Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Factocop reported by User:O Fenian (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Marc Wilson (Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and three others, see below)
User being reported: Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

As can be seen on User talk:Factocop the editor has already been told by an administrator to discuss not edit war, but the edit warring continues. O Fenian (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

May as well add first, second, third and fourth reverts to previous version on Shane Duffy (soccer player) too, to save me making a new report. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Similarly first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version on Republic of Ireland national football team. O Fenian (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version (without the Irish name, I'm sure there's a more recent version too, but that's now academic since he's managed a fifth revert anyway) of City of Derry Airport. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did raise a discussion in all of the pages that I edited but no one joined the conversation. I have learned my lesson an I will just report users upon any revert or edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factocop (talk • contribs) 08:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Faust reported by 173.58.234.86 (talk) (Result: page protected)

Page: Morality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:42, 8 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383716972 by Zaspino (talk)")
2. 21:46, 8 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383716972 by Zaspino (talk)Don't start an edit-war. Try to reach consensus first.")
3. 06:28, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383721840 by Pfhorrest (talk)Please, stop this edit-war and cite at least ONE source for you POV.")
4. 09:14, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383799881 by Pfhorrest (talk)Sources do not support this wording. Please, do not edit-war.")

• Diff of warning: here

—173.58.234.86 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Other instances of the problem which have yet to become not 3RR violations:

1. 16:07, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384502416 by Pfhorrest (talk)All cited sources contradict this version.")
2. 16:10, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "replaced last undisputed version.")
3. 20:00, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384631138 by Zaspino (talk)Quit it Zaspino, discuss your POV and motivate it properly.")

Other instances which are not 3RR violations but show persistent general edit-warring against the consensus:

1. 22:14, 6 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 382858025 by 79.182.17.168 (talk) Kindly discuss. It is not about the standard, but about the will for universality.")
2. 07:02, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383390752 by 173.58.234.86 (talk)No consensus, nor correctness.")

In addition to 3RR, in this edit war Faust is acting against the wp:consensus. He is the only editor that has shown this viewpoint. --173.58.234.86 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What about this fellow that's just shown up and reverted it to Faust's version? I wonder if the page should just be protected until you can all work it out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the user noticed the talk page per diff comment, but I'll assume good faith here. The disucssion has been going on for quite some time (end of August/start of September). All editors other than him and Faust support the consensus as well as an RfC opinion. Faust appears the only editor opposed to it. Anyways, he still violated 3RR, but it might have been too long ago for you to take action. I'm not sure.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked User:Ohnoitsjamie (the "this fellow" mentioned above), after his revert, to read Talk:Morality and comment there. I note that he is an admin and appears to have been in the process a general sweep of vandalism/spam/etc when he reverted, so he probably just happened by, saw some reverting going on, and undid it with a comment to take it to talk, without noticing we already have. Since he hasn't replied and was actively editing for a good while after I made my comment, I doubt that he's especially interested. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Faust's edit summaries (as shown here) sound misleadingly benign, I've compiled a short annotated list of links to all relevant diffs (changes to the article and Faust's reversions thereof), viewable at Talk:Morality#History links for everyone's reference. As you can see there, the bulk of the conflict has not been Zaspino and I against Faust (as the edit summaries above suggest), but it began between Faust and several different anons, and Zaspino and I are relative latecomers. I personally make a point of not entering into disputes like this in the article space (vs talk) until there are at least three other editors struggling against one single edit-warrior like Faust. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that the above is untrue on all accounts. All of the edits I undid have been attempts of mine to revert the project page to the undisputed version and to get people to discuss their POV's at the talk page so that we could come to an agreement by menas of rationality, but so far all attempts have failed with this group. As can be seen by checking the talk page the discussion was started by me on the talk page because Zaspino undid the addition of a reference (which I then had to reference...). Later Theobald Tiger joined on zaspino's side. Since both lack any kind of knowledge and interest in the field of philosophy and as such were unable to give ANY source for their claims I patiently argued my case, even though it was a transferral of nl.wiki related problems to en.wiki. When it turned out the two were in trouble the anon's joined in to form a majority so as to block an honest explanation of the term to stand against their POV. Later Pfhorrest joined in, who apparently honestly believes his POV is objective. Since all are behaving in a similar manner I have decided they are tag teaming (apart from Phforrest, whom I think is sincere).

To prevent this edit-war from getting started I have asked Zaspino and Theobald to stop their behavior and in every edit I have asked them to argue their case on the TP. I have placed a request at the philosophy project to help me out, but this had no effect. Since Theobald told me in an email he does not care about the content of this encyclopedia, as long as my knowledge does not get public, I do not have the idea that these individuals will ever relent. That is why I previously asked to block the whole lot, which can be seen from this edit (I didn't look for the initial edit btw). Since the edit-war has subsequently taken a second life (from the linked version on), from either adding a reference or not to actually changing the undisputed version to a POV, unfounded by any source, I have continued (as I did before) to revert the page to the last undisputed version (from far before the linked edit) (which had been undisputed for a year or so, but since I started to propose edits suddenly was disputed by nl.wiki user...a big coincidence).

UNTIL SO FAR, I have not seen a single source actually stating what all these users are saying. The sources used by this group actually confirm the undisputed version (among other places), which I support. Apart from that I have also added some sources of my own, explained why this is the case and why it is important to pay attention to how this is being said, added even more sources for my previous reference, shown the change that this group is trying to make to be a POV, given linguistic evidence to support my case, but nothing seems to be of interest to this group. Now, it is my understanding that until am agreement has been reached, the undisputed version should be restored. That is what I have been doing.

In my opinion the only thing I am guilty of is that I will not let a majority bully me into allowing a POV being presented as objective. If this is a reason for a ban, while this group is transferring issues from nl.wiki to en.wiki, trolling, edit-warring, placing POVs as truth, than I am having a far too idealistic view of this project as a whole. I hope the handling admin will prove my idealistic idea right.

I will be on a short trip the coming week and may not be online. Please, make sure the undisputed version is still present when I return.

--Faust (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: In an attempt to prevent this escalation from occuring I had even contacted TFOWR and Shell Kenney to mediate or lend me advice on the matter. I had also left a message at History2007's talk page for a third opinion. (All this after having seen the first edit Zaspino made on en.wiki, his account having been newly created and all his edits being about cancelling mine and his reamrks being exactly similar to the issue on the nl.wiki and these remarks being easily unmaksed as being POV's and these remarks showing clear signs of the user not being interested in the subject at all, which leaves a great question as to why this user is actually editing only the subjects that I am involved in then... --Faust (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since 3 September, when the RfC opened, Faust has reverted the lead of the article nine times. I believe that Faust should stop reverting until the RfC is closed, and that sanctions should be considered if he will not agree to do so. His comments above indicate he knows there is a majority against his view. "I will not let a majority bully me into allowing a POV being presented as objective." The majority does not always rule here, but there is no justification for him continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed is clearly confused. I am the one reverting the page to the undisputed version. In the mean time the tag-team Theobald has formed keeps trying to push their unsupported POV, while the undisputed version is backed by at least 8 mentioned sources. Why these users keep changing the lead of the article to their POV is beyond me, especially since it is a continuation of a dispute I had with Theobald_Tiger on nl.wiki and is, as such, a transferal of this issue to the en.wiki. Now, again I would like to state my silly example of somebody wishing to add a POV that Bush is an alien without a genetic research as a source. No matter how much of his friends agree with him, it should not be placed....as is the case here. --Faust (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't refer to editors as confused, it can be taken badly, also there is no such thing as an undisputed version that is disputed. Also you have already been warned not to bring your off wiki disputes here. Also you are clearly edit warring and you have had plenty of warnings. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• This user seems to refuse to accept the notion of our consensus policy. He has been warned time and time again on his talk page over the past two weeks. Perhaps it is time to turn the warning into an exclusion ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  I first became aware of it here (end of July), at which point Faust was warned not to import disputes from nl.wiki. I'm surprised, therefore, to see nl.wiki referred to above. More recently (on 6 September, after the RfC at Talk:Morality began) this issue returned to ANI. Back in July, Uncle G (talk) had this to say (to Faust and others):

  There will be no more trolling, pot stirring, tag teaming, sly provocation, playground-level taunting, or other general silliness and game playing of the sort that has occurred over the past few days, on here and on user talk pages. Warnings issued by TheDJ and TFOWR have clearly not sunk in. Therefore let me make this crystal clear. Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith.

  At the most recent ANI, Hans Adler (talk) had ths to say to Faust:

  Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game.

  Echoing Uncle G: nothing TheDJ has said to Faust appears to have sunk in; nothing I've said to Faust appears to have sunk in. It's difficult to escape Hans Adler's perception that Faust is treating en.wiki as a roleplaying game: certainly consensus appears to be an alien concept. Frankly, I'm out of options. TheDJ's "exclusion" option is the only one I feel is left, and I also feel it's long overdue. TFOWR 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A few comments in my defense:

1. My involvement on the Morality talk page has been minimal. There are two posts by me in support of comments made by Zaspino.
2. I have not "transferred problems from nl.wiki to en.wiki".
3. What Faust tells about an e-mail exchange with me is an outright lie. There has been an e-mail exchange, but I told him something quite different (see: User talk:TheDJ). I am interested in the content of en.wiki as my edit history amply testifies.

Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected I note there has been edit warring by all parties involved. All parties are admonished against edit warring, which may result in a block in the future. Faust and other parties are admonished that any violations for 3RR in the future, no matter how well intentioned, will unquestionably result in a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, fair enough, but this isn't going to solve the problem. Besides, you protected the page in Faust's version, which a majority of users doesn't agree with. Normally the parties involved in an edit conflict are urged to discuss the matter on the talk page, but we have already done that and reached a consensus that only Faust objects to. Zaspino (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Zaspino, nothing within the scope of this particular noticeboard is going to solve this particular problem on more than a temporary basis. I would advise you to try something like WP:RFC/U. If you believe a user has a long-term pattern of editing against consensus, you can demonstrate it there and longer-term sanctions can be applied. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I have to point out WP:WRONG. I've commented further on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:PraxisConsensus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: User blocked for 72 hours. [9])

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]
• 5th revert: [15]
• 6th revert: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17] (he has since blanked this talk page section, removing the warning without response) and [18] (he has blanked this notice without response as well)

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

Comments:
Five editors (User:BigK HeX, User:N6n, User:Ravensfire, User:Lawrencekhoo, and User:Cretog8) have attempted to get the editor to discuss the edit on the talk page. He has disregarded these editors. BigK HeX (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had also reported the same user, but it seems they were already reported. Anyways, to add my comment that I was about to add to mine before I saw this one, it appears that attempts to take the problem to the talk page have been ignored by Praxis. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

None of my edits violated the three revert rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraxisConsensus (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, you are edit warring to keep in an unreliable source. You explicitly reverted the removal of that source 5 times, without discussion on the talk page. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

With 6 clear reverts, your assertion may need further elaboration, please. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User has been blocked. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthFighterX reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result:24 hours )

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

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [25]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ValenShephard reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: blocked 1 week)

Page: Villa del Cine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The current issue, at Villa del Cine (I did not report the edit war at Hugo Chavez)

Last version before reverts: 22:57, September 13, 2010

• 1st revert: 22:57, September 13, 2010 (removes reliably sourced text because he doesn't like it, says based on talk, but there was no discussion on talk at that point)
• 2nd revert: 00:06, September 14, 2010 After discussion on talk, I reinstate the text, which ValenShephard deletes a second time.
• 3rd revert: 15:35, September 14, 2010 Then he installs his favored text, in spite of unanimous consensus on talk for different text: [26]
• 4th revert: 15:39, September 14, 2010 Then fully reverts another reliably sourced text addition I made.
• 5th revert: 16:19, September 14, 2010 Continues cleansing reliably sourced text in spite of weeks-old discussion on talk that article needs balance, and without discussing this particular text removal. (Also refers to reliable sources as "editorials", a recurring problem at these articles of casting aspersions upon my use of reliable sources, by classifying them as "opeds"-- something that has been repeatedly called to ValenShephard's attention on his talk and article talk.) An indication of the POV-pushing behind his edit warring is that, after these three instances where he deletes text unfavorable to Chavez, he immediately adds text favorable. His editing goes only one-way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not necessary-- there are enormous discussions of the problems with his edit warring on his talk, and he has been warned many times and blocked twice. These diffs do not indicate four reverts to the same version; they indicate ongoing disruption, POV and edit warring from someone who has been blocked twice and with whom there has been significant discussion on his talk of his disruptive editing at numerous other articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see his entire talk page-- it's huge.

Comments:

For background, ValenShephard was blocked a few weeks ago for edit warring, and then unblocked on August 31 following lengthy discussion indicating he understood the problems with edit warring. Only a few days after, he engaged in another edit war at Hugo Chavez, which I did not report to this board, as I was still hoping to mentor him (see User_talk:ValenShephard/Archive_1#Blocked and User_talk:ValenShephard/Archive_1#Resumed_edit_warring in addition to the numerous complaints on his talk page about his edit warring, some now archived.) ValenShephard continues to edit war and edit by revert, even after two blocks and long discussions involving multiple editors. He made repeated promises on his talk that he would stop editing via revert and engaging in edit wars, but said continues (along with other disruption that is not the scope of this board, and will be addressed elsewhere). He has been amply warned about edit warning, and should understand by now that three reverts are not necessary for a definition of edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - this report doesn't surprise me at all, and in fact I find it rather sad. I'm borderline involved, only because I've been tracking this user's poor conduct for a while now. This user clearly didn't get the point after the last block; if I were the blocking admin, I would throw down a week-long block, and I think that's lenient. You'll notice that this user's conduct on pretty much every page he/she's on is to revert war and POV push. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See here for the long history of disruption, only at Venezuela articles, not including the last two weeks, and not including on other articles. He has the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever encountered, and I've been expending hours daily trying to help mentor him, to no avail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Only a couple of these could count as reverts, while the rest, as you can see by the diffs, are changes and tweaks. There was no clear consensus on talk, where sandy thought I was agreeing with her while I was agreeing with another editor (which I later explained). ValenShephard (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week John (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Polaron and User:Doncram reported by The Thing // Talk // Contribs (Result: Polaron blocked 72h)

Page: National Register of Historic Places listings in Stamford, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram:

1. 16:06, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "remove unsupported neighborhood assertions, per Talk")
2. 16:36, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384811843 by Polaron (talk). reinstate edit explained at Talk. Talk page edit hit a second or two later than P's reversion.")

Polaron:

1. 16:10, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 384322082 by Polaron; can you point out which ones are wrong?. (TW)")
2. 16:39, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 384811843 by Polaron; using boundaries in http://www.city-data.com/city/Stamford-Connecticut.html. (TW)")

Comments:
Users are continuing to edit war after both recently receiving 48-hours blocks. --The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents notified [27] [28]. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring seems to have stopped with just 2 reverts, however since they were recently blocked, and there still happens to be a previous report at the very top of this page, it seems this isn't an isolated incident. It might be prudent to keep watching and make sure things don't get out of hand. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) Oh, yes, the previous discussion is above, currently at #User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Both 48h) (update: archived here) Okay, well, please consider this carefully and look for differences in behavior. This article and similar National Register of Historic Places listings in Greenwich, Connecticut are new list-articles which i just split out from National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which I have been developing in detail over many months, in fact as part of a WP:CONN and WP:NRHP co-sponsored article development drive. At each of their Talk pages, I posted about a problem of unsourced info. Polaron declined explicitly at the Stamford talk page to address. I removed the unsourced info in both, which is justified by wikipedia policy: unsourced information can and should be challenged and removed. Considering that P had not seen my last Talk page edit, in which i explained the removal, i chose to call attention to that and remove it once more in an edit. I don't think you have to judge that as edit warring by me. P simply re-adds. Also, not yet noted above, P never commented at the Talk but re-added similar in this edit using Twinkle at the Greenwich article.
• This is a regular pattern: often butting in on an article where I am doing active, productive development, P takes a position and uses Twinkle and minimal edit summary statements to enforce his view. The way it could go forward normally with P is that i or other frustrated editors post more and more at a Talk page, and P may or may not deign to come out with little bits of explanations. But the problem is basic, that unsourced info should not be added, and the behavior is entrenched. P has been cautioned about this many times by many other editors. Also, I had already requested that editor EdJohnston who imposed the 48 hour blocks, take a look. In my comment there i characterized P's patterns too, as either not responding (as applies in the Greenwich case where he also restored unsourced info) or as responding minimally and unsatisfactorily (as applies in the Stamford case).
• I would like to develop these two list-articles as i have been doing with the Fairfield one, and now i am frustrated again with dealing with the appearance of edit warring. I consider it a lot more like removal of vandalism. I think the right thing to do is to delete the unsourced assertions, and I would like to have the support of other editors in doing that. EdJohnston, Acroterion, Orlady are some administrator editors who are familiar with much of the history. In the last ANI discussion, another editor asked: what am I or other editors supposed to do, given P's behavior? --doncram (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Polaron for 72h. I do not buy the suggestion that Doncram is equally to blame here. In this reported article as well as the Greenwich example, Polaron is violating the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Additionally, WP:V states that the burden of evidence is on the person trying to add or restore information. Suggest a possible voluntary 1RR restriction for one or all parties if the behavior patterns continue. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In followup four(!) requests to be unblocked at P's talk page, in this diff, P indicates he does not believe his reversion edits were edit warring in this case and in a List of countries by population article unrelated to me. I am 100% sure that this is not over. --doncram (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Thezob reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 month)

Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. June 1
2. June 2
3. June 7
4. June 15
5. June 17
6. July 7
7. July 15
8. 14:16, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Life descending over time is still a theory, it was theorized not established.")
9. 03:32, 10 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383839621 by Snowded (talk) yes really.")
10. 17:45, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Discussion is irrelevant, there is too much bias there. It is still a theory, no matter how widely accepted it is.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: Slow moving edit war. Appears to be only current interest in editing since June. He's been repeatedly asked to take his objections to the talk page in edit summaries on user talk discussions, which he's clearly seen but never done.

—Jess_talk|_edits 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Between, "You people please stop changing my editing back. Thanks."[29] and his last edit summary, he doesn't seem interested in working with community consensus: and it sure looks like a slow edit war to me. Sanctions appear to already be in the works[30]. I've warned him of this report (maybe he'll respond)... Doc9871 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked one month. Since he only edits a few days each month, a shorter block might not get his attention. His major interest on Wikipedia seems to be changing evolution from a fact to a theory. Appeals to consensus make no impression on him. If he agrees to change his approach, any admin may lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cinéma_C reported by User:lontech (Result: 72h)

Page: Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

has violated 1RR per week on kosovo

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

1. (cur | prev) 19:49, 13 September 2010 Cinéma C (talk | contribs) (113,250 bytes) (where was the sentence about the Albanian national awakening attributed? reverting + adding ref) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 11:04, 13 September 2010 Dejvid (talk | contribs) (112,928 bytes) (revert -a claim like "Kosovo became the crux of Serbia's historical culture, religion and national identity" needs to be attributed) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 02:28, 13 September 2010 Cinéma C (talk | contribs) (113,090 bytes) (If you're mentioning the Albanian national awakening, it's extremely biased not to mention what Kosovo means to Serbs.) (undo)

Diffs

1. [31]
2. [32]

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see [1]-- LONTECH  Talk  23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:2tuntony reported by User:Therefore (Result: 24h)

Page: Dana Perino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2tuntony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] (removed by user, calling it "nonsense")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] User removed his initial concern about the statement in question was violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Comments:

This is all about this statement (the current version):

The reporter said this was evidence that an earlier remark by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, that the timing of the explosion implied it was blown up intentionally, was "gaining traction".

This is a quotation from the USA Today source [40]. 2tuntony (talk · contribs) first said it was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and reverted. I countered that this was taken from the source and hence didn't violate either policy. He then said it was a problem with paraphrasing and reverted. I explained that that is generally what we do but rewrote it to be more verbatim. He reverted again saying the problem was NPOV (again, no argument, just declaration). I countered that NPOV allows for attributable statements such as this and asked that he please continue to discuss without further edit warring. He reverted a fourth time. I'm more than open to discuss this -- there may in fact be a good argument for not including it. But I'm at an impasse with the edit warring. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Too bad the discussion had to be derailed by violating 3RR. Next time, please stop edit warring while discussion is ongoing. Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Thevazhathu reported by User:sreejithk2000 (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [41]

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments: I feel that the IP 217.165.154.135 is the same as User:Thevazhathu and is constantly engaged in marking movies by Mohanlal as hit and movies by Mammootty as flop. Please see his edit history.

--Sreejith K (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Shuki reported by Nableezy(Result: Both parties restricted to 1RR until the end of the year)

Page: Ariel (city) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:16, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Ariel is an Israeli city")
2. 19:24, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv settlement type = Israeli settlement, duh. It is a city, that is the settlement type. Israeli settlement is a label, not a settlement type.")
3. 19:29, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385030419 by Nableezy (talk), it is in fact a city, something you can deny?")

Shuki has made 3 quick reverts on the article on the Israeli settlement of Ariel. An RFC had been conducted on what to use as the primary description of Israeli settlements which resulted in no consensus but a loose consensus that we will retain the original primary description in current articles. The description in Ariel is "Israeli settlement". The infobox in this article had been an Israel specific infobox and had no "settlement type" parameter. This has recently been changed to the standard settlement infobox. I added "Israeli settlement" as the "settlement type" to the infobox. Shuki removed that and changed it to just city. I re-added settlement but kept city, Shuki reverted again. I then attempted to mirror how the original infobox looked which included neither "city" nor "settlement" and Shuki reverted that as well. I opened a talk page discussion, Shuki responds with the accusation that I am on a "monthly witch-hunt to dehumanize all Jewish populated places" by calling Israeli settlements "Israeli settlements". I realize that Shuki has "only" made 3 reverts, but as I do not wish to exceed 1 revert and be blocked as well I have come here instead of continue the edit-war. nableezy - 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mbz1.

To edit war at least 2 editors are required. user:Nableezy made 4 reverts himself

1. [48];
2. [49]
3. [50];
4. [51];--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That simply is not true. The first edit is not a revert, it is just an edit. The same is true for the second edit, which is also contiguous with the first edit. No prior version of the article had that formulation, it is by definition not a revert. The third edit is likewise not a revert, it was an attempt at compromise by including both what Shuki argued for and what I argued for (which Shuki could not accept). The last edit is also not a revert, no version of the article had that formulation. What version of the article was I reverting to Mbz1? I tried multiple different formulations without making reverts, Shuki just insisted on his or her favored formulation. nableezy - 20:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

no matter what if it's a revert or not (i didn't understand your explanations of why it's not, but maybe i just don't know exact specific rules about revert)... it is still edit warring from you too. maybe it would be smartest for you to withdraw this complaint because probably you will just get punished from it LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I simply read what you yourself wrote in this very thread just above. You wrote: "but as I do not wish to exceed 1 revert and be blocked as well I have come here instead of continue the edit-war". For the last 2 days you made 5 edits on Ariel (city). I brought up 4 of them, and you're saying they were not reverts. So on the one hand you admitting that you were edit-warring and were afraid to get blocked for that, on the other hand you're claiming that none of your 4 out of 5 edits I referred to were reverts. Strange.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Me attempting different possible formulations is not edit-warring and if Shuki had attempted something other than just repeatedly going back to the same version that he or she supported we would not be here. Instead, for any edit I attempted to make Shuki just reverted. I was not reverting so I was not edit-warring. None of the edits you referenced are reverts, they were all edits. Even when I kept what Shuki wanted to include in one of the edits you list, Shuki still performed a straight revert. And really, why are you here? What does this have to do with you? nableezy - 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But since you seem confused, let me break this down for you:

1. 19:16, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit.
2. 19:24, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit
3. 19:29, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit

In each of the reverts Shuki reverses another edit and restores the line to a prior version. In none of the edits that you list do I restore the line to a prior version. Each version is new, they are edits, not reverts. nableezy - 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Shuki

I suppose that this is another one of Nableezy's Pot calling the kettle black reports. I've put together a table about Nableezy implicating himself here User talk:Shuki#Frivolous topic ban vio report. Nableezy has been warned many times for bringing up these frivolous accusations, especially when he is an active part in them. This one in particular seems to be a rehash of his failed settlement RfC. This non-collaborative editor is interested only in inserting his negative POV into articles and shows little sign of improving WP with adding real information and expanding articles. --Shuki (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So Nableezy set up an RfC, which didn't establish a consensus that everyone could accept, but nonetheless he did at least try dispute resolution. In my book thats better than not trying. What is needed is another attempt to establish a consensus, not yet more name calling and edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, he has one little star to his recognition and many black stains like this one in which he ignores the DR and tries to push his POV as if we forgot the past. See his edits at Susya as well. He has nothing better to do, no information to add and expand, and merely hangs around WP in order to change labels and articles lead paragraphs. He is warned many times from admins, and the warnings never add up to anything from the admins. I am not interested in committing WP suicide like he is and taking others with him. The vast majority of POV editors, give up their battleground mentality, loosen up, and learn to collaborate meaning allowing opposing POV into articles and accepting others, some even become admins years later. Nableezy has not changed his attitude since he started editing on WP. This 'primary descriptor' claim is so lame, there was a loose consensus to just leave the articles alone. What does handling infoboxes add to making WP a better place? --Shuki (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone noticed the first bullet at the top of this page requesting that disputes not be continued here? Cut the meta-discussion please. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure we know this, but it'd be best to reply that to Nableezy and then warn him again for dragging this to the noticeboards, again. --Shuki (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was directing that to both of you. I've asked Stifle to comment here and possibly take action, since he seems to have familiarity with your problems. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restricted Nableezy and Shuki to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Does that close out this report, then? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami and User:Taivo reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: Protected)

• Page: Aorist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Users being reported:

• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version reverted to: 23:01 14 September (please note that this is itself the product of reversion by Taivo) Taivo:

• 04:36 September 15
• 21:39 A total reversion to restore part of a text.
• 21:43
• 23:04

Warned Taivo

Kwami:

• 18:15
• 20:52
• 20:53
• 21:01
  • undone 21:03; demonstrating knowledge of 3RR; I would be satisfied if this had ended here.
• 22:04 partial revert.

Warned Kwami

For discussion of the differences, see the entire talk page. These two have consistently refused to consider or tolerate modification of this article; it was protected, on 31 August, because of their activities. Disagreements with their version by Radagast, Wareh, Akhilleus, McZeus (user name Amphiontryoniades) Cynwolfe and others will also be found there - but nobody except me is willing to actually challenge their abuse and revert-warring.

I have been - partly because I have the sources available to me - responsible for these edits. I believe every edit - with perhaps two exceptions - has been a novel text; but I am prepared to stop editing and go elsewhere if asked. I would be prepared to experiment with a topic ban - it is possible that they will abide by it. If they are gone, this may possibly become an article which is based on sources, not preconceived theories, and is comprehensible to common usage. As I have already said, if they are warned away from the article, I will stay away anyway to see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is frivolous. PManderson has done everything in his power to escalate this conflict rather than to resolve it. It is evident from the diffs provided by Pmanderson that he has in fact introduced 8 different edits to the article that he knew were unacceptable to his coeditors each of which have been reverted (some of them blanking of sections or remobval of sources). There is as such no breaking of the 3rr as each revert is of different content. This looks like a completely deliberate and calculated strategy from Pmanderson to provoke each of the other editors into reverting 4 times (each time reverting different content) and then accusing. He was at no risk himself since each edit he introduced was different and so he did not revert to his own version, but instead introduce new content or blank a section. A blatant example fo gaming the system and wikilayering. I have protected a version of the page from a month ago before the dispute began and I would advise strongly against unprotecting untill the participants begin to work collaboratively towards solving the problem instead of simply causing eachother mutual grievances.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have made every effort to make any change in a widely disliked, inaccurate article, which misrepresents its sources. Wareh, Akhilleus, McZeus, Radagast, Cynwolfe, and others have objected to the article; I have tried to change it - and have met with days of revert war. Others have met with insult and lies - as the talk page will show. Taivo and Kwami are incapable of editing cooperatively with anyone but each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)First, PMAnderson is lying about why the article was protected. It was protected because of his actions reported here, here, and here. Second, this revert was to restore vandalism on PMAnderson's part (blanking of a section without consensus). Third, none of my reverts are the same thing; WP:3RR only applies to reverting the same thing three times in 24 hours. Fourth, just yesterday, I warned PMAnderson about 3RR here, but didn't report him at that time. There is an open AN/I case against PMAnderson's incivility here. Fifth, PMAnderson massively overstates the support he has for his POV. Sixth, read the edit history and you will find that I have made many positive contributions to both the discussion and the text and PMAnderson's claims are grossly overstated. --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The protection request does not show any sign that it was because of my actions; indeed I asked for it.

WP:3RR covers all reverts on the same article - precisely to make this sort of refusal of all changes impractical.

First I've heard of the ANI case; it is traditional to notify the subject.

The extent and the vehemence of the objections to Taivo and Kwami's version vary, but support for it is limited to Kwami and Taivo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post on your Talk Page about the AN/I case when I saw this and responded here first. You are completely wrong about your characterization of support. Most of the editors on your list of "supporters" have been neutral. None of the others except Radagast has ever offered unqualified support for your position. You conveniently ignore other editors, such as Erutuon and MarkNutley who have more fully supported Kwami and myself. As you consistently exaggerate to overstate your case on the Talk Page, you consistently minimize in order to understate the evidence that Kwami and I have mustered. --Taivo (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to rehash things here. Any other admin looking at the page history can see Maunus's point. I mean, Sep's edit warring and disruptive edits over 24 hrs denying the aorist is an aspect or asserting that it's a tense are [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]. That doesn't count multiple pointy or dickish taggings or multiple reverts of other changes to the article, which would double the number. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected The page has been protected by Maunus and hopefully that will stop the edit warring. I'm loathe to block potential participants in the ensuing discussion, and I think it would be unfair to block these two now when I declined to block PMAnderson previously. This extended content dispute simply has to stop rearing its head here. This board isn't the place to discuss topic bans and whatnot. Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

The same edit was made four times on the twelfth, when he was warned after the third edit, and twice so far today.

prior reversions Sep 12

• 1st revert: [61]
• 2nd revert: [62]
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert: [64]

current reversions

• 5th revert: [65]
• 6th revert: [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68] Several suggestions have been made, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_language#Iranian_theory

Comments:
The page is semi-protected because it is subject to (usually Armenian) nationalist POV editting. In this case the editor, with a history of Iranian nationalist POV disputes, is adding a long outdated and now fringe POV, that Armenian is a branch of Iranian. Due to a lack of Western familiarity with the language, this theory was held for a few decades, from the beginning of serious Indo-European studies circa 1827, until study by experts conclusively proved Armenian to be its own independent language family in the 1870's. No mainstream linguist now holds the view that Armenian is a dialect of Iranian.

Nyisnotbad has repeatedly, and without discussion on the talk page, made the same edit to present this fringe theory as fact. He cites Franz Bopp, who died in 1867. He falsely cites the recently deceased Winfred Lehmann, author of a reader of 19th century of historical linguistics, who holds Armenian to be a separate branch between Iranian and Slavic [69] as supporting the theory.

The editor has a history of nationalist POV disputes.

He has been advised of the outdated and false nature of his evidence.

He has been advised repeated from the beginning that he provide the theory as a minority view, if he attributes it a modern notable scholar who holds it.

The editor has been warned repeatedly for this and prior disputes.

He refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Per the editor's previous blocks and the large number of reverts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Enok and User:Mercenary2k reported by User:Macwhiz (Result: Both parties blocked for 24 hours)

Page: List of countries by number of troops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mercenary2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Several-day history of edit-warring on the page, but WP:3RR violated thus:

Enok

1. 03:50, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384897106 by Brainlara73 (talk) globalfire.com is an amateur website")
2. 16:36, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384971867 by 88.244.86.99 (talk) Reverting vandalism")
3. 19:17, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385028317 by 119.154.58.177 (talk) Reverting vandalism")
4. 01:11, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "see discussion")
5. 01:23, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385087724 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
6. 01:34, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385089007 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
7. 01:55, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385090700 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
8. 02:00, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385093145 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
9. 02:10, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385093920 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
10. 02:19, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385095216 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")

Mercenary2k

1. 23:03, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 23:08, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 23:10, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "added pakistani reserve forces.....stop making it Zero...just because it does not exist in that article doesnt make it zero")
4. 23:19, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 01:21, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "removed vandalism...added pakistani reserve forces...")
6. 01:30, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "adding reserves back")
7. 01:43, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "reverse nonsense...already provided two citations about pakistani reserve forces...541,000 didnt vanish overnight")
8. 02:00, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Discussion Done. 3 reputable citations state pakistani reserve forces....numbers stay")
9. 02:05, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "revert nonsense")
10. 02:13, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "added pakistani reserve forces")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71], [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73] but see entire talk discussion at talk:List of countries by number of troops#Pakistani Armed Forces

Comments:
Editor Enok seems to be engaging in a long-term pattern of tendentious editing on this page. There are a lot of reverts from this user. He does not appear to be receptive to consensus-building. A third opinion was sought, but the 3O folks don't seem to want to touch this one with a ten-foot pole, and I can't blame them. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours I will continue to watch the page to limit further disruption.--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit-war policy discussion

Hi, all. I hope it won't be considered an improper use of this board if I inform people here of a current thread by the name "What's a revert?" in progress at AN, and suggest that the participation of admins here ( experts in answering the question in actual practice on a daily basis, afer all ) would be beneficial. No dispute involved, btw, just a request for admins to discuss the guidelines they use in actual practice and give their opinions on the correct interpretation of our existing policies, especially as they apply to hotly-contested articles. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruckCard reported by User:Rjanag (Result: 24h)

Page: Resident Identity Card (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TruckCard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]

TC has also edit-warred over other edits and across other pages. On this same page:

• previous version reverted to: [76]
• revert 1: [77] (totally unexplained)
• revert 2: [78] (totally unexplained)

On another page:

• prev version: [79]
• revert 1: [80] (reverting [81] this) (unexplained, no edit summary)
• revert 2: [82] (unexplained, no edit summary)

On another page:

• prev version [83]
• revert 1: [84] (unexplained)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85] (regarding the move edit warring); [86] (regarding others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Same as talk page link; see also Talk:National identity cards in China regarding that page

Comments: It should be clear that TruckCard is engaging in edit-warring behavior across multiple articles, mainly by making entirely unexplained reverts (either with no edit summary or with machine summaries) in places where he already knows the edit is controversial. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)