Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:35, 12 January 2013 editRJFF (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,873 edits User:Danrolo reported by User:RJFF (Result: )← Previous edit Revision as of 18:54, 12 January 2013 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,790 edits User:Danrolo reported by User:RJFF (Result: ): 72 hours and detailed noteNext edit →
Line 243: Line 243:
:Ditto above, despite multiple requests he discuss the edits. Also note that ] has been stalking me, vandalising the Hagel article and other articles/talk pages and User talk pages. I don't think S2grand is him, unless he has had this as a long term account or hacked into this User:S2grand. (PS: Maybe someone could delete the edit summary at 00:47, January 12, on that talk page history which is yet another account JarlaxleArtemis's created in yet another nasty variation on my name.) '']'' 06:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC) :Ditto above, despite multiple requests he discuss the edits. Also note that ] has been stalking me, vandalising the Hagel article and other articles/talk pages and User talk pages. I don't think S2grand is him, unless he has had this as a long term account or hacked into this User:S2grand. (PS: Maybe someone could delete the edit summary at 00:47, January 12, on that talk page history which is yet another account JarlaxleArtemis's created in yet another nasty variation on my name.) '']'' 06:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) ==


'''Pages:''' {{pagelinks|Saenuri Party}} <br /> '''Pages:''' {{pagelinks|Saenuri Party}} <br />
Line 294: Line 294:


Danrolo engages in long-term edit wars over several articles, sometimes without logging in. He has constantly shown disruptive editing since at least November 2011, namely inserting unsourced information, refusal to back it up with references and edit warring. He has also inserted factual errors (deliberately or out of ignorance), repeatedly moved articles without consensus, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly created biographies on living persons without citing sources, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly removed PRODs from them, despite being warned against doing so. His talk page is plastered with good advice and escalating warnings against disruptive editing, unsourced content and edit warring. My repeated attempts to communicate with Danrolo have failed a long time ago. --] (]) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Danrolo engages in long-term edit wars over several articles, sometimes without logging in. He has constantly shown disruptive editing since at least November 2011, namely inserting unsourced information, refusal to back it up with references and edit warring. He has also inserted factual errors (deliberately or out of ignorance), repeatedly moved articles without consensus, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly created biographies on living persons without citing sources, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly removed PRODs from them, despite being warned against doing so. His talk page is plastered with good advice and escalating warnings against disruptive editing, unsourced content and edit warring. My repeated attempts to communicate with Danrolo have failed a long time ago. --] (]) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}. I've blocked Danrolo for 72 hours. However, there are a lot of articles and a lot of IPs involved. It looks like ] is the most active recently (I haven't looked at every one), although they haven't edited in about 4 hours. I'm willing to block them if they become more active. However, semi-protection may be a better alternative depending on the pattern of misbehavior. Please let me know, either here or on my talk page, if there's something more you wish done to protect the articles. I have not put them on my watchlist at this point, so I'd need a heads up.--] (]) 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

<u>Comments:</u> <br />

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

Revision as of 18:54, 12 January 2013

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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.

    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

    User:Reyk reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Declined )

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Page: Template:Arguments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Template talk:Arguments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Reyk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert: 2013-01-01
    • 2nd revert: 2013-01-01
    • 3rd revert: 2013-01-05
    • 4th revert: 2013-01-05


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Extended discussion, click to view
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Comments: From the beginning of this dispute on Template:Arguments, this user has yet to respond to my initial edit comment.  The user frequently does not provide edit comments.  A review of the talk page discussion, the edit history of the template page, and the edit history of the talk page, shows that the user stipulates that he will not participate in discussion, including, "I will not be sucked into this...argument. The material stays."  At one point the user formally withdrew from the discussion and it appeared to be over; but now he insists that since he is being trolled, he can revert both the Template page and the Template talk page and there is no need to reopen the talk page discussion.
    Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

    I'm hearing the sweet sounds of a WP:BOOMERANG flying through the room here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    Sarek, Your edit comment states, "what was that football player's name again?"  How is that edit comment related to this discussion?  Also, please review the diffs at WT:ATA#History of TMBS if you have not done so.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    What we know after 24 hours is that your viewpoint has not been sustained by the regular admins working here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    The ruling that declines to provide sanctions has suggested the benefit of a third opinion.  Sarek, will you provide such an opinion, or initiate a request at WP:3O?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    Yep... a13ean (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

    It's probably a mistake to dignify this vexatious complaint with a response, but for the benefit of those playing along at home here is the background. I am a major contributor to the essay WP:MUSTBESOURCES, which Unscintillating disapproves of. Links to it in WP:ATA and Template:Arguments existed for over a year without challenge. After I dismissed one of Unscintillating's irrelevant quibbles in a way that did not allow any follow-up trolling, he went around the same day to remove them. I consider this behaviour to be petty and peevish, and I just reverted him because I have no intention of getting drawn into an argument with him. In any case, it is futile to try to discuss anything with Unscintillating because these are the kinds of responses he gives people who disagree with him: example 1, example 2, example 3.

    This seems to be the origin of Unscintillating's grudge against me; this exchange seems to have festering in his mind ever since. I make no secret that I think Unscintillating is trying to troll me. I don't think he should remove material from other pages as retribution for the grudge he holds me. I do not think he should unilaterally close discussions he's involved in in his own favour, particularly not with such a self-serving and dishonest rationale, or call me a vandal for objecting. And now I see he's admin shopping: User_talk:King_of_Hearts#request_for_opinion.

    I request that this meritless complaint be closed, and I will consider asking for an interaction ban on Unscintillating commenting on me or WP:MUSTBESOURCES, broadly construed. Reyk YO! 04:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

    Reyk, it appears to me that your edits are showing a pattern of .  Your belief that your essay "was spun out because it was long enough to constitute a stand-alone essay" is incorrect as documented at WT:ATA#History of TMBS, and consistent with a hubris-type of issue.  What might help is more effort put into fact checking.  No one has called you a vandal, you choose from your own ideation to bring paranoic words into this discussion such as troll, grudge, self-serving, dishonest, vandal, and admin shopping.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    I've asked you to leave me alone. Please stop talking about me or to me. Stop following me around to "flag" my comments with your irrelevant twaddle about my edit summaries. Stop inserting your old grievance about "undermining" the banning policy into unrelated discussions; everyone you've asked has told you you're wrong about it anyway. If you have a problem with WP:MUSTBESOURCES, MfD it now or forever hold your peace. I now consider these matters closed. If you hassle me again, I will ask for that interaction ban and I will almost certainly get it. Reyk YO! 03:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion in which you asked me to leave you alone was at DRV and the context was just that one discussion.  The post that I made drew attention to an edit comment, and there was no invitation or even suggestion for you to respond.  Above in this conversation you make the statement that you found yourself trolled into responding, and that you successfully made a response that left me unable to respond.  You seem proud of your skill in this regard.  A more-objective viewpoint is that you asked a question, that questions are designed to induce a response, that it was polite for me to respond, and that I did so.  Moving forward, in contrast with saying that you wanted to be left alone, you brought the DRV discussion to this AN3 page.  In doing so you have successfully recruited the closer of this AN3 section to mention the DRV conversation.  Moving forward again, in your world of logic, you are now likely to argue that by making this response I am not leaving you alone and you requested it.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    If you don't like the attention that you get as an editor engaged in "undermining or sabotage" of banning enforcement, then why did you open up the topic in this discussion?  If you really don't want to talk about this, you need only make one edit and the issue goes away.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Regarding MfDing your essay, that is fine if someone wants to MfD it, but I have no interest.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Your initial edit in response to the filing here (on your talk page) was to call it "rubbish".  Your first edit on this page was to characterize the readers of this discussion as "playing along at home".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    See WP:Consensus#Reaching consensus through discussionUnscintillating (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not even going to dignify the bulk of your diatribe with a response. For someone so obsessed with semantic quibbling, you're remarkably obtuse when it comes to understanding peoples' intentions. Do you do this on purpose? (that's a rhetorical question, the answer is, yes, you do). I will, however, explain once and for all why I will never, under any circumstances, revert myself on that old AfD.
    • (1) Because I would be reverting User:Penwhale as well; my edit was a revert back to theirs. Since I value Penwhale's opinion infinitely more than yours, I won't be doing that.
    • (2) Because here and on User talk:King of Hearts you are making implied threats to continue hassling me if I don't do as you say. I do not knuckle under to threats, because you'd interpret that as an invitation to make more. Never mind that threatening my reputation with an 18 month old revert is about the most feeble threat I can imagine.
    • (3) Because nobody but you thinks there's anything wrong with that edit of mine. Several other editors have defended me on it when asked. If I were to revert it, that would be making an edit that I know to be wrong, ie. vandalism. And I do not vandalise.
    • (4) Because if I can end the "dispute" with one edit, you can end it with zero. By leaving me alone. By the way, it's not a "dispute"; the matter's already been settled in my favour. You being butthurt and continuing to whine endlessly isn't my problem.
    Is anyone reading this surprised that I want to be quit of this tiresome windbag? Reyk YO! 05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Declined: The link was added more than 1 year ago. It remained in the template for all that time with no comment whatsoever. Following a kerfuffle with Reyk, Unscintillating removed it. This could have been good faith tracking down of what Unscintillating perceived to be a problem, or it could have been being pointy and stalky. Either way, the status quo was the inclusion of the link. As such, Reyk was merely restoring the status quo. At no point did Reyk cross 3RR. Thus, the default assumption is that Unscintillating is the one guilty of edit warring, not Reyk. Since Unscintillating also didn't cross 3RR, and hasn't revered since this was submitted, I won't boomerang this back on him, but at this point it is up to Unscintillating to establish that there has been a change in consensus to remove the link. If one cannot be reached among the two editors themselves, Unscintillating should pursue dispute resolution, with WP:3O probably being a good first step (unless xe thinks the linked essay is so egregious that it ought to be taken to MfD). If Unscintillating continues to remove the links, that could be grounds for an edit warring block for xyr. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Maurice07 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Sending to WP:AE)

