Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2over0 (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 21 October 2011 (→‎User:Dualus reported by User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous (Result: warned): closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Swift&silent reported by User:Hassanhn5 (Result: Warned)

    Page: Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Swift&silent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]


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

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

    Comments: The user is repeatedly adding POV and claims. An active discussion is already present on the talk page, but instead of commenting there, the user is editing the article and negotiating in edit summary. Note that the user is adopting a strategy of editing by masking it under edit summary terms like for "neutrality's sake" and "clear meaning" and editing the text to his POV without any proper explaination on talk page.

    --lTopGunl (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also, the user disruptively removed neutral references from this page [8] without any explanation on talkpage. He seems to have a disruptive pattern. (although 3rr didn't take place in the second case, but the user seems to be moving towards that) --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's also a sock puppet suspect (I just found out when someone reminded him on talk) [9]. Currently his edit war is at hold because I've not changed his fourth revert on the reported 3rr violation, but I'm sure he'll keep doing it unless blocked. Refer to his talk page warnings (of which he has still taken no avail) [10] --lTopGunl (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sock Puppetry is just an allegation. Dont try to be judge and jury of wikipedia. Admins will find the truth about that allegation very soon. Swift&silent (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I said, [11] a fifth edit, on the article being reported for, with another editor has been made by the user. I had reviewed the references and written what the current references supported. And I also added relevant references. Anyway, the question here is of wp:3rr being violated. He has been given more than enough time to read the warnings and take heed, but he deleted the warnings and made a further edit even after being reported. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit in question is explained in talk page. Edit was done as cited content was removed without reading citations by User:Mustihussain. Taking head of that edit I removed two disputed sources added three neutral citations. The edit I made is supported by five sources. Swift&silent (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    this is your initial edit [12]. you backed up your claims with 2 internet articles and 2 books, stanley wolpert's "india" being one of them. i know wolpert's book and i read the internet articles, and none of them support your claims, hence wp:or. i reverted and told you that this edit constituted wp:or [13]. you then proceeded with reverting me *and* removing the two internet articles [14] as they are easily verifiable. however, you didn't remove the stanley wolpert's book, hoping that no-one had read it...however, i know this book [15]. i suspect that the other books you provided are just another cover for your wp:or. this is clearly disruptive editing and you're disingenuous beyond belief.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    in this edit [16] it becomes clear that swift&silent attributes claims to sources he hasn't read. this again wp:or or disruptive pov-pushing.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the edit summaries and talk page comments are maskings and inconsistent with the edits. Please note: Instead of following WP:HEAR, he is into wp:lawyering. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to ask lTopGunl to stop making baseless accusations against me like 'He has been given more than enough time to read the warnings and take heed, but he deleted the warnings'. Read [17]. I have read, understood and I am following Wikipedia policies. Kindly stop making attacks on me like 'he'll keep doing it unless blocked'. And read the references given in said edit[18] and full explanation in talk page and all neutral citations (five of them) that back the said edit, if any problem is found only then report instead of directly accusing another editor.Swift&silent (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me elaborate- In the aforementioned article lTopGunl changed the text from [[19]] 'Several neutral sources described the war as clear Indian victory' to 'Some other sources dispute it as Indian victory' making it read like source disputed it was an Indian victory. So in this edit I changed [20] from 'sources disputed' to 'sources opined' but it was again reverted by him stating 'dispute it as Indian victory' is more neutral. I kept the word and made the meaning clearer[21]- 'disputed that it wasn't bilateral ceasefire but an Indian victory.'

    In these edits I was simply trying to retain the meaning, backed by several neutral citations, in a clear way while lTopGunl was trying to make it ambiguous. What perplexes me is that he altered words again and again by reverting more clearer words and accuses me of WP:3rr. I would request Admins to see Article's Talk page and Article's[22] history. Swift&silent (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Swift&silent is warned that he should obtain consensus on the talk page before reverting again. He seems to have the greater burden of proof, because we have a heavily-sourced article on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 which is far from judging the war to be a one-sided Indian victory. If Swift&silent's argument is correct, then both articles should be changed. He needs to persuade others to agree with him rather than simply revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Wayiran (Result: stale and being actively monitored)

    Page: Abdullah_Ibn_Saba
    User being reported: User:Wiqi55


    Previous version reverted to: [23]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]

    Comments:
    5 times revert in one day. Also his edits has serious issues of WP:SYNT, misrepresenting of sources, WP:Cherry and WP:Weight. Issues are addressed on his talkpage and article talkpage but the user fails to cooperate with other users. --Wayiran (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring stopped two days ago and article has visibility by several administrators now.--v/r - TP 13:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale Everything seems to be under control at the moment (good luck to TP and to everyone discussing the issues), so closing this without action. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thom100 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: stale)

    Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thom100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Thom100 has been reverting back in dubious material first added here:[34]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A number of editors have attempted to explain the problem with the material. Here are some of the diffs: [41][42][43][44]

    Comments:
    A merger discussion that Thom100 opposes is ongoing at the page. The discussion is only tangentially related to this dispute and is obviously no excuse for edit warring.--Cúchullain t/c 13:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We haven't heard anything from this report in 2 days, but the discussion continues. Today the user threatened to continue edit warring if he doesn't get his way.[45]Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user stopped edit warring 3 days ago and began discussing on the talk page. Since blocks are preventative and the behavior has already stopped on its own, I can't see any need for a block anymore. As the user is discussing, perhaps their behavior can be fixed before anymore disruption by them.--v/r - TP 12:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale Please file a new report if that discussion has not settled matters. If it does become necessary, please remember to mention general EW, not just 3RR. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:123.231.82.172 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 72 hours)

    Page: British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 123.231.82.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 16:11, 17 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455946779 by Danielkueh (talk)")
    2. 16:16, 17 October 2011 (edit summary: "undoing organized effort to remove factaul statments adverse to britsh empire and its rule without explantion in talk")
    3. 16:28, 17 October 2011 (edit summary: "removing references to occupation and exploitation of colonies and suppression of resistance is not a neutral point of view. edit language if needed but do not remove such. case already made in talk several times")
    4. 17:03, 17 October 2011 (edit summary: "i expect be banned for retifying a crucial ommision on how,ppl in empire had no say in its rule,it exploited & occuped others,suppressed resistance.case for removing this ommsion already made in talk page by seversl ppl over months see my talk too.")
    3RR warning
    Possible dynamic IP

    See also edit by 123.231.80.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: User has returned to make an additional revert: (03:12, 18 October 2011). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EraNavigator reported by User:Daizus (Result: stale)

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] [51]

    Comments:

    There are two paragraphs EraNavigator keeps changing (see the 3rd revert): first paragraph was changed 3 times, the second paragraph was changed 4 times.

    The edit war is on a content/neutrality dispute: there are statements enjoying (apparently) unanimous support from scholars and I presented them as facts, whereas he keeps relativizing: "some/several scholars believe/argue/suggest", "according to scholars x and y", "it has been suggested/argued" etc. He cited no sources to present a different view, however he justified his edits using his own opinions and original research: "you cannot state as categorical fact what is simply speculative interpretation of archaeology: eg fire at Histria may have been accidental or caused by different raid" [52], "these are scholarly suggestions, NOT fact; there is no evidence in epigraphy or literature that Costoboci actually attacked these places" [53] (he also commented on a previous version of the same paragraph: "no direct evidence destroyed by costoboci: may have been earthquake" [54]). He seems to believe the scholars make suggestions and speculative interpretations, and thus these should not be taken as facts, even when we have widely (or unanimously) held views.

    I started discussions on the talk page addressing each paragraph, but he did not reply, he just went on with his changes.

    Please note often enough he makes edits from anonymous IPs (ranges such as 178.10x, 149.254, perhaps some others too). I can be sure or almost sure is him only by the specificity of the topic, of his arguments, of his style. Daizus (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stale No edit warring for a few days, discussion seems to have died down, and no immediate need for page (semi-)protection. Please request at WP:RFPP if you think page protection would help here. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:50.9.109.170 reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: protected 1 week)

    Page: Frank Pavone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 50.9.109.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [55]

    • 1st revert: [56] (05:29, 17 October 2011)
    • 2nd revert: [57] (20:15, 17 October 2011)
    • 3rd revert: [58] (22:39, 17 October 2011)
    • 4th revert: [59] (23:53, 17 October 2011)
    • 5th revert: [60] (04:44, 18 October 2011)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Frank Pavone#Fr. Pavone's suspension

    Comments: I warned the user after the fourth revert and didn't report since its an IP user, but five reverts in 23 hours is absurd. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Note - I think that users NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) and MarnetteD (talk · contribs) had an important share in this 3RR thing as well:

    Revert 1 by NYyankees51
    Revert 2 by MarnetteD
    Revert 3 by NYyankees51
    Revert 4 by MarnetteD
    Revert 5 by NYyankees51
    Revert 6 by NYyankees51
    Revert 7 by MarnetteD

    Perhaps the article should be protected for a while until everyone has agreed on the talk page. DVdm (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    user Nyyankees51 is reverting sourced material. solution? (without locking page or blocking anyone)

    50.9.109.170 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree about the umbrella, and Anon50 is not making a very convincing case here, but i.m.o. the cited sources in the section make the case sufficiently convincingly. Note that I happened to stumble on this thing by accident (page was on watch list (Huggle) after unsourced additions by 65.35.249.125, then [62], then [63], etc...), and personally I don't care about the subject, or about the section, or about its header, but I think the sources are solid here. Just my two cents. DVdm (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that it's not a slam-dunk case. But the source the IP editor is citing says Pavone has been suspended from activity outside his diocese. There is no source saying he has been fully suspended per Suspension#Roman Catholic canon law. Pavone says he is not suspended and never was. The IP user has refused to discuss this point. Given that, his five reverts in 23 hours, and his persistent unconstructive edit warring evidenced by his/her talk page, I think a block is necessary. Granted, I have probably made too many reverts, but the IP editor has been disruptively reverting and refuses my attempts to discuss the matter, and instead makes the same point over and over. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You did more than seven reverts your self. Without even bothering discuss anything.Material is sourced. there is a source, letter by rev. Zurek to other bishops about Pavlone suspension.

    it is suspension no need for peacock words.You refuse to accept the fact. Trying to play with words "it was just suspension based on canonical law" did you even read that law? (i implore you not to go that way , because suspension in canonical law can be for very nasty reasons) 50.9.109.170 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Too many people edit warring to pick out one in particular. It's protected for a week, or until consensus is obtained on the talk page.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PassaMethod reported by User:The Last Angry Man (Result: no action)

    Page: Al-Qaeda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: PassaMethod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [64]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70] Please note, passamethod did not use the talk page until after his fourth revert.

    Comments:


    User:Kakazai Pashtun reported by User:Jorge Koli (Result: no action)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [71]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76], [77]

    Comments: He's reverting my edits for no reason. First he came to edit under IP [78], then McKhan (talk · contribs) and now Kakazai Pashtun (talk · contribs), he is making very bad edits to the article and accusing me of propaganda, and asking me silly stuff like show evidence to all the pics in the article if they really are Pashtuns or not. He can click on their articles and find out for himself. He's clearly here with an agenda to disrupt and start edit-wars. [79] Btw, he warned me of 3rr [80] but just so you don't block me by mistake I didn't make 3 reverts.--Jorge Koli (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Both users are at fault here, I've left them both messages requesting that they step back and discuss it on the article's talk page. I've also started some attempt of a calm conversation on the article's talk page, and recommended that both editors take a little break from this before continuing with the discussion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your determination Ajraddatz. I didn't remove Ghulam Mohammad but took him from one section to another and made totally new edits. Kakazai Pashtun made 3 reverts and that is breaking the rule. He appears to be expert on Wikipedia policy so he knows what he was doing.[81]--Jorge Koli (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While you did not make three reverts, you were still edit warring in the sense that you were reverting his reverts (twice). I personally don't think that any blocks are needed here, especially as both editors have stopped warring. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the kind note which you left on my Talk Page. Please, feel welcome to review the edit history of that Pashtun people page. You will notice that I repeatedly requested to discuss the edits further. I hope that helps to calrify my postion. Kakazai Pashtun (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined My inclination is leaning towards blocks all around, but Ajraddatz seems to be stimulating enough discussion that that should not be necessary. Jorge Koli, please take note that edit warring includes more than blindly following the 3-revert rule. There is already a WP:RFPP discussion, so there seems to be nothing left for this board to do. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Epeefleche reported by User:Obotlig (Result: Nobody blocked)

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


    User:Epeefleche has violated 1RR protected page per Wikipedia:ARBPIA by two reverts in a 24hr period while falsely accusingly me of having made two reversions and threatening a ban if I did not self-revert.

    1. He reverts User:Aalshihabi's reasonable edit [82]
    2. And mine [83]

    My only two edits were:

    1. [84] where I accidentally reverted on of his edits after hitting back in my browser to correct a mistake I had made not realising the article had changed. So one accidental reversion for me.
    2. [85] which was my original edit and not a reversion to my knowledge.

    We discussed the matter extensively on Talk:Gilad Shalit where I informed him that not only was my first edit not a reversion to my knowledge since it was the first time I had looked at or edited the page, and I was not to my knowledge reversing the actions of any other editor in the prior 24 hours with that first edit, but that he was in fact in violation of the 1RR by reverting twice that day.

    I do not wish to participate any further in any article related to this topic. I am here to cooperate and help. I feel badgered by this user. The 1RR threats make this entire topic off limits to me because of how contentious the editing is. I want a good reputation as an editor and to make useful contributions in good faith and follow the rules.

    Comments:

    Why the silence? A 1RR breach in an article explicitly subject to 1RR? (I'm involved). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    According to your profile you are an admin, Mkativerata. I know it's bad form for an involved admin to act in an administrative capacity in a dispute, but it appears you're the only sheriff in town; therefore the question that faces you, is it better for an involved admin to deal with the case or for it to not be dealt with at all? Two reverts to a 1RR sanctioned article seems a pretty straightforward case to assess objectively: was either revert reverting clear-cut vandalism? was either edit that was reverted made by an anonymous IP editor? If the answer to either of those is "yes" he didn't violate the sanction, if the answer is "no" in both cases it's a straightforward violation. Betty Logan (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, if I were to block him it would be the last block I would ever be permitted to make. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments.
    1. The 1RR restriction calls for us to assess whether contemplated edits are related. The focus, as indicated in the explanation of the 1RR restriction set forth at the top of the talkpage, is on related reverts. It states: "When in doubt, assume it is related."
    What Obitlig points two are clearly completely unrelated edits on my part. There is no doubt at all that they are unrelated. If there were doubt as to whether they were related, I would not have made them--in accordance with the tp instructions.
    2. In addition, one of the two edits that Oblitig points to is a revert of the first-edit-ever, by a just-created editor. In which the editor deleted RS-sourced info. Info that was significant. Without any reason. The editor failed to give any explanation. Nor was any reason apparent. The reverted deletion of significant referenced information fell squarely within our v guideline, which points to: "Sometimes referenced information ... are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." The 1RR restriction at the top of the page states: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty."
    3. Had I inadvertently violated the 1RR rule, I would have been (and still would be) more than happy to undo a revert, so as not to violate it.
    4. Obitlig, in contrast, made two identical reversions. First here. And then here. Deleting identical material, twice, that other editors had entered. The two reverts were precisely the same deletions. Within a 3-minute period.
    That is exactly what the 1RR rule relates to. I explained this to him. Rather than revert him on his second revert, I discussed it on the talk page. At length. Without reverting him (still), despite my view both that he had violated 1RR, and my difference of view on the substance of the issue -- even though more than 24 hours passed since his second revert. It is a difference of view, and I showed clearly by my actions that, rather than engage in an edit war with him, I was happy to discuss it on the talk page, even as the article stayed in a form I thought it should not be in.
    Rather than call for him to be blocked, which wp:1rr allows as a response to two identical reverts on the article in such short order, I opened up a talk page discussion, in which I suggested to him he review the rules on the talkpage, which I pointed him to, and self-revert to avoid a block. He has not done so. I'm still not (despite his contrasting aggressive posture) asking that he be blocked. Only that, especially as he said his second revert was inadvertent -- that he he self-revert, in accord with the rule. (His reaction, while not self-reverting, and after writing in that indicated talk page discussion "appreciate your patience", was to bring this action).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it implausible that after 85,000 edits to wikipedia that you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:3RR and the intent of WP:REVERT. Further you have the restrictions precisely backward - your reversions counted toward the total need not be related or of the same material at all! And my first edit could not be counted as a revert because, deletion or addition I was not undoing the actions of another editor on that day! Otherwise, with your absurd standard of reversion, virtually any edit could be creatively construed to return the article to some former state God knows how long in the past. Given your long history on wikipeda I do not think you can use either ignorance or inability to read/understand/reason through what is meant by reversions as I am quite sure you have encountered the process of creating diffs for a 3RRV or 1RRV many times before. Further it is a plainly visible lie that I did not offer a logical reason why the allegiance parameter of the military service template was used in a deceptive way. I gave a reason in the edit summary and explained at length on the talk page. Given what can only be willful abuse and gaming of the system on your part I think a block against you (which would not be your first!) is the only reasonable answer at this point. Apparently you get away with his behaviour routinely or you would not come to the noticeboard with such brazen and willful misrepresentations. At first I was willing to give ground on this given the possibly sensitive nature of an article in which I have no interest. However at this point I think an an administrator needs to step up and deal with this blatant bully regardless of what friends he may have. Obotlig (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "The 1RR restriction calls for us to assess whether contemplated edits are related". Umm, no. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page explanation of 1RR states: "When in doubt, assume it is related." This is stated in the very second sentence explaining the restriction. It is of importance.
    The reason this is important, is because every deletion is a revert (undoing the effects of one or more edits, in whole or in part). Every deletion reverts what an editor had added previously, reverting the article in part to what appeared before that editor added it.
    The same with and editor adding even one word, that was previously deleted. Precisely the edit Obotlig complains about my having done once. And the inverse of what Obotlig did -- he deleted that same word from the article. He deleted it twice. Within three minutes.
    We are concerned with edit warring -- such as Obotlig twice deleting the same material ... material that had been added to the article in this instance by 2 different editors, though it was precisely the same. The focus is not on: a) one edit, adding the word France, and b) another completely unrelated edit, reverting a first-time-ever editor (while the restriction does not apply to IPs) whose edit was deleting RS-supported material without an edit summary in a manner that meets our vandalism guideline (the restriction also does not apply to reverting vandalism).
    Obotlig--please read my point 2 above more carefully. You have obviously misread it completely. It was the first-edit-ever editor who deleted RS-supported significant material, while failing to supply any edit summary.
    I've never been blocked for edit warring. And I haven't tried to bully you, Obotlig. While I could have edit warred with you when you reverted the same material twice, I didn't. I let your second revert, of the same material within 3 minutes, stand (and have still let it stand till this point). While I could have legitimately lodge a complaint against you here, or at the arbitration page, for a 1RR violation, I didn't. Instead, I simply initiated and engaged you in discussion on the talk page. And suggested that you revert your second identical (clearly "related") revert, made by you within 3 minutes. Inasmuch as 2 reverts, of precisely the same edit, on that article within 3 minutes constitutes a violation of 1RR. Your response, was to not do so. And instead, to file this complaint. I still indicated above that I wasn't asking that you be blocked. And wrote that if I had made any inappropriate revert, I would be happy to undo it, but for the reasons indicated above I do not believe I did so. In your response above, you them became even more aggressive. I'm not sure why.
    But I stand by what I said: a) I don't believe I engaged in a violation of 1RR, for the reasons stated; b) if I did, I'm happy to self-revert; and c) I believe that your deletions of the same language, twice in 3 minutes, is a violation of 1RR, and -- as I've requested for some time now -- believe the proper course is for you to self-revert (and, despite your aggressive posture, am not calling for you to be blocked). --Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Related: "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." You think we're all stupid? --Mkativerata (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    err... excuse — the two reverts in question by Epeefleche are completely different. There's no way in hell anyone could construe them as being the same. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Err... they don't in any way have to be the same or related. No admin will be conned into thinking otherwise by a user with 80,000 edits and several blocks on his log. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope; edit-warring means reverting the same thing more than once. Alright, I just looked it up. I think it's bullshit, and I'm gonna ask for clarification. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit-warring generally means reverting the same article more than once, even if the edits themselves are independent of each other. The rules on edit-warring make it quite clear the reverts themselves don't have to relate to the same edit on the article i.e. 3rr is violated if you revert four independent edits on the same article within a 24 hour period. 1RR is stricter in its application, and applies the rule to a topic rather than a single article. So a single revert on an article that is subject to 1RR that falls under the Israeli-Palestine sanction, and another revert on another article subject to the same sanction under the same topic scope within a 24 hour period is a 1RR violation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No clarification needed. The rule has been clear for years. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently. And I'll be reporting a lot more people in the future. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how I read it, and I read it in good faith (though I can now see how it might be meant that way). Let me explain why, if I might. The reason I did not read it that way is two-fold. First, I read everything immediately following "are under WP:1RR" as describing what that restriction entails. It says (paras omitted) "... are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.... Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." I read the language following mention of the restriction as explaining the restriction. Not as explaining why the restriction applies to the article. Second, under our definition of revert, as indicated above, every deletion is considered a revert. As wp:REVERT states: "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits... More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." So, unless the restriction applied to related edits (which was as I read it), it would mean that an editor could not in 2 edits delete 2 separate, unrelated words, in completely unrelated parts of the article, dealing with completely unrelated issues and even ... as here ... having nothing to do with the conflict that led to the restriction being involved (see the "French" edit). So, in cleaning up an article, if one deleted or changed one word, a change of an entirely separate word -- clearly not what we consider edit warring -- would be a violation. This clearly isn't what we focus on when we look for edit warring behavior, and isn't what the ARB discussions on the PI articles are about. So I read "related" as naturally referring to "related" edits. If that is not the case, I'm happy to be educated here, but wouldn't that mean that one could not delete any 2 unrelated words in the same article in 2 edits within 24 hours? Essentially, other than additions, one would be limited to one deletion from the article per day?
    I did think, though, that Obit, by making two deletions, of precisely the same (and therefore related) material, in a 3 minute period, was in violation. Do you not see it that way?
    Also, as I said, if there was an inadvertent violation, I'm happy to self-revert. I've asked Obit to do precisely that, but he has declined.
    Although, if I self-revert, I would have to re-add the deletion of RS-supported material by the never-before-edited SPA. Which, of course, would raise a separate problem.
    And I btw acknowledge that I've disagreed strongly in the past with both Mkat and Betty Logan, on wholly separate matters. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough TLDR wikilawyering already. WP:3RR, the bold bit, says: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert". --Mkativerata (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Every deletion undoes another editors work, obviously. So is it your understanding that one can't make 2 deletes, deleting 2 different words, in an article under 1RR within a 24-hour period? If, say, I corrected his birthdate in one revert, and deleted a stray word in a second, that that would be a 1RR violation of the safety valve put in to protect us against edit warring in the I-P area?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Well, I had to read up on this, too: You made 2 reverts, that's more than one, you must be blocked. So you better self-revert right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've looked through a number or applications of the ARBPIA 1RR in the archives of this noticeboard, and every instance I've seen of it being applied has been to reverts of the same material, and many of them had other indicia of edit-warring absent here, such as multiple reverts and failure to discuss on the talk page (the opposite of here). Mkat's interpretation does not match the application of the rule here. And it of course is not what the restriction is about, if you read up on it -- the restriction is about stopping warring, not about stopping clean-up of articles, vis-a-vis an edit unrelated to the IP area, and unrelated to any prior editor, or the editor in question. I would be happy to undo my second revert. But that was immediately reverted in turn -- by the complainant. So I'm unable to revert that--blocked by impossibility. I'll be happy to restore the improper deletion of RS-supported material by the SPA who did it without leaving an edit summary, though, if anyone thinks that would be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do it. That's your only choice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, of the 2 reverts that troubled complainant, 1 was clearly stale. He had reverted it himself, immediately. And nobody restored it. So that was already reverted. The 2nd revert, of the deletion by the first-time-ever-editing editor, deleting RS-supported material, without an edit summary (as described in our vandalism guideline), was IMHO as described above. But to not leave any doubt, I've also now reverted that. I'll leave word on the article talk page, so other editors can determine whether that edit should be reverted.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. And I learned something new today. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect you will learn even more if you read the archived 1RR decisions relating to ARBPIA. They all -- from what I've seen, and I looked at a number -- involve related edits. Not wholly unrelated edits, involving wholly unrelated editors, and not even involving (in other than one edit) the IP area. It is also clear in the ARBPIA decision what is being protected against. This ain't it. But -- as you no doubt noted, my old friends Betty and Mkat still have not spoken to the issue of whether the complainant violated 1RR .... despite his having reverted twice, the same precise language, within a three-minute period. That no doubt will catch the attention of anyone who reads the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't actually commented on the particulars of your case; my first comment was a suggestion to the admin that he should handle the case, since no-one else is seemingly prepared to prosecute it or dismiss it, which undermines the policy against edit-warring in my view. My second comment was to offer an interpretation of 1RR, and that applies to any editor who has reverted on the article. At no point have I advocated any action against you, that is up to the admin who takes on the case, if one ever does. If you think the complainant's actions violate the sanction, you should request that his edits be scrutinized too, and provide the appropriate diffs. Betty Logan (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Betty -- I did precisely that. In my first comment above. Para # 4. And then, throughout this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I came here to comment on another case; but I stayed to consider some of the other action. I'm shocked to see how tangled things can get with a 1RR case. As a relative outsider in this forum, I would want the accused given the benefit of the doubt. It's frightening! If technicalities proliferate at this alarming rate, I don't see how anyone can safely navigate them. Let's avoid an injustice here, all right? NoeticaTea? 11:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, where is Enric's complaint? Has it been whisked away already? Now, I couldn't help seeing this thread. There seems to be no warring here. So ... the complainant reverted the editor he's complaining about, but that editor went straight to the talk page for discussion. The complainant then griped about him here. The two edits in question about have nothing to do with each other, and nothing to do with warring. What are we going to do next—block editors for correcting two spelling errors? Common sense required here, folks. Tony (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. ( non-admin observation ) I asked "What's a revert?" at AN last year, and there have been many similar discussions, as well, of course. Different admins vary considerably in how they answer the question. It's my understanding that admin EdJohnston, for example, uses the verbatim definition ( e.g. from WP:3RR ) of a "revert" that says the text in question for multiple deletions or additions need not be related in any way, while others like BWilkins, as it appears - see his or her close, below - tend to employ a more subjective, case-by-case view. I do wish all admins were on the same page about this important issue, but that's probably not going to happen. In general, though, editors certainly do risk a block from some admin if they perform two deletions from a single 1rr article, regardless of whether the content is related.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not blocked. One of the reasons that I asked Epeefleche to comment here was because it appeared to me that a) there was controversy, b) there may have been some misunderstandings, and c) it's always better to discuss before calling the police - especially for what is truly a borderline case. Yes, if any editor had reverted the same or portions containing the same info, this was open-and-shut. However, we have two different sets of edits in play in the midst of a whole whack of others. I'm goign to close this with no blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Degenavelos reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [86]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple past discussions with various socks of User:Chaosname

    Comments:

    User:178.7.10.248 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Protected 2 weeks)

    Page: National Transitional Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 178.7.10.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [95]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned the user, but he/she appears to have blanked his/her Talk page.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

    Comments: The user may also be using (or coordinating) with the IPs Special:Contributions/88.67.161.88, Special:Contributions/75.72.148.126, Special:Contributions/84.57.98.90, Special:Contributions/92.75.118.14, and a number of others in the 178.10.203.X spectrum. I suspect possible bot activity. Request page protection and a block on the latter IP range.

    -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment With one exception, all the IPs listed resolve to the same ISP in Germany. The exception is a US ISP, and I doubt it's a proxy of any sort. I checked them all for Tor node status, and they all came back negative. With the size of the various ranges involved (at least one is a /15 range), rangeblocking is going to be off the table. Suggest a few days' worth of semi-protection on the involved articles; it'll be faster, less of an admin headache, and might convince the miscreants to seek their entertainment elsewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semi-protected for two weeks (due to extreme vandalism). Swarm X 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davidich2142 reported by User:GabrielF (Result: 24h)

    Page: Rachel Corrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Davidich2142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [103]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] N/A - not much of a "dispute" here. Editor is adding some highly contentious claims and needs to read WP:NPOV.

    Comments:
    Note that this is an Israeli-Palestinian Conflict-related article but does not have the 1RR tag on the talk page.

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours If this type of editing continues after the block expires, a report to AIV would be appropriate. Swarm X 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dicklyon reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: No action)

    Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [109]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see previous report

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#When_is_something_a_proper_noun.3F

    Comments:

    Weeks ago Dicklyon tried to edit-war some examples out of the guideline, after failing to move the examples to his preferred capitalization. I showed that the relevant RM didn't show consensus against the examples, and I asked him to provide proof that the examples had no consensus. Now he is removing again the examples, again without engaging in discussion in the talk page. Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I did one undo, while Ernic repeatedly adds the same contested examples, which are being reverted by two other editors as well; who is edit warring here? Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The complainant is well known for favouring capitalisation whenever that is a plausible option. Even where he does vote in RMs against capitals, it is typically in terms of "reliable sources" not out of respect for Wikipedia guidelines like those at WP:MOSCAPS. (See this edit, for example. No one denies the role of reliable sources; but there is a worrying push to lessen the role of Wikipedia's style guidelines when the matter is clearly one of style, not choice of wording.) He ignores, when it suits his agenda, the very first principle given at that page: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." As for collegial discussion, I attempted to engage Enric Naval in peacemaking moves where sources and guidelines seemed to conflict, over the notorious moves for Mexican-American War. Instead of joining in the initiative for peaceful, centralised resolution, he simply reiterated his opinion. It took an enormous effort, under ArbCom supervision, to resolve that issue. We achieved that, but it wasted the equivalent of many full-time weeks of editors' time. One editor involved in retarding that resolution has been topic-banned for a year; but he was not the only one.
    The complainant does not come here with clean hands. He appears bent on retaining certain contentious examples in the style guidelines at all costs. I support Dicklyon's bold removal of them; and I wish Enric Naval were as ready to discuss dispassionately as he is ready to speed passionately to litigation. As an editor committed to discussion and collaborative development of guidelines (and respect for them, in fact), I find his intransigence unhelpful.
    NoeticaTea? 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a very minor bit of delving following the comment by Noetica above. I was surprised to find that, indeed, it was the plaintiff who appears to have been edit warring in recent days; same going back in time. Enric seems to have steadfastly resisted removing a disputed example, whereas Dick has made only one change. Offering 'evidence' of the attempt to resolve the issue, I see there is no offer to replace the disputed example with a mutually agreeable one, which would have been the obvious way forward. Instead, we seem to be stuck with having to put up with Halley's [Cc]omet and Andromeda [Gg]alaxy, or none at all. That's pretty poor showing. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've skipped through the thread, short of time, but already I know what I want to say: Enric is prone to treating other editors rather roughly, even rudely, and is no stranger to edit-warring. I don't look favourably on this easy option of parent-shopping, crying to mama, by taking Dick Lyon to ANI, wasting admins' time on a semi-regular basis. Please try to sort out your disagreements with other editors using the usual courtesy and moderation, Enric. And yes, I agree that Enric is towards the extreme formulaic end WRT capitalisation, which is not the long-standing policy and style of WP. Dicklyon has a deep expertise in linguistic style and comes from the technical sciences. Tony (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There is somewhat of a long-term, very slow moving revert war going on between Enric and multiple other users, and, while I don't think blocks are needed at this point, it simply can't be allowed to continue indefinitely. I would recommend that all users involved refrain from reverting each other entirely, and pursue methods of dispute resolution if need be. Remember that thinking you're "right" in an edit war does not excuse you, and neither does avoiding 3RR. If this continues significantly, bring it back here, but let's try to voluntarily amend our behavior so we can avoid that. Regards, Swarm X 03:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The last time Enric reported me here for 3RR, my edits were various different attempts to find a tolerable version, and me managed to get me blocked for that, even though he kept putting back the same version. Now that's he has self-reported his own continued edit warring in that direction, maybe he should be blocked ... I'm just saying ... Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dualus reported by User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous (Result: warned)

    Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dualus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [111]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I have no idea what is being asked for here. I will post a link to this report on the editor's page.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

    Comments:

    Editor has reverted without adressing many issues brought by three other editors, mainly, are the latest polls on sentiment towards Occupy Wall Street suitable for the lead, especially in regards to weight - a point the Dualus has not responded to once. I have stopped reverts on my part ( I think two are mine) to keep from escalating the matter. Dualus is also accused one editor, Amadscientist of being "disengenous at best" when, to all appearances, the editor has acted in good faith. Here's a diff that shows Dualus being told of the unwanted incivility by Amadscientist.

    I tried to revert the "4th revert" link[116] so I could be on the safe side before looking in to this, but it's a null edit. If in fact I have violated 3RR I agree to revert myself. Dualus (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is directly contradicted by Dualus' prompt restoration the text in dispute immediately after the link Dualus just provided and has not taken any steps to correct and has not joined in further discussion.TheArtistAKA 03:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    I have. I have commented on the article's talk page and stopped making reverts. Dualus (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The last revert listed above (4th revert) was made by Dualus, who has engaged in no substantive discussion to the discussion at that time or since. TheArtistAKA 03:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    Taking Dualus at face value, I offered to fix the null edit, but this has been objected to TheArtistAKA 03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not fair. If you think I really violated 3RR and have a revert you want me to make, then tell me what it is. What I told you is that you could do it, not that I wouldn't object if you do. Dualus (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dualus is correct in that a null edit was listed, and my apolgogies for any confusion may have understandably caused. Regardless, immediately after that edit there was a 4th revert, this has been corrected and noted as such above. I also wonder why the editor would want me to escalate and edit war by suggesting a revert the editor vociferously objects to. This makes no sense. TheArtistAKA 03:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    I tried to undo but there are intermediate edits. What do I do now? Dualus (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone else did a partial revert without fixing the references so I will let others fix it from here. Dualus (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing my edits, and out of an abundance of caution, I am prepared to agree that I probably did unintentionally violate 3RR. I agree to refrain from editing Occupy Wall Street for 48 hours, and I throw myself on the mercy of the administrators. Dualus (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ahunt reported by User:137.204.135.219 (Result: no vio / semi)

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


    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]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gmail#The_.03_USD_reactivation

    Comments:

    Is the first time I do a report, I apologize for possibly doing that in the wrong way.

    I think that all the usefull info can be found in the above link of the discussion page.

    User:KhatriNYC3 reported by User:Sitush (Result: )

    Page: Khatri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: KhatriNYC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [117]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User_talk:KhatriNYC3] - chock-full of various warnings during the last month

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Khatri#Removal_of_images, Talk:Khatri#Photos_in_infobox ... and other attempts elsewhere

    Comments:
    NB: User previously edited as User_KhatriNYC. The recent contribution history shows numerous undo's to contributions added by a wide range of editors and across several articles. Most of these are warring, since the other users have bent over backwards in their attempts to explain policy etc. The Khatri article was recently fully protected until I posted this on the protecting admin's talk page. The PP was then removed and the protecting admin said, amongst other things in various places, this and this. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=456602507"