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

User:William_M._Connolley reported by Flegelpuss (talk) (Result: No Violation, WP:BLP clearly applies)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Phil Jones (climatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 08:23, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Gnomatic (talk) to last version by Atmoz")
2. 21:37, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv: no, per BLP, exactly as before")
3. 21:44, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv, BLP exemption to 3RR invoked, see BLP noticeboard")
4. 22:09, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv, BLP exemption to 3RR invoked, see BLP noticeboard")
5. 22:17, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 71.239.229.241 (talk) to last version by William M. Connolley")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=327185608&oldid=327185229

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phil_Jones_(climatologist)#News_about_Phil_Jones_and_the_CRU

Comments:
Connelley's behavior is extremely unethical, and he has an extensive record of engaging in censorship in gross violation of Wikipedia's rules. Please consider much stiffer penalties than just banning for a day.

Flegelpuss (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I thank F for at least having the grace to include my edit summaries, where I explicitly invoke the BLP examption to 3RR, which I believe applies in this case. I've also started a discussion of this matter at WP:BLPN William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the "attempt to resolve the dispute" is dated 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC), i.e. after all the reverts.

Note also that anon edit warring continues at Phil Jones (climatologist). It could do with being semi'd William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing: 71.239.229.241 (talk · contribs) most certainly has broken 3RR there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Blocked by BozMo. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

When an editor cries "censorship", it's a good bet that he's POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

More relevant, when one includes heavily negative information based to a blog, WP:BLP applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Flegelpuss was a sockpuppet, now blocked, see [1]. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Nigelj reported by User:WVBluefield (Result: stale)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nigelj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [2] Sock Rv
• 2nd revert: [3] Sock Rv
• 3rd revert: [4] - BLP - moved to and discussed on talk, where I was thanked by original contributor for my politeness - Nigelj
• 4th revert: [5] - BLP - not a revert at all but a normal edit - Nigelj
• 5th Revert: [6] Sock Rv - reinstating sensible material direct from cited source that had been removed by previous edit for no good reason - Nigelj
• 6th Revert: [7] - rm possible first step for a largely irrelevant 'link farm' that added nothing except a link and had not been discussed for consensus -Nigelj
• 7th Revert: [8] - previous edit to 'put why the incident is notable up front' simply gave extra prominence to one POV by taking it out of what was otherwise a balanced para - Nigelj
• 8th Revert: [9] - this one was my mistake, removing two words, due to my not thoroughly reading cited source. Mea culpa. Was corrected later with no opposition from me - Nigelj
• 9th Revert: [10] - BLP - There is nothing in either citation to support the wording added (which was a direct accusation directed at living persons). The Fox cite added nothing to the NYT cite. All this had been explained several times in recent edit summaries by others, but same uncited accusation had been reverted back in again - Nigelj
• 10th Revert: [11] - BLP - There was already a discussion on this on Talk, where consensus was forming that the person's blog item was irrelevant, even if a third-party RS could be found - Nigelj

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

These took place over 27, not 24 hours but it shows a gross pattern of edit warring with multiple editors to remove material from the article. Not every RV is obvious, but 8 of the 10 cited RV’s make very clear that an edit was “undone”, so please look closely. WVBluefield (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: while this looks like an impressive list, the few I looked at were all reverting edits of banned socks (User:EggheadNoir, User:Tanshai) or explicitly claimed (IMHO, correctly) BLP exemption to 3RR. I think that reporting people for reverting banned socks amounts to disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have identified the 3 (out of10) reverts that Nigelj made against a sockpuppet. It should be noted that this still leaves us with 7rv's in 27 hours and the reverts were made before either of the above two editors were identified as sockpuppets. WVBluefield (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You've left in the BLP exempt reverts. I haven't checked that you've got all the socks, either William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry this is stale now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits in which I am accused of edit warring and made brief comments next to most of them above above. I am new to this page and so apologise if that is not the place to add comments. Most of what I know from, and now re-read in, WP:3RR does not seem directly applicable to this case: This was not a 'war' between me and another editor about any particular piece or a few items of content, but a new article that was attracting lots of edits of all kinds from a large number of people at the same time. Many of those people seemed to have a strong agenda that appeared to be to extract the maximum 'blood' from the subject in many ways at once. The subject concerns a delicate legal situation, allegedly stolen copyright material, and potentially serious personal attacks against living people, their careers and their livelihoods. I have been contributing to WP since 2004 and have never come across such a situation before. I happened to have a day off and decided to watch the article for a while - which turned out to be most of the day. At some stages in the day there were several other sensible and experienced editors around on the page and it seemed relatively easy to establish and maintain a legally tenable consensus. At other times I seemed to be be on my own against what seemed at times like mob-rule, with unreasonable edits and attitudes coming from many others at the same time. Many of these editors were unwilling to engage in sensible Talk page discussion no matter how I tried, or to abide by any consensus, or even basic BLP and RS principles.

In hindsight I now regret having spent the day refreshing my watchlist only to find more tendentious edits on this page and its talk page most times. I should have logged off and found something better to do on my day off. It is interesting to see that, if a news item excites enough unruly editors and their sock puppets, for long enough, then the 3RR means that a very large number of sensible editors are necessary on the case to keep a WP article from turning into a legal and policy nightmare. That is something for you guys to work out.

If by my actions and edits yesterday, I have done any harm to the page in question or to the Wikipedia project as a whole, then I am truly sorry. I believed throughout that I was doing the best I could in the circumstances for both. I am very committed to the philosophy of freedom in general, and to FLOSS, GPL, the Creative Commons, and Wikipedia in particular. I hope that what I have experienced in the midst of that edit-storm was not a tiny example of the kind of societal breakdowns that we may see if global warming and resource depletion take a hold and begin to reduce people's standard of living in the West in the decades to come, but I suspect that maybe it was. Either way, I shall be avoiding such situations, where the political right and the climate sceptics may, or appear to, try to take control. I shall avoid them very clearly in the future. --Nigelj (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that after edit conflicts, this had already been marked 'stale' before I put my two-pennies-worth in. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:186.36.24.47 reported by User:Likeminas (Result: is looking stale now)

Page: Chilean people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 186.36.24.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

IP has reverted (two different editors) 4 times within 24hrs. He's been warned on edit warring and asked to please join the discussion at the talk page to no available. There seems to be strong evidence that shows that 186.36.24.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of user Kusamanic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please review. Likeminas (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Died down now, please reopen this as and if this resumes. I would also suggest you looked at asking fro semi protection. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Sukiari reported by Verbal (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sukiari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 09:35, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "restored "exculpatory leak" and threat of violence")
2. 09:39, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 09:41, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 09:44, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327638080 by Verbal (talk) per talk, where?")
5. 09:50, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 09:54, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327638928 by William M. Connolley (talk) stop removing links and apropos additions.")
7. 10:05, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327640088 by HaeB (talk) explained, and the ip is wikileaks.")
8. 10:20, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327641591 by Stephan Schulz (talk) wikileaks is widely cited on the wikipedia")
9. 10:23, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327641902 by HaeB (talk)It is indeed directly verifiable, and wikileaks was down not 15 minutes ago per DNS resolution desp")

• Diff of warning: here

These are just the clear reverts, there have been many more such edits but I feel this is more than enough to show that 3RR has been broken in under an hour. These edits are also restoring material that breaks WP:BLP policy and links to illegally obtained copyrighted emails and data. This has been pointed out to the user on the talk page, but they continue to edit war.

—Verbal chat 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The editor has now made two further reverts and indicates that they continue to cause disruption on their talk page. Verbal chat 10:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Independent report of the same behavior, merged to make one case:

Previous version reverted to: N/A. The going is hot at the article. The user keep re-adding a link to the stolen email archive in violation of WP:ELNEVER to various versions of the article.

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]
• 5th revert: [25]
• 7th revert: [26]
• 8th revert: [27]
• 9th revert: [28]
• 10th revert: [29]
• 11th revert: [30]
• 12th revert: [31]

Arguably, the first is not a revert, but just a plain policy violation, so the numbering may be off by one....

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Unneccessary, user has been here for year. Still, there is one at [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Link_to_the_leak_is_apropos..., also see the users talk page.

Comments:

It's a hot topic in the blogosphere at the moment, but this behavior is simply unacceptable.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NW (Talk) 10:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lekim74 reported by User:Anomie (Result:not 3RR see note below )

Page: List of country calling codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lekim74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Note this is not a WP:3RR report. It is a report of WP:Edit warring.

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]
• 5th revert: [38]
• 6th revert: [39]
• 7th revert: [40]
• 8th revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

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

Comments:

On 28 September 2009, it was announced that Abkhazia was going to stop using numbers under Georgia's country code (+995) and start using numbers under Russia's (+7); apparently this offends Georgia.[44] This change was reflected in the article List of country calling codes the same day. On 13 November, Lekim74 registered an account and immediately edited to manually revert this change. Thinking that was an odd edit, I looked into the situation, discovered that the code was recently changed as mentioned above, and made a more thorough changeover to the article. Lekim74 edited to manually undo those edits again three days later, and I reverted; at this point, I would not have reverted again without talk page discussion. Two days later, Lekim74 edited to manually undo the edits again, User:Glenn L reverted and started a talk page discussion, and I posted to Lekim74's talk page to notify him of the discussion. Lekim74 redid his edit again the next day, I warned him that further reverts without discussion would lead to a block; Lekim74 has manually reverted to his preferred version 4 more times since then, and has not once commented to the talk page (or, in fact, made any other edit to Wikipedia or even used an edit summary).

At no point has anyone violated WP:3RR (I suspect this is by accident rather than design on Lekim74's part), but it seems clear from his contributions that Lekim74 is only here to continually revert in an attempt to keep this one bit of information out of this one article. Anomie⚔ 12:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can't in conscience block them right off as they are very new but you have invited them to discuss and if there is further reversions without discussions please leave a note on my talk page and I'll take care of them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 5 reverts after the personal invitation to discussion and 4 after a warning that further reverts could result in a block aren't sufficient? Wow. Anomie⚔ 18:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:WVBluefield (Result: WMC Trouted)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47] removal of citations and sourced allegations of academic intimidation
• 4th revert: [48]
• 5th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Connolloy along with several other editors have been edit warring on this article since it was created. Connolloy was not reverting any sockpuppets in the above instances. The short term solution is to block the offending editors and allow them some cool down time. A longer term solution would be to impose a 1RR restriction to limit these kinds of infractions. WVBluefield (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A block doesn't seem to be necessary here, and would likely be counterproductive (unless it is WVBluefield's intent to inflame the situation). WMC's most recent edits were five hours ago; WVBluefield's template warning arrived about twenty minutes ago. Looking at the article history, it appears that a single prolific edit warrior (Sukiari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) racked up at least nine reverts of the same material within an hour's span of time. At least seven other editors were reverting the addition of a an external link to a copyright violation; that accounts for two of WMC's reverts above. As soon as Sukiari was blocked, the article calmed down again (such as it is; right now the article in any form probably represents a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTH). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Removing links to copyright violations falls under 3RR exceptions. And WVBluefield's templating a regular 5 hours after the fact and then reporting him without further edits (or even any indication that he is online) seems to be hardly appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

5 Hours ago I was still asleep so I don’t see what that has to do with anything, I don’t live here. The way to deal with a user like Sukiari is to report him here, not engage in an edit war with him. Contrary to your claims Mr Schulz, none of Connolly’s edits dealt solely with CW violations are were all related to disputed content. He was using claims of CW (rightly or wrongly) to also revert non CW content. It also goes without saying that since WMC has a significant conflict of interest he should be treading very lightly on this topic in the first place. WVBluefield (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Not sure I buy the copyvio argument. The point of WP:COPY is to protect the legitimate commercial and artistic interests of authors of creative content. In this case, it looks like the policy is being mis-used to suppress politically damaging material. I would think a link to the material might fall under an exception to WP:COPY - it could certainly be argued that there is a strong public interest in the material being released. Ronnotel (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove it first, argue that there should be an exception after that. Wikipedia leans toward the conservative side on copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically I think I'm guilty. If it helps, I promise to leave the article alone for the next 24h. To weasel, I think I could claim that [52] and [53] might just sneak in under the BLP or unsuitable-external-links exemption, though I think that would be pushing it. I'll also point out that [54] appears to have been an uncontroversial improvement to the article William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest, Edit warring, repeated incivility in edit summaries and talk page threads and less than consistent use of BLP are grounds enough for a block. WVBluefield (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• WMC's offer to stand back from the article for 24 hours is accepted - consider yourself trouted WMC.Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I accept the trout and offer my apologies William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mo HH92 reported by User:Manticore55 (Result: Use DR)

Page: Stephenie Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mo HH92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• the page you are reporting the violation on doesn't exist please fix up the report as it won't be actioned otherwise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I repaired the header; report should be ready for review now. User:Mo HH92 seems to be repeatedly removing a well-sourced Criticism section from the article. I'll leave him a note, and ask him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the criticism section, but why include it again when it is already mentioned in the main Twilight series page? The author's article only comments on her life, backgrounds and literary achievements. All the criticism of her books needs to go on the pages of the books itself and not on HER article. People may find it extremely confusing.Mo HH92 ^Talk 18:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Slightly stale report where subsequent discussion has shown a willingness to discuss changes to avoid a continuing edit war. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:69.158.55.58 reported by User:Turkish Flame (Result: ~page protected)

Page: Newly industrialized country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 69.158.55.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.158.56.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]
• 5th revert: [63]
• 6th revert: [64]
• 7th revert: [65]
• 8th revert: [66]
• 9th revert: [67]
• 10th revert: [68]

Comments:

This IP user is pushing his/her POV continuously. At least, a protection to the article is required. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I edit anonymously, but a review of the diffs doesn't reveal more than 3 reverts in a day. This has been the subject of ongoing dispute, with discussion on the talk page, which the reporter has not been a party to; in addition, the reporter (whose username is telling) has been blocked for similar edit warring in the past. One should not throw stones in a glass house. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't violate the 3RR, but you started an edit war. Please see the talk page of the article. All users who commented there are against to your POV. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then your report is a misrepresentation and, since you are a party to the 'warring', seems an attempt to cast others in a negative light. Your initial revert recently made no mention of your correction (readding Europe to the table), but your block history speaks volumes. And I didn't start an edit war: this issue has dated back for years (per the section initially created), and a number of users have clearly supported my stance. Others, included troublesome editors, may believe differently. I recommend getting out of the otherwise empty house before throwing those stones of yours. No more comment. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• you are both as bad as each other. I locked the page for a day to allow tempers to cool and discussions to take place. Further edit warring by either party will result in blocks. Get a consensus on the talk page instead. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ASOTMKX reported by User:67.66.219.252 (Result: Declined)

Page: Feel It (Three 6 Mafia song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ASOTMKX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [69]
• 2nd revert: [70]
• 3rd revert: [71]
• 4th revert: [72]

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

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

Comments:

• Comment. The links that User:67.66.219.252 has been adding, and User:ASOTMKX has been reverting, seem to be spam links (free song downloads) that violate WP:EL. I have now warned 67.66.219.252 on their talk page about posting spam links. In my opinion, User:ASOTMKX was right to revert the addition of these links repeatedly. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• No 3RR warning was given. I have now notified ASOTMKX of this discussion. It is arguable whether a download link is actually spam when this is the article about the song. One might argue the song isn't notable enough to have its own article, but that's another question. ASOTMKX has made about 40 reverts in the last couple of days, some of which are self-reverts. Mysterious. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the link was spam and agree with Dawn Bard completely. ASOTMKX (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Above under the Definition of the three revert rule it states "The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons."

The 3rd and 4th revert were self reverts which this page says do not count. And it also says the reverts do not apply to copyright violations, which I believe the link is. ASOTMKX (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• An admin can now change this discussion title to Result: No Violation, because I am completely in the right. And i also agree to the suggestion that EdJohnston put on my talk page to post the situation at WT:WPSPAM if this type of thing happens again. ASOTMKX (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Declined See comments above. All seems reasonable. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fragma08 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 31h )

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fragma08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [76]
• 5th revert: [77]
• 6th revert: [78]

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

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

Comments: This is a WP:COATRACK blp violation. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please in your own words--rather than just referencing/linking to the guidance, explain why this particular source is a violation. We know the rule, but how do you believe it applies to the fatwa?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In my defence, I would like to bring to the board's attention, which I also explained several times to User:Hipocrite, that this is not a coatrack issue. The grounds on, which User:Hipocrite removed the content ("coatrack and defamatory information"), when clearly one can not a claim a person's work or words are defamatory to same persons article, were the reason for my reverts which I also explained in my edits as well on his talkpage. I will eloborate.

The article was reduced to a stub following discovery of copyright issues, hence large part of the biography was removed at 21:16, 24 November 2009 . Only 6 minutes later, User:Hipocrite calls the article coatrack at 21:22, 24 November 2009 and repeatedly removes the information pertaining to the mufti, which could also be reported as violation. Opinions and fatwas of muftis are quite common to the relevant scholar's biography (interlinked), if you look at other mufti or scholar articles on wikipedia. Thus I fail to see the rationale of User:Hipocrite. Attempted disussion with User:Hipocrite, resulted in him telling me, he did not want to discuss with me, which I respected. I now learn he has reported me.

Fatwas are dependent on the mufti or scholar, who issues them and therefore talking about secondary references is irrelevant as the fatwa depends solely on the fatwa issuer again dependent on sectarian background. The fatwa is, what the mufti issues, and the content was quoted in context but as it was in his own words. The information belongs there but the article must be expanded. One can not seriously expect expansion to happen straight away as it is time consuming.

Hence the report filed by User:Hipocrite is quite irrational and coatrack claims are unfounded considering the above. I can not help feel this is an attempt based on bias of getting rid of editors, one does not agree with. Fragma08 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More reverts:

• 7th revert (still in one 24 hour period) [81] - Removes the tag directing readers to talk to discuss the coatrack issue.
• 8th revert (still in one 24 hour period) [82] - reverts yet another editor removing the coatracky rape discussion.

Is this page watched by anyone? Hipocrite (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue can not be a coatrack 6 minutes afte majority of the biography has been removed. The whole coatrack argument would be valid if it was over longer period of time. Hence tag removed. I did not see the harm therefore. If this really was a coatrack I would have no problem, but in the period of 6 minutes, hardly. Allow for time for the article to be built again with references.Fragma08 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• 31h for the clear 3RR violation - I would advise User:Hipocrite to stop at 3RR in future where the BLP issue is not completely obvious, though. Black Kite 12:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Spitzer19 reported by User:Gaius Octavius Princeps (Result: 3 days)

Page: National Democratic Party of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Spitzer19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86]
• 5th revert: [87]
• 6th revert: [88]
• 7th revert: [89]
• 8th revert: [90]
• 9th revert: [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92] The User deleted a previous warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

Endless reverts. Completely unreasonable behaviour from user who has been blocked several times before for this. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) -->

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Though reduced to 24 hours as they haven't edited in 2 days. I was distracted andf failed to realise the date stamps. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:119.122.174.129 reported by User:ianmacm (Result: 31h / page protected)

Page: Flash Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Template:119.122.174.129

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

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

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

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

Comments:

There is an ongoing problem at Flash Video with IP users based in China adding links to brand name software. The issue has been discussed on the talk page, but it is becoming tiring to remove this without discussion. Also a violation of WP:NPA here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• 3 spamlink entries and an NPA = 31 hours. Page semi-protected. Black Kite 12:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fragma08 reported by User:Quantpole (Result: 31h)

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fragma08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]
• 4th revert: [97]
• 5th revert: [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute: [100], [101] and see [102]

Comments:

Repeated reinsertion of material into an article that is only sourced to a persons website, with no independent sources to show importance of info. Continuing edit warring after being warned. Quantpole (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Ooops, sorry, whilst (very slowly) putting this together I failed to notice that this had already been reported. No further action needed thanks! Quantpole (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked Nja²⁴⁷ 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:YellowFives (Result: Declined)

• Three-revert rule violation on Anwar al-Awlaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 06:43, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "this statements is true, and RSs in the article backing individual instances support it")
2. 18:29, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by 92.10.110.132 identified as vandalism to last revision by YellowFives. (TW)")
3. 18:36, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Ideology */")
4. 01:33, 25 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327763527 by YellowFives (talk)")

In three of these reverts, Epeefleche is edit warring to include a WP:BLP violation, which I have explained in my summaries. The revert of 92.10.110.132 is a misuse of Twinkle rollback to call a content dispute vandalism.

(This is not the first recent instance of calling good-faith IP edits vandalism. Epeefleche left five consecutive vandalism warnings at User talk:98.204.201.79, starting at 17:26, for a series of six content-dispute edits which had already ended at 17:09, two of which had edit summaries which made clear that this was a content dispute and not vandalism. The IP editor then asked at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki why the warnings, and received no answer.)

Please let me know if the harassment of the IP editor and the abuse of Twinkle can not be dealt with here, so I can report it at AN/I instead. ~YellowFives 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks very much like a content dispute to me. Let's see:

• revert one
• revert two
• revert three
• revert four

I count 4:3 in favour of the plaintiff. Why don't you discuss - a bunch of edit summaries do not constitute a discussion. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a content dispute. Where do you suppose edit warring usually happens, if not in content disputes? That does not make it acceptable for Epeefleche to break 3RR. My removals of BLP-violating content are required by the WP:BLP policy, which says that it is Epeefleche who must argue to gain consensus for their inclusion.

That does not address Epeefleche's harassment of the IP editor and abuse of Twinkle, by the way. ~YellowFives 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also this edit which you called "revert one" was not a revert. ~YellowFives 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. My above-indicated four edits differ. Some deal with completely different paragraphs. Some revise the language in an effort to placate YF. One adds footnotes (that were already in the article, but not appended to the sentence).
2. As explained to YF in the very first edit, the statements that YF and an unknown IP in tandem were deleting have RSs, already reflected in the article.
3. There was no synth. The RSs made the indicated statements.
4. There was not BP violation. The RSs made the statements.
5. The IP reverted at #2 above on YF's list--who has made only two references ever--made two deletions, both of which included deletions of refs, and didn't even leave an edit summary for either deletion.
6. When I reverted IP 98.204.201.79 (the second IP YF mentions), and left an edit warning, it was appropriate, as YF well knows, and as a glance at those edits will show (they consist, for example, of the IP's deletions of sourced statements along with their footnotes, and insertion by the IP of debatable unsourced blog-like statements). See here.
7. YF then wikihounded me (something he has done before, and continues to do), and told that IP in essence to ignore my warnings--writing "Your edits are not vandalism".
8. YF has been a problematic, tendentious editor who has appeared at article I edit shortly after his recent creation, and even before the Muslim Mafia AfD that he brought. A glance at his interactions with other editors there gives a sense for his style. He insisted on fighting with other editors, who voted 17-2 against his AfD (with one telling me after he would have changed the vote to 18-1 if I had asked him to take another look). One of the other editors there was concerned as well that YF might be wikihounding him.
9. Just 12 days ago I had a problem with YF constantly reverting me. I tried edit summaries. I then tried discussion on his talk page. To no avail. Only then did I go the 3RR page. During that discussion, the information YF was deleting as not backed by a RS (despite contrary views on the RS Noticeboard) was ultimately supported by clear RSs as well, so the issue became moot. Whereupon Black Kite -- embroiled in a concurrently in a separate dispute with me, but somehow not seeing that as a COI -- closed the 3RR as no violation.
10. I find it exceedingly odd that YF, shortly after being created, would seek me out and cause so much disruption.
11. When this is closed, I would appreciate it if someone would suggest to YF that he not wikihound me. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not "wikihounding" you, and I did not "seek you out." You should retract these personal attacks. I started editing at the Fort Hood shooting article and that led me to Anwar al-Awlaki.

Please explain how telling the IP 98.204.201.79 that their edits were not vandalism -- which they were not -- constitutes "wikihounding" you.

What are "the statements that YF and an unknown IP in tandem were deleting"? I do not see any edits which are shared by myself and either of the IPs in question.

The IP deleted references, yes, but that is still a content dispute, not vandalism. ~YellowFives 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said above. Answers: 1) the IP e.g. blanked appropriate material w/out reason; I understand that to be vandalism; 2) following me to his page disruptively is wikihounding; 3) you and the IPs deleted appropriate material from same article. You clearly know I didn't violate 3RR above; therefore it may be less than civil for you to say I did. My suggestion is that in the future where either of us sees the other on a page, we seek to avoid the page. I think its time to cool jets.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• My point is that YellowFives deigned to call the four diffs reverts when he himself actually made four straight reverts. I believe Epeefleche's edit (4th diff) is not a revert in that it actually took account of YellowFives' concern, by citing the three sources. What synthesis is he complaining about? Three sources say he's a terrorist. Full stop. It's binary; there's nothing simpler and less synthetic than that. Properly cited and attributed, I don't see how there is any BLP violation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, my first edit was not a revert, it was just an edit. ~YellowFives 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the score is 3:2. You're still ahead ;-) And you didn't answer my question or address the points I made. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources "say he's a terrorist" and that is not even the content in dispute. To my knowledge not even Epeefleche is asserting that he's a terrorist. But the content of the article is not the discussion here. This board is only about the act of edit warring. ~YellowFives 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Retraction: I see Ohconfucius' point about the fourth revert not strictly being a revert. By that reasoning, Epeefleche may not have broken 3RR. And I have taken the issue of the IP harassment and Twinkle abuse to WP:ANI. If admins would like to take this retraction to save themselves the trouble of determining 3RR, I will not complain. ~YellowFives 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Discussed at ANI. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ReligionScholar reported by Jeff3000 (talk) (Result: 31h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

People of the Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ReligionScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 02:11, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "the facts are presented and then the opinions are shown, it is placed in a proper format.")
2. 02:23, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327972869 by Warrior4321 (talk) absolutely NO references have been removed.")
3. 02:45, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327974095 by Warrior4321 (talk) ok only one was missed but you will have to look at the discussion page.")
4. 04:39, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327986655 by Warrior4321 (talk) see discussion")
5. 05:07, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327990693 by Warrior4321 (talk) see discussion, thanks")
6. 06:35, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "article put back in neutral form. if further vandalism occurs mods will neet to ban users who are continously vandalising article.")
7. 06:46, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328000915 by Prodego (talk) just read this format and you will see that its completely neutral.")
8. 09:18, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "the definition was changed into something completely wrong based on original research and "opinion". have replaced it with the correct definition based on facts and have put opinions in seperate secti")
9. 10:20, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "citation already given directly from the quran in surah maidah see definition section. the quran is the highest source in islam, there is no secondary source that can be used as argument against it.")
10. 13:10, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328021036 by Bjenks (talk) which is why another section was created for opinions.")
11. 14:40, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328040157 by Warrior4321 (talk) undoing spam")
12. # 15:56, 26 November 2009 (edit summary: "i am not undoing but i am editing the page. that does not count as a revert right? i am changing the article to the previous neutral form and requesting a lock on article thanks.")

• Diff of warning: here

This editor was first reported as breaking 3RR about a week ago (see here), and the admin at that time decided to not block him, but pursue a more consultative attitude toward him since he was a new editor. Since that time, multiple editors, including the last admin, have very civilly tried to consult with the editor about what are constructive ways to edit, and what the policies are (both on the talk page, and his user talk page), but the user does not agree with them because they don't align with his notion of Truth (capital T). In the past 24 hours he has reverted the page 11 times, even after a second 3RR warning, and a pleading to play within the rules. —Jeff3000 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See a discussion of a reform plan at User talk:ReligionScholar#Imminent sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result -- 31 hours for edit warring. No agreement could be reached on a reform plan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mutbue reported by User:LaVidaLoca (Result: already blocked )

Page: Hayden Panettiere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mutbue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]
• 4th revert: [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments:
This editor has spent hours today trying to add a chart ranking for a song which did not chart. The editor has repeatedly returned the ranking, adding various "cites" which either are non-existent or do not support any mention of chart ranking. In addition, it appears, from the edit history, this is yet another new sock puppet of User:Xtinadbest who has taken dozens of new identities (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtinadbest, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtinadbest) but edits the same block of articles. This user does not respond to postings nor talk page requests. Most importantly, the song did not chart. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• had been blocked indef already when I looked at this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Math.geek3.1415926 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 12 hours)

Page: Climatic Research Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Math.geek3.1415926 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115] In this diff, user shows awareness of 3RR rules. Subsequent warnings [116] have brought no change in behaviour.

Note: this diff [117] asserts the user is up to 7R on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Certainly the user is inserting exactly the same material there [118].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see user talk page. Article talk page is "busy".

Comments:

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to refer to my contributions as simple reversions. Each of my subsequent edits adressed issues raised during the discussion: references were improved, wording was changed, etc. The talk page discussions indicate that the editors objecting to my edits have clearly missed that the references were improved per the prior discussion.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• 12 hours Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dc76 reported by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit (Result: )

Page: Traian Băsescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Dc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

• 1st revert: [120]. Wholesale revert of changes, reverted by User:Anonimu.
• 2nd revert: [121]
• 3rd revert: [122]
• 4th revert: [123]

Keeps removing section headings. He has done more reverts than that, but these should suffice.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125] (attempt to start discussion ignored)

Comments:

• Would like a second opinion from another admin as I see Dc76 is citing BLP in their last edit summary. Looks a bit of a red herring but further input in all BLP related cases is good. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why a section loaded with months-old fact tags is just being shuffled about in a BLP, but I see Dc76 making a valid attempt to balance the article and discuss concerns on the talk page. Is some short protection needed? Will keep looking. Franamax (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to mention 4 things:
  • (1) There was some edit conflict between me and User:Pohta ce-am pohtit, therefore the edit history looks as it looks. I have reverted only once, with comment "please don't revert me" after I have explained twice why more subsectionizing was bad. In that same edit I erased a sentence by mistake, which I immediately corrected after that. Please check carefully the edit history step by step and the overall effect. Don't just believe the word of User:Pohta ce-am pohtit.
  • (2) Please read how this editor has characterized me in edit summaries and on his talk page. I have never even said a word about him personally. He says about me out of the blue: (a) "Hopefully this title will appease B's fans lurking here." I am a fellow editor, not a lurking fan, and I resent being called that way. (b) "move[d] poorly ref'd section last to avoid confusing Dc76" as if I wasn't intelligent enough. The edits are done for the general reader, not for me. If somebody edits to please me, something must be wrong. (c) "reverting for obvious bogus reason" WP:BLP section on controversy is not a bogus reason. (d) "raising phony courtesy issues after you're being rude" after I said (a) and (b) is rude and asked delicately for more courtesy. (e) "You started with with a wholesale revert of recent changes with no arguments" I was bold in doing one good faith edit and I clearly explained myself. (f) "typical of POV warriors" no comment.
  • (3) I have not ignored "attempt to start discussion". Quite the contrary: I started the discussion: here, here, and here.
  • (4) I would like to remind User:Pohta ce-am pohtit that consecutive edit conflicts is not the same thing as performing reverts. I have assumed good faith and has been civil towards him in all my edits today, and I do not intend to deviate from that. If I am being falsely reported, I have simply explained precisely why I see it as a false report. You would notice that I have not accused him of anything yet. I want to see what is his overall intention, and why did he suddenly came out of a long wiki-break to edit one of the most controversial topics he could have found (there is an electoral campaign going on). Dc76\^talk 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you've got to see this last one. :) Now, I understand. (Note that Traian Basescu and Ion Iliescu are political opponents.) Battleground mentality: can we, please, stop looking at fellow editors as someone's fans. If one wants to support some politician, one should do it through the appropriate venue, not on WP. Dc76\^talk 05:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a non-issue to me. Dc76 was merely being bold in correcting probable violations of WP:BLP, while Pohta ce-am pohtit was reverting with borderline incivil edit summaries. Regardless, the discussion has now moved to the talk page, so the alleged edit-warring is a moot point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)