    Page: List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    This is a case of long therm edit-warring by Maurice07 on this article and multiple similar articles. He insists on adding Turkey to the european section of multiple embassy-related articles without consensus. This is an example of a revert from September which also shows his massive edit-warring back then and for which he got blocked. Please see also relevant report at ANI back then: Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07.

    More recently we have the following: On 3 January he resumes the September edit-warring: Revision as of 18:37, 3 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) and then:

    No warning necessary. This editor is a veteran edit-warrior. This particular edit-warring is a continuation of a massive edit-warring campaign he started in September with the purpose of adding Turkey geographically to Europe. He is acting against consensus.

    Comments:
    This user has been engaged in widespread and long-term edit-warring across many articles and for many reasons. This is just another bout of such behaviour. He also got a warning of tendentious editing under ARBMAC by FPaS recently: which he later erased along with a multitude of other 3RR warnings. Here is another ARBMAC warning from FPaS back in April 2012 which he also erased. Δρ.Κ.  00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

    I endorse this report, and suggest that in addition to a block, discretionary sanctions be imposed. In addition to a history of edit-warring, this is user is a textbook example of an aggressive, tendentious nationalist editor with minimal positive contributions to the project. Examples of tendentious edits (tag-teaming and edit-warring over a name already mentioned a few lines below) (self-explanatory) (unexplained changes to the figures, all designed to make Greece "smaller" or "poorer") (WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of relevant See also) (Edit-warring even though the article name is "Tenedos"), (the mere fact that he considers this "irredentist" speaks volumes about mentality) and on it goes. Examples of incivil, aggressive behavior: . Talkpage engagement and content building are next to zero. Activity consists mostly of pushing a narrow nationalist agenda at every opportunity. This is precisely the kind of user these topics do not need. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for your special attention,Dr.K.. Hopefully, you should have reported desire to edit war or 3RR warning for Aquintero82 and Sir Tanx To put it plainly, I do not find an objective and impartial your notifications. Your and Greek user Athenean′ contribs on wiki articles,the best proof of it. Also,Far as I know,if three-revert rule 3RR is repeated within 24 hours ,is a violation.Thank you.--Maurice (talk) 01:49, 07 January 2013 (UTC)
    So let me see: You get blocked for 48 hours in September after a report at ANI about your Runaway edit-warring and now you come three months later to restart it without consensus and against two other users who are trying to uphold long-held consensus. And no, you don't have to break 3RR in 24 hours to be reported here. If you noticed this noticeboard is about edit-warring not only the 3RR rule. Given your history of tendentious and longterm edit-warring today's report is fully justified. By trying to shift the blame on other editors I think you are making the best case for your own blocking. As far as your evaluation of my contributions to articles here I honestly think you have no clue what you are talking about but I won't hold that against you. Δρ.Κ.  03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    It's also worth noting if you are reinserting the same material over a spread out time in order to game the processes in place for edit warring it is still a violation. From what it appears this has been a long term pattern of inserting the same type of material against the consensus. that's what it looks like from the outside anyways Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    I restored this report from the archive since it concerns long-term warring at List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, and it was not closed by an admin. I left a note asking Maurice07 to agree to wait for consensus on whether Turkey is in Europe before making any further edits on that question. That could be a way of closing the report with no sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you Ed for the action. But as we are about to close this report the same user is involved in two more edit wars at Xanthi and List of languages in Europe where he is cn-tagging Greek as a minority language in Turkey, although it is crystal-clear that there is a Greek-speaking minority in Turkey. It doesn't get any more tendentious than that. Clearly we need an AE action at some point under ARBMAC. Δρ.Κ.  18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    I can't speak for Ed, but for me, I'd prefer to see an AE report for ArbMac sanctions. I'm not trying to be process wonky; I just find I'm a little more comfortable imposing AE sanctions when the other AE admins are also having a look at what we're doing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    No, not at all. Thank you very much Heimstern for the explanation but I never intended to imply that I was asking for AE enforcement from this board; this is the reason I mentioned above "at some point", meaning not now. I realise that AE sanctions are handled differently and the admins there have different standards. So no pressure on you or Ed. :) But thank you again for your advice. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you Ed for your advice and for your notice on my talk. I am afraid I do not have any experience filing AE reports so I will try to gather some stronger evidence before I file. All the best. Δρ.Κ.  04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

    User:AmherstApple reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Multiple blocks and protection)

    Page: Boy Scouts of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AmherstApple (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 edit warring / 3RR warning: (Page created)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    This purportedly brand new user insists that his interpretation of policy trumps the consensus of 3 other editors. He is also doing his best to force in the same material at Randall L. Stephenson.

    And it should be noted that the one bringing this up never went to the TALK page but TAG teamed to edit without talk. I asked for page protection in hopes someone would TALK. But looking at Belchfires warning history and BAN history shows he is a edit warrior that just keeps attacking until get gets his way. --AmherstApple (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

    Turns out this is a sockpuppet of User:Marlin1975 (indeffed long ago). Case opened at SPI. Carry on. ► Belchfire-TALK 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    You mean this report? That pertains to User:Sonic2030, not to User:Marlin1975. Is there a connection between the two (in your view)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    There is definitely a connection, and it's been verified by CheckUser. See the archived reports: . This is a recurring problem, and I've been reporting using the most recent sockmaster, Sonic2030, because it's familiar to admins due to recent activity. Honestly, there are so many socks at this point that it's hard to know which handle is the primary. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm dim, but I still don't see the connection to Marlin (not in the link you provided). None of this necessarily bears on the merits of the edit-warring report, but Amherst's conduct troubles me mainly because they edited as an IP and then as a registered account. At the same time, if one assumes they're a "new" user, the edit-warring warning came after their last revert. If it weren't for that one small point, I would have already blocked them. I'll be going off-wiki soon, so if another admin wants to take action, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    Please look again at the SPI archive, the text is in the December 19 report: So I actually have nothing more, I do note that one of these socks has a sock tag for Marlin1975. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 6:51 pm, 20 December 2012, Thursday (20 days ago) (UTC−8)
    Also, the 3RR warning was the page creation edit, so you have to look at the left-hand side of the diff. The warning was given at Revision as of 13:28, 9 January 2013 (edit), and the final diff was at Latest revision as of 16:30, 9 January 2013 (edit) (undo). I may have mucked this up some when I posted the report, but procedurally it's correct. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

    I got this via WP:RFPP. I blocked Belchfire for a week. This is his second week long EW block. I almost indeffed him. The other two I blocked for 24 hours and the page has been full protected for 10 days. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

    How do you justify blocking BelchFire for a week for removing clearly WP:CRYSTAL information> Especially when several other editors were removing the same information for the same reason? Additionally, BF did not break 3RR. This is not justified. Arzel (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    User:Ankarakediler reported by User:Shrigley (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:


    This article is under 1RR restrictions per WP:ARBAA2.

    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. This is a basic terminological conflict, where Ankarakediler does not like to use the word "denial" to describe Armenian Genocide denial.

    Comments:


    Isn't there generally supposed to be at least 3 reverts before they can be blocked? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 14:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    This article, Armenian Genocide, was placed under one-revert restriction under the discretionary sanctions from an arbitration case. (1RR is enforced at the same noticeboard as 3RR.) This fact of 1RR restriction was prominently displayed on the talk page here, and on an editnotice here, and in my 1rr warning on the violator's talkpage here, which was deleted and so acknowledged. Shrigley (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Note. You neglected to notify the editor of this report as required; I've done so for you. Given that they were formally warned after the second revert and haven't reverted since your revert, I'd like to hear if they have anything to say. I realize that the talk page and edit notice both warn them, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

    User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: Page protected 3 days)

    Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert: 19:15 9 January 2013
    • 2nd revert: 18:12 10 January 2013
    • 3rd revert: 18:14 10 January 2013
    • 4th revert: 22:40 10 January 2013 (Just outside the 24-hour window.)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The message was removed from his Talk Page by Rhode Island Red; to see it, you have to scroll down on this page to a header marked "The happiness of this season to you". The diff showing this removal is here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    (1) I didn't bring this particular incident up on the Talk Page this time because (1) Rhode Island Red has been warned previously about 3RR violations and he has also brought charges against others, and he is well aware of the WP policy, and (2) there are already several disputes on the page, and I did not feel justified in adding still another. If RIR were so minded, he could have self-reverted after I sent him the warning noted above. Instead, he simply removed the warning as well as a holiday message I had sent him previously.

    (2) There are some edit disputes on this page, but for the most part the editors are attempting to work things out, not always satisfactorily. The other disputants have been holding off on the knee-jerk reversions recently.

    GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    Note that RIR has been the suject now of two RfC/Us dealing with tendentiousness and edit warring. And several reports at AN/EW as well. The reverts here are, in fact, sufficiently clear, and not easily excused. RIR, of course, is welcome to remove all notices on his talk page. He can not however aver he was not warned each time. Collect (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    George and Collect -- this chronic harassment must stop immediately. I did not violate 3RR. The warnings I have received in the past for edit warring have all been from you two, arising from your own tendentious behavior and POV pushing on Frank Vandersloot. Not one of your 3RR complaints was deemed valid -- it constitutes a recurring pattern of harassment. The RfC referred to was launched by George and the basis for it was, according to his allegation, incivility, not edit warring, and it led to nothing. Furthermore, there was nothing to self-revert in this case, since the other editor involved already self-reverted back to a stable version, and I made no further edits after George posted the superfluous warning on my page this morning (which I am fully entitled to delete at my discretion); in other words, this complaint was completely unnecessary, counterproductive, and punitive. The edits George was pushing in this case violated a previously established consensus, but regardless, the issue is being discussed on the Talk page. I have warned you that I intend to pursue this chronic harassment with WP admins as it appears it would be the only way to get you stop this unacceptable behavior. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    What harassment from me? Please note that I scrupulously avoid you -- and yet you wail about "harassment" at every turn. Really READ WP:AGF for gosh sakes! And when you cry "harassment" or "witch hunt" - be prepared to provide diffs for your claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

    User:S2grand reported by User:Nstrauss (Result: )

    Page: Chuck Hagel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (This is a 1RR article.)
    User being reported: S2grand (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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    This is a 1RR page due to the Arab-Israeli arbitration. S2grand has never engaged in the discussion despite repeated requests by Carolmooredc and me. His comments here are as uncivil as anything I've seen. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC) By the way, I don't know if this diff is at all relevant, but it is suspicious. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

    Ditto above, despite multiple requests he discuss the edits. Also note that Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis‎ has been stalking me, vandalising the Hagel article and other articles/talk pages and User talk pages. I don't think S2grand is him, unless he has had this as a long term account or hacked into this User:S2grand. (PS: Maybe someone could delete the edit summary at 00:47, January 12, on that talk page history which is yet another account JarlaxleArtemis's created in yet another nasty variation on my name.) CarolMooreDC 06:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

    User:Danrolo reported by User:RJFF (Result: 72 hours)

    Pages: Saenuri Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    People's Alliance (Spain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Democratic Justice Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Communist Party of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    After the last report of Danrolo's edit warring across five articles was archived without administrative reaction four days ago, Danrolo continues edit warring in even more articles.

    Saenuri Party

    Previous version reverted to:

    People's Alliance (Spain)

    removal of sourced content, previous version reverted to:

    Democratic Justice Party

    previous version reverted to:

    Communist Party of Greece

    previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert: by IP 190.22.205.47 (=Danrolo)
    • 3rd revert: , same IP

    Danrolo engages in long-term edit wars over several articles, sometimes without logging in. He has constantly shown disruptive editing since at least November 2011, namely inserting unsourced information, refusal to back it up with references and edit warring. He has also inserted factual errors (deliberately or out of ignorance), repeatedly moved articles without consensus, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly created biographies on living persons without citing sources, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly removed PRODs from them, despite being warned against doing so. His talk page is plastered with good advice and escalating warnings against disruptive editing, unsourced content and edit warring. My repeated attempts to communicate with Danrolo have failed a long time ago. --RJFF (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I've blocked Danrolo for 72 hours. However, there are a lot of articles and a lot of IPs involved. It looks like User:190.22.205.47 is the most active recently (I haven't looked at every one), although they haven't edited in about 4 hours. I'm willing to block them if they become more active. However, semi-protection may be a better alternative depending on the pattern of misbehavior. Please let me know, either here or on my talk page, if there's something more you wish done to protect the articles. I have not put them on my watchlist at this point, so I'd need a heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Categories: