Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:14, 29 September 2009 editJuliancolton (talk \| contribs)Administrators130,415 edits →Gallery of passports edit warring reported by User:Turkish Flame (Result: ): protected← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:20, 29 September 2009 edit undoSchmuckyTheCat (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,942 edits →Gallery of passports edit warring reported by User:Turkish Flame (Result: page protected )Next edit →
Line 810:		Line 810:
	Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring without any discussion. ], the craetor of the article, ] and is edit warring. ], and others are also edit warring. Admins should protect the article and block some users.		Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring without any discussion. ], the craetor of the article, ] and is edit warring. ], and others are also edit warring. Admins should protect the article and block some users.
	:Protected for 1 week since too many users are involved to justify blocking. –''']''' \| ] 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)		:Protected for 1 week since too many users are involved to justify blocking. –''']''' \| ] 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
			::I kind of object to being included here. I made an edit then resorted to discussion on the talk page. Bosonic Dressing, however, is practicing WP:OWN, and is reverting at least four other editors (myself, Earl of China, Readin, Wikilaurent) on the Taiwan presentation, and one or two others on some Turkish territory. I do not believe he has surpassed 3RR, but the WP:OWN issue is pretty clear - he wrote it and it is going to stay his way. ] (]) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->		<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

Revision as of 18:20, 29 September 2009

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

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.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Ninetyone (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: 2009-09-20T11:03:40 (UTC) (original edit)

Note by a third party:This edit by Paladin R.T. (talk · contribs) who created the disputed category on the same date is not the original edit. The filer misleads the previous edit.Caspian blue 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2009-09-22T19:20:46

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gordon_Brown#Category:Half-blind_people

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring in the past: last unblock was advanced after he gave his word not to do so in the future...! ninety:one 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First edit is from Revision as of 12:12, 20 September 2009 which is over two days ago, there was plenty of discussion going on all of it instigated by me, the discussion is over a catagory that I have nominated for deletion. I had a warning left on my talkpage and have made no edits to the article since then and have left the disputed catagory in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the discussion for deletion regarding the catagory for deletion that I started Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should "assume good faith" or think "plain vandalism" if someone creates a category "half-blind people" and then five minutes later goes ahead and attaches it to the article on the British Prime Minister (even if the man has lost sight in one eye). This is what happened here. JN466 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

comment This seems to fall under WP:BLP exemption.-Caspian blue 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I formatted the report since the timeline is very important to judge whether Off2riorob violated 3RR or not. However, I see no 3RR violation because the first revert occurred on two days ago, and the alleged "original version" is incorrectly prsented since the disputed category was created and inserted by Paladin R.T. (talk · contribs) on Sep.20. I'm not sure as to why the filer did not add the timeline because without the timestamp, Off2riorob seemingly violated 3RR (edit warred though for removing potentially BLP material). If Ninetyone (talk · contribs) believed Off2riorob violated 3RR, then why the 3RR warning was given after the last revert? Bad faith filing.--Caspian blue 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- One more disturbing thing to me is that Rrius (talk · contribs) also clearly reverted 3 times just like Off2riorob, but why Ninetyone did not report Rrius to here or give him 3RR warning? Ninetyone reverted one time which shares the view of Rrius.--Caspian blue 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  - I gave Rrius a 3RR waring for the fairness.--Caspian blue 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    - For "the fairness"? Ridiculous. Off2riorob was reverting to protect his version. He directed people to the talk page, but did not actually address the points raised there, which is his modus operandi. He has a history of asserting that edits he wants to get rid of violate BLP, which after the number of times I have seen it from him suggests he is gaming the system. What's more, his history of blocks for edit warring suggest the warning was needed. I have no such history. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      - You were also edit warring to keep your favorite version which currently remains. I don't know how rich his history may be, however, he did not violate 3RR, but reverted 3 times so did you. If somebody exploits his block history to win a content dispute, then he/she is the one "gaming the system".--Caspian blue 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This should be concluded with no action. The edit is the inclusion of a category, and a discussion is happening at the talk page including Off2riorob, Ninetyone, and me. As far as I can tell, the impetus for this report was Ninetyone's false belief that Off2riorob had violated 3RR, which he had not because the first revert happened more than 24 hours before the last. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't anybody start accusing me of anything. I thought better of "filing a report", but then I checked Rob's form and saw the assurance given in the last unblock, and though this was worth raising. I don't give a toss about who did what, or when when, it's the fact that Rob gave an explicit assurance not to edit war, which he seems to have gone back on, that caused me to bring this here. Now to address the smokescreen that's been laid: the wording "In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to." is very confusing; what I linked to was the version from before all the reverting took place - and I don't have a clue what the second part is supposed to mean. And here's a hint: straight out accusing someone of a "bad faith filing" shows just as much bad faith on the accusers part. And you don't give out warnings "for the fairness" either... ninety:one 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  - Hmm. you have had a plenty of time to sharply say like that not only at CfD but here, but no time for checking the timestamp of the report? :-P That is a requirement for 3RR report of which you might be aware of. Your attitude unfortunately does not change my judgment on your filing. Caspian blue 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like both Rrius and Off2riorob were edit warring. No opinion on whether blocks are necessary or useful right now (if they have stopped and are now discussing things, as Rrius claims), but they were both edit warring when this was filed. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No action - The parties were edit-warring but neither one exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. Last revert was over 18 hours ago. I suggest that the issue be closed here unless the parties start reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If Off2riorob has been edit-warring, they have broken the promise on the grounds of which they were unblocked. I have been involved in an editing dispute with the editor at Jimmy Wales, but I suggest a second look at this editor's recent history. Skomorokh 22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Keysanger reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

