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 07:34, 12 July 2014 editCallanecc (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,477 edits →User:WhyHellWhy reported by User:Taivo (Result: ): Blocked 10 days and notified of discretionary sanctions← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:00, 12 July 2014 edit undoNighlokKen (talk \| contribs)27 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 508:		Line 508:
	] appears to be a ] focused on pushing a pro-Russian POV on a small number of articles. --] (]) 06:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)		] appears to be a ] focused on pushing a pro-Russian POV on a small number of articles. --] (]) 06:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b\|10 days}} and notified of discretionary sanctions due to edits related to Crimea. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)		:{{AN3\|b\|10 days}} and notified of discretionary sanctions due to edits related to Crimea. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|user_talk:StringTheory11}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ryulong}}

			<!-- 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. -->

			Previous version reverted to:

			<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			Diffs of the user's reverts:
			#
			#
			#
			#

			user won't let anyone else edit the talk page and persistently reverts any comments. ] (]) 11:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

			<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Revision as of 11:00, 12 July 2014

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)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Unscintillating reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

referring to this

I sought to address this on the talk page of the editor, as reflected above, and on the article talkpage.

Comments:
In addition to the activity being edit warring, the editor plainly disregarded the fact (pointed out to him numerous times) that his additions violated wp:burden.

Which states:

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.... Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."

He was restoring information, some of it blp info, that had been deleted in accord with wp:v and wp:TENANTS (which states: "Misplaced Pages is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists ... in shopping center articles (except in the circumstances described below).") That the material was deleted on those bases is reflected in the edit summaries and in the various posts made to his talk page.

Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V. There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material. So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS). But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources. I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page. This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars. I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history. So I restored his last edit. Then I posted at the AfD. Then I reviewed my watchlist. I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit. This was way too complicated, this needed discussion. So this time when I restored the stable version of the article, it was a straight restoration...and my edit comment said, "talk page is next". Please see the talk page of the article, as I continued to post there without being aware of this 3RR. I have made two proposals on the talk page of the article. I am not aware of any edit warring by either party. Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unscintillating was repeatedly told in each of a number of edit summaries that uncited material was being removed per wp:v (and some per wp:TENANTS as well). He was also told in a number of warnings and posts to his talk page, reflected above, that his restorations of the uncited material without provision of appropriate refs was a direct violation of wp:BURDEN. Yet he kept on restoring the uncited material. All in under 2 hours. He completely ignored all communications regarding the fact that his additions were a violation of wp:v. Since his last restoration of such material, I appreciate that a sysop has deleted the part of his additions that violate wp:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No violation No edit warring here; the editor reverted his own additions after being requested to do so. Hope you too work this out on the talk page instead of in edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Lord -- I believe the confused record has misled you. The editor (Unscintillating) did at one point revert his own additions after being requested repeatedly to do so on his talk page ... but he then reverted his revert, and added back the material in direct violation of wp:burden.

After all the above-indicated talk page messages to him. A sysop (wearing his "just an editor" hat) -- not Unscintillating -- had to then revert most of Unscintillating's inappropriate additions, which he did here.

And the rest of Unscintillating's additions were then wiped out in a redirect by yet another editor.

But your understanding that Un reverted his own additions is, as to his ultimate edits, not the case. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note -- As noted above, the close above by Lord Roem is based on a mistake by the Lord. While it is true that the editor had reverted his own additions, as Lord said in giving his rationale -- the editor then restored the very additions that the editor had deleted. Lord clearly missed that.

His close can't be a legitimate close -- as the rationale is based on an incorrect understanding by Lord.

I would appreciate another sysop closing this. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the repeated comments above regarding WP:V, Epeefleche quotes from WP:V, but omits the following conditional, "Whether...this should happen depends...". I have documented a recent case of an article that Epeefleche took to AfD in which he removed sourced material during the AfD while claiming a WP:V entitlement.

Over the weekend I spent a man day working up the details and sequence of events of this incident and posted them at (@RoySmith:). What I have found out is that after I said "talk page is next", nine minutes later Epeefleche was working to avoid discussion. He did finally post, but ignored my questions. Since the closing admin hoped that Epeefleche would, "work this out on the talk page", Epeefleche is in violation of the spirit of the closing of this 3RR report. Please also review Epeefleche's definition of "at length" discussion, as seen at . It is appropriate that Epeefleche be warned for refusal to discuss. @Lord Roem:. Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I started to dig into Epeefleche's contributions around the time of July 2 tonight, and soon found . @Lord Roem: You state, "I've looked at it again. I don't believe they were edit warring; they also appear to have moved their thoughts to the talk page. That is a productive step and I encourage you both to pursue it towards consensus." You've now told him twice and I've told him once that there was no edit warring. But subsequent to your 2nd ruling, he/she has found an excuse to not discuss, says words to the effect that he/she doesn't understand your ruling, re-asserts that there was edit warring, and above wants another admin to re-close. Please support WP:BRD and issue a warning. Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not issuing a warning for a user being displeased at one of my decisions. I think it would be far more productive for both of you to work out your disagreements on the article's talk page instead of prolonging the debate on this noticeboard. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lord -- As to your suggestion that the article's talkpage be used to discuss this -- first, that's not the appropriate forum for the gravamen of this report. Second, as indicated above, all the challenged text that Un had been restoring in violation of wp:v and wp:TENANTS has now been addressed, as it has been deleted (again), by other editors. So there is no longer any dispute as to text residing in the article (which itself no longer exists, it has been redirected). Only a dispute as to the reported edit warring. Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

After what has been now almost a week, I do not believe a block is necessary to prevent further disruption. At this point, both of you should be clear on what you should and shouldn't do during a disagreement. You seem to be asking that the other editor be blocked as punishment, which is something I won't do. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lord -- I agree blocks should not be used as punishment. The reason that this has lingered is that your rationale in your initial close was based on a clear mistake. See above. The goal here is to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior -- it is not clear that the conduct issues have been resolved, as you have not warned the editor vis-a-vis the above-indicated violations of wp:burden, nor has he indicated - as you suggest -- he is clear on the fact that he is bound by wp:burden (just the opposite). In short, it appears you made a clear error in your close, and are now simply not re-visiting the matter to do as much as tender a warning that wp:burden is a guideline that must be followed. Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree to continue this conversation on the talk page of the article? Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss there -- inasmuch as the article itself no longer exists, and all the material you added in violation of wp:burden has been deleted by other editors. The only remaining item is a behavioral one. Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, (1) There are many issues to discuss. (2) The AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin (Pinging @Purplebackpack89:, FYI.). The article exists and is subject to editorial control. In regard to your use of the word "delete", only administrators have the tools to perform deletions. (3) I challenge you to exactly specify what it is that you claim is "all the material added" improperly, and what criteria you used to satisfy the WP:BURDEN clause, "Whether...this should happen depends..." Also please explain why you did not use {{cn}} tags. (4) In spite of your attempts at argument from repetition, WP:Burden is not a central issue here. To repeat what I said in this diff,

“

This is not primarily a WP:BURDEN issue. Epeefleche is interested in reverse-ripening the article for deletion so that he can get articles deleted that would not otherwise have been deleted. If he believed in the strength of his own AfD argument that the article was worthless, he would not feel a need to tamper with the evidence. As for the alleged WP:BURDEN, just within the last two weeks, diff, I documented a case in which Epeefleche removed sourced material from an article he had taken to AfD. So the mere fact that Epeefleche says that there is a WP:BURDEN issue is not proof that such exists.

”

Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Unscintillating, it's perfectly acceptable for non-admins to redirect articles if consensus exists. Right now, the only issue is that you are displeased with the consensus to delete those articles. p bp 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I came to this article on 2 July to add eleven references. One of the things to discuss is what it means when an editor says "restore stable version of article" as was said here. Does this mean "time to template the editor's talk page and disregard stability of the article", or does this mean "the talk page is indicated as per WP:BRD"? Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
See also Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Cornwall Square. Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:50.171.11.116 reported by User:Solarra (Result: Warned)

Page: Michelle Ruff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.171.11.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 00:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) to 00:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
1. 00:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 00:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) to 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
1. 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

06:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Michelle Ruff. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This anon editor has been edit warring this article for over a week. I warned them, but some sort of intervention is needed here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP user has demonstrated a propensity toward POV editing for a while, for example this string of edits in October/November 2013 where the IP was involved in long-term edit warring with numerous users. I first encountered the IP after they'd made this good-faith edit. I opted to remove wikilinks for common words like dog, lizard, etc, as well as voice actors for whom no roles had been listed per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. This apparently rankled the IP editor. "They are listed as additional voices, thank you.", "How is it considered an over link if McFist has a link for a common word like crab?". And when I ultimately removed the voice cast list entirely because it was in conflict with MOS:TV for duplicating the character list, the user reverted with the edit summary GO AND SUCK A PIPE!!. User later restored the list in spite of an active discussion on the article's talk page. Compounding the issue, the user hasn't demonstrated any intention of participating in discussions, for example this one, or on their own talk page, where they tend to blank notes and warnings and "reply" in their edit summaries. "Well excuse me their is no reason to be so ANAL..." I've also noticed a recurring "I'm not the one to blame here" mindset in their edit summaries. They appear to have expressed an awareness of their mistakes, which is a step in the right direction, though I'm not sure how to encourage this user to edit with consensus in mind or to adequately convey that this is Misplaced Pages's project, not their own. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been reverting my attempts to enforce MOS:BOLD on filmographies (lead roles should not be bolded, and some of this is OR without providing a source), and my attempt to flag BLP sources per list, which was prompted out of recent discussions with other editors to provide better sources on biography articles, some of which have been AFD'ed. Unfortunately I've been 3RR-warned on this as well so I am stuck on how to proceed from here. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Warned as it doesn't appear the IP is going to continue their disruption. If that self-asserted statement proves incorrect, they can be blocked. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lord Roem, after acknowledging that their editing warring is inappropriate, user continues to assert their worldview in these five edits. Misplaced Pages community consensus established MOS:BOLD, and local consensus at Talk:Michelle Ruff supports the removal of the boldface. User's edits are becoming disruptive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Monochrome monitor reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: 36 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

- 1st revert, 7 consecutive edits between 2014-07-10T00:38:06‎ and 2014-07-10T02:00:03
- 2nd revert, 2 consecutive edits between 2014-07-10T04:13:54 and 2014-07-10T04:24:46. I reverted this with the edit summary 'rv blatant 1RR violation while edit warring'.
- 3rd revert, straightforward undo at 2014-07-10T05:02:18 of my revert. Their response in the edit summary 'And revert doesn't count for when reverting someone else's absurd rollback', resulted in my filing this report. They are unambiguously edit warring and need to be stopped.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User_talk:Monochrome_monitor. The editor has received an ARBPIA notification and made aware of 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rachel_Corrie is littered with ongoing often acrimonious discussions.

Comments:
The editor should be well aware that that their actions violate 1RR and that there is no consensus for their actions, having participated in the ongoing discussions. Please do something to make sure they understand that they cannot edit war. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Total bullshit. A consensus was reached on the talk page that my edits were far more NPOV than the last. My first revert was of someone who rolled back weeks sort of edits, got reverted, made the same edit, so technically they violated the revert rule. The second revert was because this editor was plain wrong. I added the word allegedly because the article assumes that ISM's claims are true when they are contradicted by Israeli claims, hence no side should be taken. the third edit wasn't even illegal because a new day started. Look at Sean's edits and you'll see why he's reporting me: pro-Palestinian POV. I am a new editor and in my actual "warning" I was intimidated and harassed by an admin who didn't understand common decency, and one lacky who thought i had secret accounts. There was a general consensus on the talk page that the article was biased, so I was "bold" and tried to fix it. I want to make Misplaced Pages a better, fairer knowledge resource. I think good faith outweighs any small bureaucratic rule. Thanks for your time guys! --monochrome_monitor 05:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not bullshit. There is clearly no consensus for anything there at the moment. That talk page is a clusterfuck, partly thanks to you. Count yourself lucky that I am not an admin because I would be blocking anyone there who misused the talk page to express their irrelevant and disruptive personal opinions about any of the real world issues. If you want to make the article better, read my comment here, and make constructive policy based statements and proposals that can be dealt with one by one without edit warring.
This report is about edit warring. The talk page is the place resolve content disputes and propose policy based changes while at no time violating WP:NOTADVOCATE, even slightly.
You are edit warring so you get reported for edit warring. It is necessary in your case because you need to stop. That's my POV.
'good faith' ? You said "Look at Sean's edits and you'll see why he's reporting me: pro-Palestinian POV." You are wrong but it doesn't matter. I have explicitly stated the reason for my report in the report. What you should do is make sure you understand 1RR (because it seems you don't) and make a commitment to the effect that you understand 1RR and will never violate it again, and mean it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours For violating WP:ARBPIA 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:MarkBM reported by User:Solarra (Result: Blocked)

Page: Brazil vs Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarkBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Journalist reactions */"
23:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "it's not unbalanced or sensationalist, it's an accurate reflection of what happened"
23:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616299056 by Pmj (talk) don't talk utter rubbish - it improved it by removing trivia. and if you think emotion is not encyclopedic, you're sadly mistaken"
03:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "there is nothing unencyclopedic about this version - if you disagree, provide details, don't assume everyone else thinks the way you do"
04:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616320450 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) stop changing this without even attempting to explain what's wrong with it"
04:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616322984 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) I'll stop as soon as you get off your lazy ass and explain yourself at the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Brazil vs Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Twinkle doesn't have the capability to report the other page this user is edit warring on, but I have linked the history for patrolling admins. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I also issued a specific 3RR warning after the 6th (!) revert on the mainspace page: . Ansh666 05:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Now also at WP:ANI. Ansh666 05:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of this? You're not interested in having a decent introduction for that article. I get it. You value the ability to tell the teacher on people about a lack of "civility", rather than actually being civil and answering simple requests for further detail about what it is you objected to in my text. I get it. I opened a talk page section, the person who was SHOUTING at me to STOP EDIT WARRING couldn't be bothered to contribute there, and nobody else who replied could be bothered to give an actual explanation that I could work with, so I concluded the whole thing was a giant waste of time, and decided to shit can the whole thing. And now you're objecting to that? WTF? I'm not planning on touching that article again, not with a ten foot barge pole. If I didn't know it would be futile, I'd remove what I already added, because I only did so to support the revised opening, which is no longer there. If people want a summary of that part, they can apparently go to hell, as it's seen as "emotional" to summarize it, or whatever the stupid excuse was. MarkBM (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Greeneditor491 reported by User:Shrike (Result: Stale)

Page: Israeli settlement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greeneditor491 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
04:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Reference addition"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

07:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Israeli settlement. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article IS under 1RR per W:ARBPIA Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to put this under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but since it is already here, user warned of ARBCOM Sanctions on this topic field]. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The user could be blocked even without ARBPIA warning for 1rr.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, I did add the ARBPIA notification. (I think I did it right first time dealing with ARBCOM stuff). ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note I'm not going to block this user as they haven't edited since being notified of the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

They may be editing logged out e.g. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:46.28.53.146 and User:74.73.190.234 reported by User:Aa2093 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Morningside Gardens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.28.53.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 74.73.190.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I can't warn the user because he or she is editing from an IP address, not a user name. But he/she keeps adding in accurate info to this entry. I have undone it twice but don't want to risk violating the rules myself. How should I proceed?:

(Non-administrator comment) I have fixed the links above. I feel that this report may be better suited to WP:RFPP, however if a (possibly) dynamic IP chooses to edit war, just warn the latest IP, and request protection over at RFPP. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protected for a week. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:190.161.186.94 reported by User:AlanS (Result: Blocked)

Page: Wind wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.161.186.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

10:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616346746 by AlanS (talk) rv retard"
16:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615283165 by AlanS (talk) rv dickhead"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

09:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Wind wave. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please note edit summaries directed at me. This user appears to be same person who was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on Paul Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:190.44.133.67 AlanS (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note the flagrantly false accusation of vandalism. 190.161.186.94 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You consider the insertion of offensive language into wikipedia to not be vandalism how exactly? AlanS (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there has been some incivility here, but no edit warring. I would encorage both parties to discuss the edits in question, and try and get on with more civil behavior towards one another. With no warning for edit warring, I would advise that this is not yet at AN3 level yet, and furthur discussion is needed. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:93.103.152.4 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warning)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The problem is not just the reverting, but the repeated inserting of unverifiable information. It is even more problematic as several registered and unregistered users participate in the edit war, but this one seems to be the most active. --RJFF (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Warned; also, please be sure to inform the editor whom you're filing a report against. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:علي سمسم reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: علي سمسم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

The two diffs above are restoring this version

3. 21:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

12:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I have tried hard to resolve the dispute on the talk page. I think User Strike is biased in this report as he is an Israeli same as user Gunrpks who started this editorial war. I am new to wikipedia and never been egaged in editorial wars that's why I don know about these rules. I got provoked by User Gunrpks attitude and the war he launched on that particular article. I did resort to discussion and today (The day I was reported) I did not make any contribs to the Article. I just replied to Gunrpks comments...Something that may have provoked him and made him bring his friend strike here to report me.

Comments:

The user is new so warning will be enough probably .The article is under WP:1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA the other users are probably broken 1RR too and should be warned too in similar way. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani

So, Shrike, you observed edit warring, and singled out two edits by an Arab editor as worthy of report. This is what your report doesn't state, about the editor the newby twice reverted (User:Gunrpks).

Gunrpks has been round since 6 August 2013, and has edited several I/P pages since. Last night he went like a dose of salts, or lived up to the POV in his handle (gun+RPK) through a new page and shot about reverting in succession in the following style:

(1)19:36, 9 July 2014 (challenging The Guardian as RS)
(2)19:37, 9 July 2014 (Substantial removal asserting it was propaganda)
(3)19:42, 9 July 2014 (No explanation given)
(4) 19:45, 9 July 2014 (No explanation given)
(5) 20:08, 9 July 2014 Reverts an intermediate edit.(No explanation given)
At 20:15, 9 July 2014‎ I posted an ARBPIA banner on 1R restrictions on the talk page. Undeterred or unimpressed Gunrpks then made a further two reverts.
(6) 20:51, 9 July 2014 (No explanation given)
(7)20:58, 9 July 2014 (No explanation given)

He only desisted when I formally warned him by providing diffs, while informing him I would not register a complaint. Shrike is fully aware of this, but has collected diffs against the fellow with the Arabic handle. If he is concerned about proper conduct, edit-wearring and encyclopedic neutrality, he should have provided the same diffs, which show even more problematical behaviour. Both editors of course, edit-warred.(I only see now that a complaint has been made against Gunrpks below.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My reported stated that other users are edit warred as well and should be warned too so you accusation is certainly breach of WP:AGF and not suitable of WP:ARBPIA.

Given the severity of WP:ARBPIA editors from whatever direction in the compass should exercise great caution in not using it unilaterally to obtain advantage. The disturbance last night, by two editors (the other being Brad Dyer) who, as soon as they noted it, both attacked the page and sought its deletion, could not go slip under an attentive editor's radar. The newbie here was upset, and unfamiliar with our practices, but that is no exculpation. And if one was tempted to report one, conscience would demand one report the other. I noted both were edit-warring, put a notice on the page, and withheld making a report precisely out of WP:AGF, since I have had occasion to observe neither over time. You picked the least offensive editor to make your report. That is not good practice. I am not making an 'accusation'. I am reminding you of good practice and the need for equitable approaches.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did make equitable aproach by saying that other editors a edit wared as well.Lets the admin decide what is apropriate course of action.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for violating 1RR and notified of WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Gunrpks reported by User:علي سمسم (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gunrpks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

attemps of the user's reverts

User:Nishidani posted on the Article's talk page a notification that this article is under ARBPIA sanctions. After he did that User:Gunrpks continued to revert material on the page, and he was actually at his sixth revert. first rt (2) second rt (3) rt (4) fourth rt (5) fifth rt (6) sixth rt

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User Gunrpks used this friend from Israeli User: Strike to report me for a war edit he started himself. I did resort to discussions on the talk page yesterday. and he also did that :). Funny that today --علي سمسم (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I did not make any contributions to the page> I only replied to his comments on the talk page..but he called on his Israeli friend User:Strike to report me today for a violation me and him comitted yesterday!

Strike , I may not know now --علي سمسم (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This accusation is clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA(I came to the relevant page after it was list in deletion discussion) --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't assume "good faith" when you failed to mention the name of the "other user" who violated the rules as well...Appologies if your claim is true. but Please add User:Gunrpks to your report on editiorial wars on this artice...this would make me see you as a fair broker...anyways...let the admins decide.--علي سمسم (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure sign of editing warring when someone says that you can't take "The Guardian" as a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Israeli_strikes_and_Palestinian_casualties_in_Operation_Protective_Edge&diff=616269597&oldid=616267999 AlanS (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The remark on the "The Guardian" wasn't OK, I undertand. After we started the discussion I didn't edit this article at all and we talk only on the talk page. Gunrpks (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for violating 1RR and notified of WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Washuotaku reported by User:NE2 (Result: Both blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm pretty sure removing my comment constitutes vandalism, but even if not, he's done it four times. We've also edit warred at U.S. Route 321 in North Carolina, U.S. Route 321 in Tennessee, and U.S. Route 321 in Virginia. --NE2 03:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Veganfishcake reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

by anonymous IP 90.205.43.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The reported editor has repeatedly installed a POV edit into the article that is not consistent with the sourced claims of the section. Despite two other editors supporting my concerns on the article talk page the editor has persisted with reverting to his POV version. After the editor reverted a fifth time I left a 3RR warning at his talk page (he hadn't violated 3RR at that point since only three of the five reverts were in a 24-hour frame). Within minutes of posting the warning on his talk page an anonymous IP reverted yet again. I believe it is the same editor reverting to his preferred version of the article but attempting to avoid sanction for edit-warring. The editor supports Fleetwood F.C. (a UK football club) on his user page while the IP operates out of Longsight UK, with Fleetwood and Longsight situated just 50 miles apart. Betty Logan (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clearly the same editor. Edit warring regardless. The talk page admission that s/he will continue to edit war against consensus is fairly problematic. Kuru (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Stanley5141 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stanley5141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits
Consecutive edits made from 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC) to 23:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
1. 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "It was accepted view in Misplaced Pages that Europe divisions are vogue. For example look at Switzerland which was represented as bot Western and Central European country and look reference explanation. Ukraine has arguments to be named a Central European."
2. 23:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC) ""
23:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "According to opinion already accepted in Misplaced Pages Europe divisions are disputed. For example look at Switzerland article. Ukraine has arguments to be named Central European."
23:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC) ""
23:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ukraine. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

23:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Ukraine is Central European country editing needed to be allowed */ rp"

Comments:

Not actual reverts, but every edit is substantially the same: removing "Eastern Europe" and replacing with "Central Europe". Multiple reviewers (BethNaught, DDima, and myself) have told this user the edits are not appropriate and asked them to discuss it on the talk page. They did open a talk page section, but continue to edit war. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

PS - Twinkle missed a few; added by hand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The edits border on vandalism. The user also made disruptive edits at Switzerland.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Irondome reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Closed)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Revert 1, adds non-RS
Revert 2, adds non-RS
Revert 3, removes pertinent fact
Revert 4, pushes falsehood

Comments:So not only 4 reverts in 24 hours on a 1RR article but the reverts are also part of a clear pov push made even more obvious by remarks made on the talk page. Sepsis II (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've notified a few editors of the discretionary sanctions and added an editnotice. Let's leave it as is for now and see what happens, especially since it's a developing and current event. Anything other than edit warring, 3RR or 1RR violations should go to WP:AE not here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Note. (edit conflict) Sepsis II, the fourth revert occurred outside the 24-hour window, although not by a lot. No one warned the user they were about to breach 3RR. You failed to notify them of this discussion as you're required to do; I did so for you. Although not a new user, they have never been blocked before, so it's not clear, particularly with the immense amount of activity on that page that they knew they were might breach 3RR, although the sanctions blurb is prominently displayed on the talk page. They were just alerted to the sanctions, so I wouldn't block them for violating 1RR. Finally, if you're going to accuse the editor of POV edits on the talk page, you should provide evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Outcome as expected. Thanks for verifying. Sepsis II (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Knight of BAAWA reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked and locked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12:50, July 8, 2014
22:38, July 8, 2014
01:41, July 9, 2014
21:32, July 9, 2014
01:57, July 12, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:59, July 9, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 07:53, July 9, 2014

Comments:

Knight of BAAWA has recently been edit warring over the following sentence: "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist." The sentence is a true-but-not-very-flattering summary of well-cited article body text, positioned in the lead section. Knight of BAAWA does not like this derogation of anarcho-capitalism, and would rather tell the reader that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be "pure 'anarchist' in the strict sense", which is not supported by article body text. A flurry of edit-warring has ensued, with many users involved. Because of the edit warring to keep out the unflattering text, Goethean tagged the article as having problems with neutrality. Despite his full awareness that the issue was indeed in dispute, and his having been warned about edit warring, Knight of BAAWA removed the NPOV tag. His edit summary was "Disputed by whom? Just because you aren't getting your own way, statists, doesn't mean NPOV. Do NOT misuse tags as a form of disruptive editing." All by itself, the removal of the tag is clearly an expression of battleground behavior, and constitutes an entrenched attitude of edit warring which goes beyond 3RR. The insulting edit summary, calling other editors "statists" just underlines the battleground stance. Despite the last diff being 50 hours after the previous one, it shows how intractable Knight of BAAWA has become, how little he thinks of a collegial atmosphere, and how his disruption extends to calling others names. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours and

Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This really should have gone to ANI as there is very clearly no 3RR violation and there is a lot of edit warring not just from Knight of BAAWA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:WhyHellWhy reported by User:Taivo (Result: Blocked 10 days)

Previous version reverted to: ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:WhyHellWhy appears to be a WP:SPA focused on pushing a pro-Russian POV on a small number of articles. --Taivo (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 10 days and notified of discretionary sanctions due to edits related to Crimea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

] reported by User:NighlokKen (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

user won't let anyone else edit the talk page and persistently reverts any comments. NighlokKen (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Categories: