurai commuter reported by User:eschoir (Result: both blocked 24 hours, will give explanation below)

    Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Template:Samurai commuter: Time reported: 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [4]


    NOTE: "4th" revert is not the same content selected by Eschoir to make the subject of the article look bad, it's differet content selected by Eschoir to make the subject look bad. Don't let him fool you. It's not a 4th revert of the same content. Samurai Commuter (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:

    An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

    Eschoir (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The return of User:BryanFromPalatine, defender of the faith, Eschoir (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Malformed Please provide the diffs for Samurai Commuter's reverts. What you have listed for diffs are edits by you. Metros (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Metros, Please carefully review any evidence posted here by Eschoir. He's been trying to bait me into an edit war for weeks. You are urged to review evidence of his edit warring at WP:RFAR#Free_Republic. Samurai Commuter (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs are still screwed up. Prodego talk 00:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope they're better now. Eschoir (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eschoir was deleting content that was supported by consensus, deleting the same sourced content three times within one hour. I repeatedly asked him in edit summaries to obtain consensus on the Talk page. The article is on ArbCom probation. Please also review his extensive history of disruptive behavior and his king-size COI problem, as documented in detail at WP:RFAR#Free_Republic. Eschoir was asked five days ago by Newyorkbrad, a member of the Arbitration Committee, to explain his "very troubling editing history" but has ignored that request, choosing instead to continue edit warring against consensus of other editors. For all these reasons, on the 2nd and 3rd diffs, I treated it as vandalism and used the letters "RVV" in my edit summary. Reverted vandalism is a 3RR exception. Samurai Commuter (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 81.103.115.49 and User:Sonoforion reported by User:Bettia (Result: article sprotected )

    Cardiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sonoforion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [5]


    • Diff of 3RR warnings:
    00:59, 18 January 2008 (Sonoforion)
    15:00, 18 January 2008 (81.103.115.49)

    I believe that these are the actions of the same user, using both his logged in username (2 reverts) and the IP shown above (2 reverts), repeatedly entering highly POV commentary into the Transport section of this article. Warning messages have been left on both talk pages by myself and other users. However, these appear to have been ignored and I believe that this user will probably continue this line of editing. B e t t i at a l k  15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article semi-protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reginmund reported by User:Metros (Result: Warned)

    Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary as Reginmund has 4 blocks for edit warring in the past.

    Reginmund has continuously added comments to the RFC on this article talk page after it was closed. He argues that he started making the comment before the RFC closed (which closed over 10 hours before he posted the first time). His past history with 4 blocks for edit warring (with the most recent block being a month for edit warring) proves that he should be well aware of the standards of editing. Metros (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, those edit warring to remove his comments were just as misguided as those edit warring to put them in. People are allowed to discuss articles on talk pages. Declaring a discussion closed and reverting further input is tricky at best. Friday (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well this is a discussion that dragged on for a month after another discussion on the same topic in July. The issue needs to be put to bed and to allow further discussion like that after the close of the RFC is inappropriate and only furthers the issue at hand. By allowing one user to comment after the request for comment has been closed, we're going to have to allow others to respond to his comments made after the closure. There is a clear consensus on the RFC, so the comments made by Reginmund after the closure of the RFC will do nothing to aid the situation. Metros (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, I just wish people had let him say his piece, and then ignored it. Friday (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but you know Wikipedians. If one user gets to say his piece after a discussion is closed, they're all going to want to say their piece which is only going to drag us on further. Metros (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Users can comment in an RfC after its closed along as its outside the archived area. I don't think a block is necessary here. At least the edit warring wasn't in an article. Tbo 157(talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what he is doing, trying to add inside the archived area after it was closed. And he just did it again. V-train (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fjnainoa reported by User:TheBilly (Result:Not a violation )

    Transcendent Man (film)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fjnainoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Removed COI template 5 times in 7 hours. She is the one with the conflict of interest (see artcle talk, and my talk). Situation explained to her multiple times by 2 editors (me and User:Elipongo). Actions also probably constitute meatpuppetry in connection with User:Robertptolemy, another person with a suspected COI (with fairly high confidence). Removed template again today. Overall stubborn, uncooperative edit warring with an agenda — TheBilly(Talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not a current violation; diffs provided happened more than 48 hours ago, and this board is for prevention, not punishment. I'll leave a message on Fjnainoa's user talk page about removing tags and ownership of articles, but the COI noticeboard is over there. - KrakatoaKatie 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reported it because she removed the tag again recently, showing that she only intends to continue, and that all the violations over the past few days are one big deliberate edit war. I'm reporting it for "prevention, not punishment"; I would have more recent violations to show but I didn't keep re-adding the template, beacuse I didn't want to be blocked myself for edit warring even though I wouldn't have restored it more than three times. In the future I'll remember to vindictively report people within the technical timeframe, rather than wait to see if I can fix the situation in a civil manner. Thanks! — TheBilly(Talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, well, I see now you made a lengthy comment on her talk page. That's one thing I was at least hoping for; Hopefully, that will be sufficient to stop her, because when mere lowly users repeatedly warned her she didn't seem to take it seriously. So, any outcome that gets the message across to her..... — TheBilly(Talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.161.129.43 reported by User:Terraxos (Result:no action )

    Tekken 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.161.129.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [6]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

    User appears to be engaged in an edit war over exactly which characters are available from the start and which are unlockable in Tekken 2. Terraxos (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This happened about 22 hours ago. We're here to stop, not punish. KrakatoaKatie 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is true, a 3RR block needs to be preventative, but this seems to be a static IP that comes back once in a few days just to revert the same page, thus there're chances that editwarring may go on if no intervention is done. There's already a 3RR warning on the talk page, and no edits have been made since then, so we'll see if the anon still persists on warring, if they do, that would warrant a block. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:B9_hummingbird_hovering reported by User:GourangaUK (Result: 72 hours)

    Vaishnavism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). B9_hummingbird_hovering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [12]


    Dispute over addition of undiscussed & highly controversial content, which the user seems unwilling to stop and discuss first in a sensible manner. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • 72 hours (given other recent infractions a longer then usual block was appropriate). Gouranga (UK) I considered blocked you as well. I does take 2 to edit war. You can leave material you don't like in an article for a while while you discuss it at the talk page and reach a consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. I will try my best. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obscuredata reported by User:Coldmachine (Result: Protected )

    Oxford Round Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Obscuredata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [17]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]

    This user has been engaged in an edit war on this article regarding the section on company officers. The user has been changing the sourced names, identified within this reference, and has broken the WP:3RR policy in the process of doing so. ColdmachineTalk 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seems like both sides are revert warring. I have protected the article for 48 hours to allow time to reach a consensus on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.158.67.84 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: No vio)

    Provisional Irish Republican Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.158.67.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [31]

    This user has been engaged in an edit war on this article regarding the Cat's on the article. This issue has been well discussed on both the talk page and the Cat talk pages. This has been pointed out in edit summarries also. Domer48 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BigGabriel555 reported by User:SamEV (Result: Page protected)

    Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigGabriel555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User BigGabriel555 edits capriciously and is currently opposed to all changes to the geography section. He first objected to the figure for the country's total area. So his figure was added along with another. But somehow that wasn't enough, as now he says vaguely that the previous version was better and more detailed, even though everything in his version is still the new, but with needed copyediting and reorganization of the text for clarity. I must point out that the geography changes BigGabriel555 opposes were made by a Dominican geographer, User:Pepemar2. SamEV (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has made a fifth revert within a 24-hour span, even after being warned he is already in violation of 3RR.--RosicrucianTalk 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The 5th revert introduced some possible vandalism into the mix, as it changed an IPA symbol and many interwiki links. SamEV (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, some assistance would be appreciated. He is still reverting.--RosicrucianTalk 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected, talk it out on the talk page, please. --B (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Toxicmango reported by User:Dark Shikari (Result: 1 week)

    EVE Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Toxicmango (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • He isn't reverting to a specific version--unrelated changes were added to the article between the last time he inserted his text into the article, so while he's reverting the exact same text he's posted before half a dozen times, there is no exact revision of the article that he reverted to.

    Has never discussed anything on the talk page, constantly talks about "reverting coverups" with absolutely no response to any requests for discussion. Already been blocked once, and has not stopped his edit warring at all regardless of anyone else's actions. Seems to be repeating the actions of the IPs that were trolling the article before the indefinite semi-protect. WP:DUCK applies.

    —Dark•Shikari[T] 06:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for one week. —Kurykh 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arbiteroftruth and User:HostileToVandals reported by User:Salona (Result: no vio)

    The Golden Path (drama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
    Arbiteroftruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HostileToVandals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HostileToVandals was an abusive sock, therefore Arbiteroftruth was perfectly entitled to revert the edits as vandalism. —Kurykh 07:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.168.86.129 reported by User:Callmebc (Result: both blocked)

    Killian Documents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.168.86.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]

    An anonymous IP, 67.168.86.129, with a short edit history substantially changed the intro to Killian Documents without discussion. I felt the edit changes were not exactly in the best interest of the article so I reverted them and posted my reasons for doing so on the IP's Talk page and requested that such changes should be proposed and discussed first. The IP did respond on the article talk page, but basically ignored the discussion to keep reinserting his/her edits back into the article. I belatedly noticed that I had accidentally done a 4th revert to 67.168.86.129's edits and I apologize for that (I've gotten into trouble over revert wars before), but I did leave alone 67.168.86.129's last edit insert to stop the edit warring. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I just noticed that 67.168.86.129's edit inserts vary a little bit (I've had a busy Wiki day), and that the last one consists of relatively minor edits, but still, you know.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this report that the IP is edit warring, but so is Callmebc. This is especially disturbing given that Callmebc returned rather recently from an indefinite block which seems to have been partly as a result of edit warring. I'm blocking the IP for 24 hours and Callmebc for two weeks since this is far from a first offence. I will also report this to ANI so that those who are more familiar with Callmebc can weigh in and determine if we should reconsider his unblock. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tankred reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 31 hours)

    Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR blocks show familiarity with the rule (block log [33])

    A short explanation of the incident. Despite previous clashes with the 3RR rule this editor continues his disruptive style of communication and disruptive editing. Previous admin action has not stopped his edit warring at all, only on the Kingodm of Hungary article we can see a number reverts other than the ones reported (one [34]. just a few hours before the ones being reported making for 5 reverts in about 27 hours], and edit warring on other articles is evident as well from contributions (one example is edit warring over multiple Hungarian city articles at the same time, examples, [35] [36] often with only minutes between edits). It was only five days ago that an admin gave Tankred a second chance writing "The violation happened a few days ago" as a reason for not blocking him for 3RR. The fact that he used this opportunity to start a massive edit war only a few days later and continue beyond 3RR means that the situation is highly unlikely to improve without a warning type block. Hobartimus (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doktor Wilhelm reported by User:drag-5 (Result: not blocked)

    Guyver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doktor Wilhelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [37]


    The user keeps changing the page without any concensus. I have tried to retain hte integrity of teh article and to acquire a third party view on hte incident but the user keeps reverting. I have tried to follow wikipedia policy and take it into hte discussion page but the user has change the page anyway. Drag-5 (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blocked. You seem to not understand what a disambiguation page is. Adding a link to Guyver (DJ) when that article doesn't exist and you provide no context for creating such an article is unhelpful. Disambiguation pages should almost never contain redlinks and if they do, it should only be temporary (ie, you're in the middle of typing up the new page).--B (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:59.190.130.200 reported by User:RomaC (Result: Stale, not blocked)

    MV Steve Irwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 59.190.130.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User is repeatedly inserting the word "illegal" as an unqualified characterisation of the boarding of the whaling ship, despite a consensus against that on the Talk Page. User is not discussing their edits, and is similarly active on the Sea Shepherd page. RomaC (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale, please discuss it with the user and re-present if the unconstructive behaviors resume. --B (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Corticopia reported by User:Ed Fitzgerald (Result: Corticopia 2 weeks, Ed Fitzgerald warned)

    Continental United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The article in question had been heavily copy-edited by me [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] on December 30th. The article as it existed was repetitive, badly organized and confusing in details, and I attempted to fix these problems. The article has existed more or less without change, until today, when User:Corticopia, without attempting to fix whatever flaws existed in the re-written article, instead reverted to the previous version without discussion. Invited to talk, he continued to revert wholesale without discussing the merits of the edited version, or dealing with what specific problems he found. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The copyedits, on the whole, have resulted in an inferior article, with numerous details more unclear than previously (e.g., distinction between continental/contiguous US, original footnotes). This editor's initial deletions of contentcopyedits were not justified sufficiently through edit summaries, so I restored the content which prevailed for months beforehand. The numerous flaws were pointed out both through edit summaries and on the talk page -- please consult -- regarding these recent edits. And, despite pointing these out and citing BRD, this editor has not yielded one iota, saying merely I am "wrong" and reverting just as well. Of course, I would not be surprised if this editor were to await a potential 3RR block of me and the passage of 24 hr before restoring his substandard content. So, if I am blocked, so should he for also engaging in edit warring. Corticopia (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am always willing to discuss any edit I've made -- I have done so extensively in the past, and have tried to justify my changes. Sometimes I prevail, sometimes I don't. But I'm not willing to do so "under the gun" of continued reversion. All Corticopa had to do was stop reverting when I posting a warning that 3RR was approaching, and discuss specifics, and we probably would have been able to arrive at a compromise -- but I see from a perusal of the user's edit history and his block log, that this is not the way this user has operated in the past, when "my way or the highway" seems to have been the usual modus operandi. I would be happy with a revert to the previous version of the article, and a slap on both of our wrists and being told to play nice, if it will provoke some kind of cooperation from this user. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, as Corticopia's history shows pretty clearly that slaps on the wrist do not work. I've blocked him for two weeks. As Ed Fitzgerald doesn't have a similar history, I'm going to stick with a warning not to edit war in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to put the result in the header so that other admins patrolling the noticeboard will see you have already handled the issue. Thanks. --B (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eschoir reported by User:Veritas (Result: Eschoir and Samurai Commuter blocked 24 hours)

    Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Note that the 3rd and 4th reversions are slightly different because they include a strange edit where the words "Free Republic" are turned into one word - I believe this was done in order to throw off reviewers from noticing the 3RR violation that focuses on the removal of cited information. Veritas (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good work, Veritas. You barely beat me to it. I put a 3RR warning on his Talk page just a day or two ago, and then he almost nailed me for a 3RR violation cleaning up after him, and he quoted chapter and verse about "in whole or in part" and "whether involving the same or different material." [50] Furthermore, he's an experienced editor with nearly a year at Wikipedia and thousands of edits. He is fully familiar with the 3RR rule. No warning was necessary. Admins, please do your duty.
    When contemplating the length of his block, please review the compiled evidence (diffs) of his extensive and, to Arbitrator Newyorkbrad, "troubling" pattern of disruptive edits as provided at WP:RFAR#Free_Republic. I recommend two weeks. Samurai Commuter (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm blocking Eschoir and Samurai Commuter both 24 hours. You guys have been going at it revert warring with each other for a week. Stop it and take it to the talk page. As you are both aware from your WP:RFARB discussion, this article is on probation. If you are disruptive, you can and will be blocked or can be banned from editing the article. --B (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B, SC has repeatedly tried that and his edit summaries have repeatedly asked Eschoir to take it to the Talk page. He views the Talk page as an opportunity to bait people. Neutral Good (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving an invitation to discuss in a reversion is not an exemption from 3RR. It's somewhat of an unhelpful gesture if you think about it - "please discuss, but leave the page on my version while you do" isn't a good way to go about resolving a dispute. --B (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you consider reading this? WP:RFAR#Free_Republic Neutral Good (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read it but it's mostly irrelevant to this question. Both sides violated 3RR. Neither side was committing blatant vandalism or anything that could be construed as allowing an exemption from revert limitations. --B (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you thought about page protection? Neutral Good (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ViperNerd reported by User:Thör (Result: protected)

    University of South Carolina steroid scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ViperNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: Multiple versions reverted to, has been edit warring this article for several hours today.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: See explanation.

    This account is a sock of multiple IPs blocked 3 times over the last month or so. The other sock IPs are: 65.188.38.31, 65.188.37.65, 62.232.41.140, 66.56.149.230, 201.155.32.234, 69.60.114.58, 89.96.176.162, and possibly 161.156.99.11 One of the reverts above is using one of the socks. The behavior is clearly disruptive. Much effort to game the system. Constant, disruptive edit warring and reverting of well cited material for POV purposes. I will also submit the necessary sock request for all of these. Request made at WP:RFP to protect article, which has been done. 24 hour block will not be enough, user recently returned from 7 day block as 65.188.38.31 and jumped right back at it. Thör hammer 07:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected by Philippe (talk · contribs). Please seek dispute resolution with your fellow editors on the page. --slakr\ talk / 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Carl.bunderson (Result: Protected)

    2006 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    He is reverting something that not cause an issues, he censored out the section that have notability (but link dead) and claim is not notability. Where got this kind of policy in Wikipedia? Aleenf1 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that he is in violation as well. And looking at the talk page, he has refused to address my concerns, and now has declared an intention of ignoring the suggestion he was given in response to his report of me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could block both of you but seems like it'd be pretty punitive at this point so I've protected the page. John Reaves 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Itub (Result:No action )

    • Previous version reverted to: see details below; initial action was not reversion but deletion of text, followed by three reverts.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: Considered unnecessary, given that the editor has plenty of experience and has even been through arbitration before.

    First removed--without discussion--a sentence about the homeopathic uses of strontium chloride that had been in the article for a long time (first added by Physchim62 (talk · contribs) on 2005 [51]), and then engaged on a revert war with Travisthurston (talk · contribs) and Neparis (talk · contribs) over it. Itub (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No action for now, you're all guilty of edit warring (i.e. blockable) so I suggest taking it to the talk page and if that doesn't work, ask for page protection. John Reaves 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is stale anyway and ScienceApologist has already been blocked as a part of arbcom enforcement. --B (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking to me? I have never even edited this article. The extent of my involvement was posting a couple of comments on Talk:Potassium dichromate, an article which I haven't edited either except to fix typos and such. It was during that discussion that I learned of the editing war going on at strontium chloride. --Itub (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=185868302"