- I was trying to post a Neutrality Warning in the page, but Keysanger reverted that twice.
- I also tried to include the fact that Chile declared war on Bolivia first, which official documents demonstrate, but he reverted that also (once).
- Lastly, I tried to mix sources and create a more neutral and less aggressive statement in the "Peru" section of the consequences of the war subtopic. Of course, Keysanger reverted that as well and claimed it to be "Vandalism."

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We, as in me, User:Likeminas, User:Dentren, attempted to mediate a peaceful solution to the edit war by creating a chart of what we saw as problems. We did not even get half-way through the list, and Keysanger began to massively edit the article based on his own POV. This 29 August 2009 version was the one that was being worked on by me, Likeminas, Dentren, and Keysanger prior to this last user taking wwnership of the article. If an administrator could please revert the article back to this version, it would be greatly appreciated. The information in this previous article is more neutral, and much more factual. The current version by Keysanger is pro-Chilean, anti-Peruvian, non-neutral, and contains erroneous information.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, here is a proof of the discontent of some editors with the actions of Keysanger: .--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Comment: Keysanger has been warned about the 3RR, but he has deleted the warning: . I'm notifying this in order to demonstrate that the user knows what he has done.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:AnnaFabiano (Result: Both parties warned)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: diff
2nd revert: diff
3rd revert: diff
4th revert: diff
5th revert: diff
Addition: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link

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

Comments:
This user was trying to make changes without a discussion on matters that are more complex. The references used were from a biased source and from forums. Other sources added today cannot be verified, and the user did not quote any part from the text as it is standard in such discussed issues. Furthermore the user did not discuss constructively in the discussion page before making the changes. Anna Comnena (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both parties warned. You have both gone well past the point that you should have taken this to a wider forum. See WP:Dispute resolution, and be aware that WP:Third opinion is easy to use. The Serbian reference that Tadija insists upon seems to go to a non-working URL, and the cited book shares an ISBN with an unrelated one. This suggests a problem with the reference. If either party continues to revert without getting support from at least one other person, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: deleted (per GFDL concerns), redirected and protected)

No one has broken 3RR. On the other hand, all editors involved have been here for some time, and should know better than to edit war.

On the one camp, undoing the redirect, we have

Colonel Warden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's an earlier pass at this by Peregrine Fisher, but it is blocked by an intervening delete. It happened sometime shortly before 23:49, 11 September 2009

Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the other camp, installing the redirect we have

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

01:08, 12 September 2009

Bws2cool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

18:12, 24 September 2009

Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This is a slow edit war, without a specific 3RR violation.

I'm well known for disliking the article in question, so one needs to take that into account when reading my take. I think that Kung Fu Man, Artichoker, and Bws2cool are being quite reasonable in pointing at the consensus with WikiProject Pokemon that having the article in project space to be repaired, and think that's a reasonable strategy. In spite of that, the number of redirects that Kung Fu Man has performed disturbs me. Peregrine Fisher at least recognizes the existence of the consensus at WikiProject Pokemon, and has discussed it at the project talk space. He seems to feel comfortable proceeding anyway.

DreamFocus and Colonel Warden, on the other hand, are not discussing at all: they simply are undoing the redirect. Colonel Warden also cut and pasted the contents of the project space article without attribution, causing GFDL problems.

Since the content of the article is safe and sound at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur, which is the only copy with a valid attribution history, my recommendation is to delete the article in mainspace, install the redirect, protect the redirect, and only undo it when a consensus to restore the article to mainspace can be demonstrated. Whether blocks or warnings need to be issued, and to whom, I leave to people who are a bit more detached.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup - attribution history is wrong, so deleted. If the article returns from projectspace at some point, then someone can do a history merge if the editors concerned here really want to have a rather WP:LAME edit-war preserved for ever. In the meantime, consensus at the relevant Project was clear, and so I have recreated the article as a redirect to preserve the links, and protected it so that people can't continue embarrassing themselves. Black Kite 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
What nonsense is this? I discussed it on the talk page of the article, where it should be discussed. What you have are some aggressive people determined to destroy an article, without proper consensus. And now Black Kite has deleted the article, history and all, without a proper AFD, and then locked a redirect there. On the talk page Peregrine Fisher found a notable media mention of the character, a biography of the fictional character, at IGN! That would clearly establish notability. If you disagree, take it to the AFD and do things properly. Dream Focus 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Deletion of the mainspace article is quite improper as there have been two AFDs for it already and it was Kept on both occasions. And it has been a Featured Article and so does not merit peremptory deletion. As for other details, a proper attribution was made in the edit summary to the fork created by the Pokemon project. As the article has been developed further with additional sourced material, it would be best to merge the forked versions and allow development to continue. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite has responded to these concerns with further steps. See the RfC: "Bulbasaur - to redirect or not". Please take any continuing discussion to the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:gu1dry reported by User:119.173.81.176 (Result: Both parties warned)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGu1dry

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This stemmed from a content dispute, when I realised that we were both in danger of violating the 3RR, I put a message on the user's talk page suggesting that we both back off and leave the topic alone, so we could avoid edit warring.

I did not try to argue that my edit was correct on his talk page as this could be seen as trying to provoke the user into another revert, my priority was for us to both calm down and prevent an edit war from happening.

The user must be very aware of the potential of a block being given for edit warring, as they were blocked ten days ago for edit warring.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both parties warned. I do not see four reverts in 24 hours, but repeated back-and-forth on the same point (automatic transmission) over an extended period could easily draw a block for edit warring. The sources appear to differ on whether an automatic transmission can be ordered, and the matter needs to be worked out on Talk before any more reverts happen. Citing both of the conflicting sources is an option for the editors to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kelly A. Siebecke reported by User:JoyDiamond (Result: No violation )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:

Although not of her stature, would Cher's name be replaced with Sarkisian?? Charles Karel Bouley is commonly know as "Karel" and only uses his full name when writing i.e. Advocate and Huffington Post. Repeating "Fired" NINE times ,including sources is redundant and unnecessary. Bill O'Reilly himself said that this was the second time Karel had been a pinhead. Will find source. More later...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: After extensive searching on Wiki sites I cannot find how to post a warning. Please help! I don't know how speak in symbols, am willing to learn. I attempted to read filing dispute pages and became even MORE dyslexic!I need a real personn to assist me.

Yes I have sincerely tried to resolve this edit war My talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JoyDiamond. Kelly Riebecke's talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelly_A._Siebecke Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . <No matter what I say or do, I am personally attacked in many ways violating Wiki standards.>

Comments:
As you will see on my talk page I have been warned, I don't believe these warning were justified as I have stated on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. I am NOT going to change anything, however incorrect, until an intervention with a real person. Are you that person? JoyDiamond (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Those edits all seem to have been made without any other edits inbetween, I don't think that is classed as edit warring. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No action That's correct, no violation of 3RR here, sequential edits count as one revert ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) However I have protected the page fo a short time to force discussion. One side's edits (using the obituary as the source) don't actually back up the statement, whilst the other side (JoyDiamond) is using an unreliable source to back up their version. Neither is particularly useful. Please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 09:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox reported by User:Ronhjones (Result:72 hrs )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Most of the reversion is being done piecemeal, rather than automated reverts, hence there are a lot of edits for the page in a very short period of time - Total of 37 edits just today, and 13 yesterday. There are a similar number of edits on the talk page, but I don't think that there is much agreement in the content of the page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have not done any reversion on this page. User:Lightbound has tried repeatedly to try to steer the page to a good version, and is not really succeeding. Ronhjones 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this report, as I do not know diffs well enough yet to have made it myself. I was going to just give up on the article. I prefer to handle things at the lowest level, but User:Likebox has had problems with another user, User:OMCV, whom I came to aid through a posting on a portal page. The article was in "general distress" and in need of more editors. I came to assist and found that the article is written like an essay that argues that the term "quantum mysticism" is to be used as in the derisive sense. I did research on this, new subject to me, and found that quantum mysticism is an actual practice that has been in existence at least since 1993. I discussed changes on the talk page in an attempt to actually document this practice, report its claims, and facts. It is my opinion that Likebox is not going to simply give up the "old notion" of this articles previous state. I even went as far as trying to rename the article, simply because the contents do not match the topic of what quantum mysticism is. I would love to add content, but I am afraid that may be futile, since this person has dominated it. Thanks again, Ronhjones, as I appreciate someone looking out and see that I am just trying to do right by Misplaced Pages. I am unsure how many other editors have been dissuaded by this type of intimidation. Perhaps this will bring his actions to light. --68.51.237.91 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this is my comment above, I am using the beta and secure sever log in and it logged me out of Wiki when I clicked to this page from the https namespace. I had to log in by non SSL means to be able to sign! --☯Lightbound☯ 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been only slightly involved in this wiki article, giving a "third opinon" and being involved in some minor discussions on the talk page. I more or less support Likebox' point of view as far as the content of the article is concerned. About editing the article, my experience here on wikipedia is that two editors with such different views on the focus of the articles cannot intensively edit the article at the same time without one or both of them violating 3RR. This doesn't have to be "edit warring".

I think locking the article pending a consensus reached on the talk page is the best way forward. An alternative approach could be that everyone agrees that one editor, say, Lightbound will be the only one who edits for, say, a week. Others editors (in this case Likebox) only give their comments on the talk page. This is the format that I recently tried with another editor on the entropy page. I had severe differences of opinion on the focus of that article with that editor. In that case this approach did not work because it turned out that the other editor did not understand the topic at all. But in principle, this could have worked had the other editor at least understood the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I must add that two users now have edited my user page. Not my talk page, but the user page itself. I can not help but feel this is related. One of the users was just created recently, User:Xobekil and I believe may be a sock-puppet or somehow related. I do not wish to edit the article for two weeks. I will just give up entirely. I think it is an injustice to wikipedia, though, that an article is to be used as a debate page and not written about the subject itself. I have also begun 3rd option and am attempting to use dispute resolution. I am quickly running out of steam, though. If it is going to be this difficult to document what the article means, perhaps I am not meant for wikipedia. --☯Lightbound☯ 21:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit by User:Xobekil on mass energy equivalence, and if you look at what I reverted, you see that User:Xobekil is unlikely to be a "copy" of likebox. Also, the edit you reverted wasn't insulting. You can't call that "vandalism". Look at the edit history of my user page to see real examples of vandalism. Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User has a history of edit warring and the page concerned was recently locked due to this editor and another edit warring. Blocked for 72 hours. Vsmith (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:I Pakapshem (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:

Consecutive 3rrs on two days, uncivil and uncompromising behavior in talk page, masked by false statements of compromise being reached in order to do reverts. Refuses to acknowledge me and other editors when discussing, deeming us not contributors. This can be seen in the talk page of the article.

--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporter is blocked and I'm looking at fixing things anyway. Moreschi (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 3 last 'reverts' had nothing to do with reverts ], ], ], moreover the edits were made from 24 to 26 Sept. (3 days). The specific User:I_Pakapshem, was blocked due to numerous wp:npa, wp:incivility especially in Souliotes talk page ] as a result of a wp:ani case against him, apart from having a block recort in his history log ]. The report is really bad faith, while his history log is just nationalist advocating, fruitless reporting and endless reverting ]. Moreover he never seems to understand the reason he is blocked ]. Alexikoua (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No wonder, after I_Pakapshem's last block things had somewhat settled, and a degree of conscensus has been reach, especially due to Moreshi's vital help.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:99.255.196.199 reported by User:Shoemaker's Holiday (Result: 36h)

Previous version reverted to: and

1st revert:
2nd revert: (the result of these two diffs is the version he reverts to here out)
3rd revert:
4th revert: (I warned him about 3RR at this point.
5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:99.255.196.199#WP:3RR (among others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Acupuncture#Evidence_of_effectiveness Comments:

Shoemaker's Holiday 06:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do something. The IP is continuing to edit war. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 36h by User:Orderinchaos. Black Kite 09:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

86.162.69.86 reported by Clovis Sangrail (Result: 1 week)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nil, they're both irrational

There's two users that are reverting everything the other does (Multiple articles). The other is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Elockid I think they both need a rest. They've even just started arguing on my talk page. Both claim the other is a sockpuppet. Apologies if I've messed the formatting up here

It might be worth trying to sort this one quickly, they're making a bit of a mess..

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Please read up on Nangparbat. Please also my talk page. User: AdjustShift agrees that I was indeed reverting edits by a banned user which 3RR is not included in.

Please also note that 86.162.69.86 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for being a sock of Nangparbat. Block Log. Elockid ·_Contribs) 14:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked I've already blocked 86.162.69.86 for 1 week. 86.162.69.86 is a sock of Nangparbat. Elockid was reverting the edits of a banned user, so there is no need to take any action against Elockid. AdjustShift (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:118.93.41.107 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 31 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert: 11 minutes after being warned

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours AdjustShift (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:79.78.6.136 and User:79.78.7.164 reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result: 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

For: 79.78.6.136

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

For: 79.78.7.164

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user has already used foul language in his edit summaries and - as 79.78.6.136 - claims I am a sockpuppet of banned user GMAFan per this diff. User has yet to explain his edits and even continued the harassment at the Tambayan Philippines talk page and at my personal talk page per recent history.

I recommend rangeblocks on edits from this 79.78.XXX.XXX range if such vandalism persists. Thank you. -Eaglestorm (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours AdjustShift (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ephestion reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31h)

previous version: 14:33

Revert-warring about "Macedonia" naming, against Arbcom-imposed 1RR as per WP:ARBMAC2
Warning and explanation: User talk:Ephestion#Macedonia

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked 31h by J.delanoy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:70.126.138.78 reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: 31h)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 31 hours for edit warring and incivility. The IP undid his last revert here, but he has been warring on other film articles and leaving edit summaries such as "State a good reason to revert something you idiot". Elsewhere, edit summaries like 'Asshole' and 'The fuck'. If this keeps up, there may be a longer block in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sposer reported by User:Nableezy (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert: of this removal
5th revert: again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Reverts_over_Al_Aharam

Comments:

Started as an issue with al-Ahram being used as a source. This has been discussed at both the article talk page and the RS/N with uninvolved editors agreeing that the source is a reliable source as a major news organization. Repeatedly removing the source then trying to poison the well using synthesis by adding criticism of the paper that nobody has related to the topic of the article. nableezy - 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I misunderstood that my first edit was a revert. The last two edits were not a revert, but adding a clarification. I was about to self revert the second revert anyway, but somebody already did. I put multiple notices on the talk page, but all people did was revert. I am no longer watching that page. Sposer (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Sposer went over 3RR but has declared that he will no longer edit the article. Unless he changes his mind, no admin action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire edit warring reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: Page Protected )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: by User:Alefbe
2nd revert: by User:Alefbe
3rd revert: by User:Akhilleus

Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring. Page use to exist. It has, since August, been edited out of existence. Three polls have taken place with one an official RfC. Each time, the vast majority have stated that they oppose a reduction in size of the page to either a disambiguation or a redirect. Each time, the consensus was ignored and the page redirected. Alefbe and Akhilleus are constantly edit warring it out of existence without any consensus to make such a change. The page is a top priority page and a high priority page in two different WikiProjects. Akhilleus, an admin, knows not to edit war and knows that there has been edit warring on the page. Alefbe has also been told. This is part of an on going request for Arbitration in which allegations of admin abuse including Akhilleus on this very page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, that was my first ever edit to Persian Empire, so I'm surprised to see that I'm "constantly edit warring". And this post doesn't make any sense unless Ottava is alleging that Alefbe and I are sockpuppets. If that's what he's saying, I hope he will open a case at WP:SPI! --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The history of the page makes it clear that there has been constant edit warring. One revert in such a position is contributing to edit warring. Akhilleus's close talk page relationship with Folantin, Dbachmann, and Alefbe show that they are part of a reverting group that avoids the definition of 3RR by taking turns. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ottava Rima: I have done 2 reverts on Sep. 25 and Sep. 27. So what? Those 2 reverts are backed by the discussion in the talk page. The relevant discussion shows that my 2 recent edits are backed by most of the users who have recently commented on that talk page. Alefbe (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR, this is an edit warring report. Edit warring does not have a limit and can be once a day if necessary. You have been edit warring without any consensus or justification for a very long time. The talk page also makes it clear that you have fabricated consensus - the majority of people do not support your claims, recent or old. There have been two straw polls and an RfC which all say that your actions are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima appears to be forum-shopping in an effort to take ownership of the article in question. In the last couple of days he's been all over WP:ANI and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case, and now this, which appears to be a frivolous report. →Baseball Bugs carrots 03:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So, the definition of "ownership" means being a participant in an RfC and Straw polls in which over 10 people have stated so far that they want the page to exist and only 5 people saying that they don't? And then there is clear edit warring on the page? Bugs, at least look before you speak. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a long term content dispute, everyone needs to calm down and form consensus on the talk page one more time. Baseball Bugs, your comment is not helpful, please refrain from making such comments. Page protected. Prodego 03:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protection was the right move. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Focak reported by User:Inter-man (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Comments:
He removes the information based on official data (the number of inhabitants of city) from official page of city and Statistical Offices, he on the basis of colloquial data about metropolitan area. Exist are many sources about metropolitan area representing different of numbers (from 4 to 5 million). The number of inhabitants of city is one, official data. Officialy in city of Barcelona lives 1,615,908 peoples. He believes that (colloquial term) "the metropolitan area" shows that the city is great, official figures (about the number of inhabitants of city) do not interest him. He four times he delete information from article. It is 4RR. Inter-man (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned Nja 18:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf. (Second report, Result: 1 wk)

Persistent slow edit warring and breach of Arbcom-imposed 1RR:

Continuing a slow revert-war over several days. Was already blocked for both a 3RR violation and simultaneous breach of Arbcom-imposed Macedonia naming 1RR three days ago (see #User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 12 h) above, still on this page). Has now repeated the same reverts twice. Single-purpose account, obvious nationalist POV motivation, refuses any discussion, gives no reasons even in edit summaries, just slowly repeats the same series of edits over and over again. Repeated warning given here: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked 1 week for a violation of the 1RR restriction on Macedonian naming issues. MessiniaGreece has never left a comment on a Talk page; his sole purpose on Misplaced Pages seems to be doing nationalist reverts. The following language is found in WP:NCMAC:

"Editors are reminded that all contentious edits touching upon Macedonia naming practices also continue to be subject to a 1RR restriction. In cases covered by this guideline, editors reinstating the version conforming to it are not subject to this restriction."

EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:Lisa for third time (Result: 1 month)

1st revert: 02:35, 13 September 2009 Sorry Lisa, that's a pretty poor-quality version, very unscholarly, not like the present one.
2nd revert: 22:22, 13 September 2009 rv to the sourced version - Lisa, you need to be less emotional about this and more constructive.
3rd revert: 01:02, 14 September 2009 Lisa, there's obviously no consensus,, since I don't agree with you.
4th revert: 05:53, 14 September 2009 Consensus is when everyone agrees, and we don't - so let's stick with the version that has reliable sources.
3RR warning: 13:30, 14 September 2009
Report to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:35, 14 September 2009
31 hour block: 05:59, 15 September 2009
31 hours later: 12:59, 16 September 2009
5th revert: 10:02, 17 September 2009 rv to the version with reliable sources.
6th revert: 23:53, 17 September 2009 Sorry Lisa, but I hope someday you'll understand how necessary this is to me :)
Report to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:12, 18 September 2009
31 hour block: 00:20, 19 September 2009
7th revert: 11:54, 26 September 2009 Since there's a consensus for this version (me, Cush, dab) we'll take it as the default, ok?

PiCo's rationale:

09:59, 17 September 2009
11:29, 17 September 2009

Comments:
Can PiCo be blocked from this article? This is the seventh time he's reverted it to the version that he created, unilaterally, after deleting the entire article. The very first edit on the article after he was banned a second time for edit warring on it, and it's a complete revert. Again. -Lisa (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Have to side with Lisa on this. There are suffient editors involved to constitute a true content dispute, but PiCo's methodology of wholesale deletion of notable and verifiable information is wreaking havoc. I've taken great pains to invite PiCo to ADD notable and verifiable information without DELETING notable and verifiable contributions from other editors -- to no avail. This shouldn't even be an edit war, since "our side" is welcoming of collaborative additions from "his side." We value what he can add, but deleting the work of others is pure and simple edit warring.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm now discussing with PiCo what to do, on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - PiCo has been given a semi-voluntary block for one month, as a condition of the 3RR complaint being closed. (Without his agreement to this result, some kind of topic ban might have been enacted). See User talk:PiCo#Your edit war at Chronology of the Bible for details. We don't usually do voluntary blocks. Any admin may substitute another close if you prefer, but then you own the problem :-). EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:89.216.192.29 reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: 15h)

Page: Prizren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Đakovica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 89.216.192.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Đakovica

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Prizren

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of hours Nja 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pagliaccioknows reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

- Warned Nja 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Eduardo Sellan III reported by Ophois (talk) (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

05:32, 24 September 2009 (edit summary: "This is even necessary?")
21:13, 24 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 315888979 by Ophois (talk)")
05:49, 26 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 316003493 by Ophois (talk)")
22:31, 26 September 2009 (edit summary: "But why would you want to put unnecessary things in the article? Why do we need bracketing the number again?")
20:55, 27 September 2009 (edit summary: "I know, but again the numbers of the first season is idiotic.")
21:02, 27 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 316560907 by Ophois (talk)")
22:49, 27 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 316564534 by Fetchfan88 (talk)")
01:54, 28 September 2009 (edit summary: "Already explained in the discussion for a long time. You by chance encounter?]])")

Diff of warning: here

— Ophois (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Giving the user a final warning. I don't think English is his first language, so I feel it better if I ensure communication before dealing out blocks. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bibliolover reported by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (Result: 24h to submitter)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , plus I attempted using history comments for guidance.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , and here I added a huge section to explain why the edit should stay included: , and here I summarize why the quote is needed: , and here I try to explain what is consensus: and , but it was of no avail.

Comments:

Bibliolover simply will not work with the community. Further evidence of this can be found in a complaint he filed against me here. It was his 32rd edit, and he's already acting against the community. For me, this may be my first 3RR filing, or perhaps any filing, and I've been here for years. I have to come here because his disruptive editing needs attention. He needs to work with the community, not in spite of it. I and others have provided gentle guidance but it was been of no avail. Also, he makes frequent personal attacks against me.

Let me admit I made in the past an edit or two over the 3RR line, but I admitted I lost track and apologized, and I believed the edits to be vandalism since they were by a newbie totally ignoring guidance. And now, I am not myself reverting a third time, so the article stands with the encyclopedic material removed, material that I brought to the community's attention precisely to obtain consensus as a result of the newbie's disruptive editing.

Please help. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is, himself, guilty of edit warring. He began by adding a quote that had been disputed and removed previously, and reverting edits to retain it in the article despite objections raised by myself and a second Misplaced Pages editor, Stephan Schulz (See here.)

My filing of a legitimate COI inquiry on the COI noticeboard is not edit warring, or an attack on the Misplaced Pages community, but a good-faith attempt to use the community's tools to raise a serious question about LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's obvious conflict of interest (so acknowledged by Atama and .) It is uncivil for LAEC to characterize my legitimate inquiry as such.

Nor are my edits vandalism; they were done as good faith attempts to improve the article, add substantive material, and provide a balance to try and maintain NPOV. (Frankly, it appears that LAEC characterizes any edits by a "dumb newbie" that contradict his opinions as "vandalism.") Again, it is uncivil for LAEC to characterize my edits as such. -- Bibliolover (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. When an editor who is in a conflict-of-interest situation is edit warring to keep certain links out of the article, it is hard to justify under our policies. He is welcome to express his concern on the talk page. To keep on reverting during a Talk discussion loses all credit. I suggest that Bibliolover should avoid reverting during a Talk discussion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: 31 h )

Page: Adem Jashari
User being reported: Tadija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This kind of editing is just plain Personal Point of View without any kind of reason. Note "gang of fascist terrorists" he is trying to add. Combined with nationalist messages warning about the "future" and vandalizing in my userpage and talkpage , , I think my report really belongs here. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

31 hours. Moreschi (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kildruf reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 15h)

Previous version reverted to: and

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first revert is a revert of this edit I made. As I had the article watchlisted after editing it, I noticed Kildruf make inappropriate additions regarding the Lockerbie bombing with language such as "heinous crime" or largely duplicate information, and attempted to discuss things politely on their talk page without resorting to the use of warning templates, and this was met with a claim of vandalism and threats to get an administrator. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 15 hours Nja 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 and User:WölffReik reported by User:Alansohn (Result: both blocked )

Previous version reverted to:

By User:Otto4711

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:

By User:WölffReik

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for Otto4711 for WölffReik

Edit war is based on whether article is independently notable. WölffReik has been trying to add sources to establish notability, while Otto4711 has been reverting back to a redirect. Otto4711 has two prior blocks for 3RR violations. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

1 week for Otto and 48 hours for Wolff. Moreschi (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of passports edit warring reported by User:Turkish Flame (Result: page protected )

Page: Gallery of passports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Earl of China (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc.

Comments:
Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring without any discussion. User:Bosonic dressing, the craetor of the article, possesses it like its owner and is edit warring. User:Earl of China, and others are also edit warring. Admins should protect the article and block some users.

Protected for 1 week since too many users are involved to justify blocking. –Juliancolton | 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I kind of object to being included here. I made an edit then resorted to discussion on the talk page. Bosonic Dressing, however, is practicing WP:OWN, and is reverting at least four other editors (myself, Earl of China, Readin, Wikilaurent) on the Taiwan presentation, and one or two others on some Turkish territory. I do not believe he has surpassed 3RR, but the WP:OWN issue is pretty clear - he wrote it and it is going to stay his way. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories: