Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎User:Pmanderson reported by User:Rjanag (Result: ): erps. "non-involved" + "neutral" ≠ "non-neutral" :)
Line 525: Line 525:
:::Heimstern: Pmanderson refused for over a month to contribute constructively to an ongoing RfC, and now when he's worried about getting blocked he suddenly decides he wants to re-open the RfC and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turfan&diff=prev&oldid=387838315 contribute some arguments]. Clearly he is not interestsed in discussing the issues or finding a consensus except when a blockhammer is hovering over his head. Maybe he hasn't broken 3RR, but this is clearly not cooperative editing behavior, especially for someone who should know better (given his numerous run-ins with this noticeboard.
:::Heimstern: Pmanderson refused for over a month to contribute constructively to an ongoing RfC, and now when he's worried about getting blocked he suddenly decides he wants to re-open the RfC and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turfan&diff=prev&oldid=387838315 contribute some arguments]. Clearly he is not interestsed in discussing the issues or finding a consensus except when a blockhammer is hovering over his head. Maybe he hasn't broken 3RR, but this is clearly not cooperative editing behavior, especially for someone who should know better (given his numerous run-ins with this noticeboard.
:::Courcelles: That sounds like a good solution, thank you. I will not be moving the page. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Courcelles: That sounds like a good solution, thank you. I will not be moving the page. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I thought when I protested that Rjanag has done this; no-one would have been so improper as to move and protect the article in the absence of any cvonsensus besides that of Rjanag and Rjanag. This is shameful disregard of Rjanag's years of misconduct. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 02:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:43, 30 September 2010

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    User:89.241.2.41 reported by User:-5- (Result: page protected 1 week)

    Page: Dick Grayson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 89.241.2.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


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

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

    Comments:
    User engaging in edit war appears to have ownership issues with the article. The user is reverting to the version of the article that he/she prefers and in the process removing legitimate edits by other users.-5- (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    -5- (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:PatGallacher (Result:no violation)

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

    This user has made the same edit to Moors Murders four times in the space of a few hours, in spite of a request to take the issue to the talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet you have not participated in a thread about these edits on the talk page. Would you make clear what your issues with the article are? --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I observe that Pat has added at least two tags which require the creation of a discussion section on the talk page w/o initiating the discussion. When they are reasonably removed b/c there is no discussion of why there are there, he has reverted to replace them. Yworo (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There was one edit and 3 reverts. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. And keep in mind that Malleus is the maintaining editor of the article, which is today's TFA, I'd cut him a break regardless.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As this could be getting overheated maybe I should give it a rest for today, but:-

    a) "Maintaining editor" of an article? This smacks of ownership of articles, which I thought was not allowed. b) In one case I did add an explanation to the talk page a couple of minutes after adding a flag, but the flag was removed before then. Maybe more than one person should be given a break here. c) In a few cases Malleus Fatuorum made controversial edits and reverts which he only justified by comments in his edit summary, without adding anything to the talk page. Is there a double standard here? PatGallacher (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes there is, but not the one that you think you've identified. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


    User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Tbhotch (Result:No violation )

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

    Re-take it, the user Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has reverted five times (123 4 5, though it was notified, he continued reverting. TbhotchTalk C. 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh give Pat his pound of flesh. I'm getting sick to death of trying to maintain common sense on that article anyway. Let the pop culture trivia fans and the pov-pushing apologists for Myra Hindley have it all to themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    maintain common sense on that article and owning it is not the same. TbhotchTalk C. 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbhotch, three of those reverts were to a version that have been disputed for specious reasons per PatGallacher (see the talk page), and the other two aren't reverting the same thing. If Malleus is to be blocked for maintaining the article in the face of ill-advised edits, then do it, but it's a stupid reason. I don't see how the other two reverts are edit warring. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what 3RR states, if you didn't remember is :An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. The user is not reverting obvious vandalism, the user is not reverting a banned user, is not reverting BLP issues or copyright violations, but the user is reverting 5 times and owning the article. TbhotchTalk C. 19:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should read 3RR yourself. A quote: "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you mean "owning" per WP:OWN, I disagree. Owning is when an editor overturns another editor's edits just because he thinks no other opinions or edits should be made for reasons not associated with sources or the five pillars. In this case, User:Vilcxjo disputed a fact that was clearly cited. It was reverted and User:PatGallacher continued to revert Malleus without discussing the issue on the talk page. I initiated that discussion. Then PatGallacher placed a NPOV tag on the section, also without initiating a discussion, which was reverted by User:Nev1. Neither PatGallacher nor Vilcxjo have provided a source to dispute a fact that is not only cited at the end of the paragraph, but is further supported by other cited statements in the article. That is not ownership; it is holding the article to a higher standard, such is what a featured article is. If PatGallacher or Vilcxjo do not intend to discuss or provide a source for why they think the issue is disputed, the article should remain the way it was. Unfortunately, this 3RR policy states that Malleus should get blocked for this. I think that's nonsense, and if he should get blocked I would continue to revert in his place unless an editor can provide a reliable source for the dispute. I would likely do the same thing were it an article I had worked on to get to FA. Keep in mind also that this topic is more emotionally charged in the UK than any general article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If some clown of an admin blocks MF over this I shall enjoy the RFC over it. This complaint is against one of our most senior editors whose output (along with another signifianct editor) is the sole reason the article is on the main page. Maintaining the quality of TFA beats 3RR, in my book anyway. Pedro :  Chat  19:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Better get ready to block me then also, because I will not allow this article to descend into the nonsense that some clearly want it to become. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that y'all are stretching TFA-tending past what policy permits, but I think there's a case to be made that the edits being reverted were disruptive. I would tend to swing a trout gently at Malleus and an Orca firmly at PatGallacher and Vilcxjo. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be inclined to drop the piscine bollocks and realise that some people here are trying to keep TFA up to the standard expected by the readership. I think more effort could have gone into trying to achieve a talk page debate, but alas that often fails to happen, and more direct methods (reverting) are the only decent (if unpalatable to some) methods. It's not great but it is reality. Pedro :  Chat  19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Some users are saying that I am able to revert and revert and revert ... how many time I want because it is in the mainpage. There's a big difference between this and this (random selection). Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page is not a justification especially because Considerable leeway need to be reworded. TbhotchTalk C. 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tbhotch: there's a discussion at WP:OWN talk page about TFAs now. Please read the points and give your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, the revert labeled "4" above was reverting me and I have no problem with the revert. MF and I can always discuss it later. I certainly don't agree with it being held against him in a 3RR dispute. Yworo (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation Editor is maintaining the quality of TFA. Discuss disputes and contentious edits on Talk before making them, please. Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 5 times, and because I'd already typed it up darn it) No violation - 3RR allows leeway for a maintainer of a featured article. Two of the reverts were on minor formatting issues. The editor only had 3 reverts to one subject matter. I suggest you guys hash the gender dispute on the talk page; I really don't want to have to block all of you because you couldn't keep your hands of a tiny part of a featured article, and because I'm not going to full-protect a featured article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no gender dispute. I have tried to meet these editors halway by rewriting one sentence that was flagged as {{dubious}}, even though I regarded the tag as ridiculous. Then I get accused of introducing unsourced quotations into the article to support my non-neutral pov, again ludicrously. Meanwhile PatGallacher continues to insist that his is the only true version of events, without providing a single shred of evidence and without discussion on the talk page. You can block me if you feel you must, but until then I will continue to revert the removal of reliably sourced analysis no matter how many times the gender police object. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Don't spite your face. I suggest an RFC if necessary, slow as it may be. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And better yet, post about the RFC at WP:ANI to give more community heads up notice to expedite the process, explaining the need (just make sure the argument doesn't spread there!). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If PatGallacher wants to present his/her side of the issue in an RfC with a series of sources that back up his/her claims that Myra Hindley is a notorious public figure for some other reason than the fact that she's a woman who participated in five brutal murders, I would welcome that effort and I hope Malleus and Parrot of Doom would also. I think it would be better to present that on the talk page anyway even without an RfC; the RfC would be for the case if PatGallacher provided it an it was ignored or disparaged. But this has not been presented. Only PatGallacher's speculative opinion that there may be some other reason for Hindley's notoriety, which is insufficient for any article, let alone an FA. Magog, if you're suggesting that Malleus and Parrot of Doom should initiate the RfC, I think that's unnecessary. I don't think a case has been made for an opposing viewpoint for this issue and this would create one where there does not appear to be one. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have absolutely no intention of initiating an RfC, and I very much doubt if PoD does either. If PatGallacher has reliable sources to back up his claims, which he is yet to produce, then no doubt we can easily come to some mutually acceptable form of words. Until then all I see is a pov-pushing editor. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation"Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


    Request for support

    Page: Feminine essence concept of transsexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 128.255.251.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 70.57.222.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same person)

    This isn't exactly a 3RR problem, but it's the beginning of the American school year, so (as usual) we've got some problems at transsexuality-related articles like Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, and I think we need some help.

    This anon seems to be engaged in a campaign of gutting articles about concepts of transsexuality that s/he disagrees with. The current tactic is to "merge" articles into oblivion, so that Wikipedia's contents, taken as a whole, provide only the "right" information. This article has been "merged" to Etiology of transsexualism -- except without actually putting the name, any information about the idea, or any of the 25 reliable sources into the target article. Effectively, it's a unilateral deletion of properly sourced material.

    I think this group of articles is at risk of edit warring, and I'd really appreciate having several completely uninvolved editors, ideally with strong skills at cooling down disputes, keep an eye on them for a few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    User:Mickeysam reported by User:Talimama (Result: no violation)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [8]

    User Mickeysam only edits to vandalize the pages for Lee Mead and Denise van Outen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talimama (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GUNNERGRZ reported by btphelps (Result: No Violation)

    Article: 2nd Infantry Regiment (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GUNNERGRZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [13]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk page

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

    Comments:

    GUNNERGRZ violation of edit warring, personal attacks, and article ownership.

    I invited GUNNERGRZ on his talk page to discuss these edits on this article's talk page, which he has ignored. Instead, he sent me the following email which could be construed as threatening, quoted below:

    <email content removed, please do not post private emails on Wikipedia, it is a copyright violation>

    The information I added which he removed was factual and supported by reliable sources. Virtually all of GUNNERGRZ contributions are to this single article. His devotion to this single article and his email to me, which overtly discourages me from making additional contributions to this article, give me the impression that he thinks he owns the article.

    Comments on talk pages and even email should be courteous and always assume good faith, which I have tried to do. I did not remove his edit about the time during which Daniel Burke accepted the commission (a seemingly minor factual point), but added a {{fact}} template. After the three reverts on his part I added a warning template to his talk page. I was going to wait for a response, but because he has ignored by requests for discussion and then sent the email, felt this warranted an administrator's attention. Thanks for your time. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation The rule is more than 3 reverts. Also it looks like the editors involved both are discussing changes on the talk page. Blocking someone at this point would be counterproductive. -Selket Talk 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rangoon11 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: No action)

    Page: League tables of British universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 11:49, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Minor edits to improve text")
    2. 12:12, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515082 - please discuss this on the talk page")
    3. 12:15, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515982 - Please discuss these edits on the talk page")
      12:15, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516051 - Please discuss on talk page. Thanks.") - edit without intervening edit.
    4. 12:21, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516977 - Once again, please discuss on talk page.")
    5. 12:24, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517320 - there is no such things as a 'dominant editor' of an article and that is in any event irrelevant. Discuss these changes on the talk page, they are POV and original research")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Codf1977 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Neither editor has reverted since being warned of the 3RR. -Selket Talk 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:188.223.81.158 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: No action)

    Page: League tables of British universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 188.223.81.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 10:39, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "added a well-sourced part which shows the reasons for disparity with international rankings")
    2. 12:08, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "there is no need to repeat in the top, article is about league tables")
    3. 12:14, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "criticism of the concept has nothing to do with international rankings, this topic is essential and should have separate subheading")
      12:14, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515773 by Rangoon11 (talk)")(no intervening edit)
    4. 12:20, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516200 by Rangoon11 (talk)")
    5. 12:22, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517151 by Rangoon11 (talk) Rangoon became the dominant editor of the article and has no right to edit further")
    6. 12:30, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517568 by Rangoon11 (talk) check first rules of Wikipedia before editing, my position is stated in Discussion")
      12:32, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reasons to remove the top headline are stated in the Discussion page") (no intervening edit)
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Codf1977 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Neither editor has reverted since being warned of the 3RR. -Selket Talk 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:41.210.55.157 reported by User:Oncamera (Result: Proxy block)

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

    User being reported: 41.210.55.157  ‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 22:38, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "already displayed in Infobox Korean name")
    2. 22:52, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "no reason to undo it as the Hangul name is already displayed in Infobox Korean name")
    3. 23:35, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "please take it to you talk page. As I said the title is already in the Korean Name box")
    4. 23:50, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "stop and talk about it first please there is no rule for what you are doing Yume")
    5. 00:10, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "currently under discussion at Yume's talk page thanks")

    —oncamera(t) 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? Why was I reported when I am trying to resolve the issue. User:YumeChaser says that it is a common practice to have Hangul names in the Infobox, but there is already a Hangul name in the Korean Name Infobox. Am I an idot here?? 41.210.55.157 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The discussion between the IP user and I didn't go anywhere, not sure what that means here but I thought it would be good to note. I was warned by an admin and stop reverting. IP reverted again, despite having prior knowledge of 3RR/edit war. 夢追人YumeChaser 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Another revert. 夢追人YumeChaser 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted because someone else reverted my edit. 41.210.55.157 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter who reverts your edit. 3 is the limit. 夢追人YumeChaser 01:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To 41.210.55.157: YumeChaser is correct. It doesn't matter who else is reverting, your limit is 3 and you have exceeded that. I recommend you undo your own last edit and state your case on the article's talk page. Request a WP:third opinion if you cannot reach an agreement. The alternative is a block (which you still might receive). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result -- IP blocked five years as a confirmed open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Harout72 reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Protected)

    Page: Eminem discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Harout72 (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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Harout72#"Discussion"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eminem discography#Japanese positions

    Comments:
    I am reporting this user for deliberately edit warring against consensus, not 3RR. This user replaced the US R&B charts at Eminem discography with the Japanese ones, against consensus, so I reverted in good faith and asked them to discuss. They reverted my edit, saying consensus was not necessary. The fact that I reverted them in the first place showed that they made a controversial edit, which does require consensus, so I again reverted, and again asked them to discuss. They revert yet again and say that they did discuss. (They began this discussion but did not wait for consensus to form before reverting back.) I explained at their talk page that I would revert back to the original version (where the R&B charts were included over the Japanese ones) and asked them not to revert back until there was a consensus backing their edits. Surely enough, they reverted a third time.

    This user was editing against consensus, but I acknowledge that since I edit warred as well, and since neither of us crossed 3RR, I accept and fully understand if I were to be blocked as a result of this report. My main issue with this user is that they are deliberately ignoring the consensus and edit warring to suit their desires, without any regard as to other editors' opinions and previous consensus. –Chase (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that Chasewc91 is not a regular editor to Eminem discography and he, so far, has failed to bring the so called consensus to my attention which he/she keeps referring to. From my long time observation, I've noticed that Chasewc91 happens to be an editor who's against using Japan within discography pages for some inexplicable reason, although, in this very case I have pointed out that Eminem has charted well in Japan with his materials, not to mention that Japan represents the second largest market in the world after US; therefore, it is important to highlight Eminem's Japanese chart performance. I also pointed out that Japanese positions for Eminem are based on sales, whereas the R&B positions are not based on sales, they are only to show how R&B/Hip-hop artists perform amongst themselves.--Harout72 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Without continuing the dispute, I would like to note that I explained the idea of silence and consensus at Harout72's talk page. –Chase (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - Fully protected three days. When both parties make speeches about consensus in their edit summaries while they continue to revert it is kind of ridiculous. A true regard for consensus should make you slow down and wait for the discussion to be finished. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Support Harout's proposal Well I for one, support Harout. R&B is simply a chart, a smaller branch of the Hot 100. While Eminem may not be very popular in Asia, he certainly has certifications in Japan. I find adding Japanese peaks and certifications more important, than adding a lesser and secondary US chart.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 05:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drfragment reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [18]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

    Comments:

    User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: a week and a half, warned)

    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: [26] (This is Nyisnotbad's Sept 15th version, to which he reverts wholesale, and for which he was previously blocked as edit warring.


    Most recent identical reversions:


    Absolutely identical reversions, prior to his latest block:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] (This is the most recent of many warnings)

    Comments:

    User Nyisnotbad is conducting what is now a slow motion edit war. He has repeatedly reverted the article wholesale to the identical edit which earned him a one week block. After that he has again made the exact same wholesale reversion listed three times above, deleting improvements that have been made to the article in the meantime. His actions and responding to them have become quite burdensome.

    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 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 [38] as supporting the theory. He quotes Lehmann as saying that the Iranian theory had not yet been disproven, yet willfully ignores the fact that Lehmann then spends the remainder of the article providing that very disproof, concluding the exact opposite of Nyisnotbad's contention. He has been made aware of the fact that he is misrepresenting Lehmann by different editors on several prior and recent occasions.

    The editor has a history of nationalist POV disputes for which he has been repeatedly both warned sanctioned.

    He has been advised of the outdated and false nature of his evidence and takes no notice.

    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.

    His sole communication has been to insist that he is being censored.

    Other than this repeated time-wasting and disruptive act, has made absolutely no other contribution to this article.μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of a week and a half Formally warned of probation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KerAvelt reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Protected)

    Page: Sholom Rubashkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

    Previous version reverted to: [39]

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

    1. 17:09, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Consensus in the talk page that this does not belong here, in addition to the editors refusal to provide a source that shows it importance to the topic, Sholom Rubashkin) that it belongs in the lead.")
    2. 20:49, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "SEE TALK PAGE. And do not revert until responding on Talk page")
    3. 21:30, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Please do not engage in edit warring. Lacking consensus is a poor, poor excuse. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he isn't CEO, you not consenting means nothing.")
    4. 03:09, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387656632 by Mosmof (talk) EXPLAIN YOURSELF before making radical changes")
    • Diff of warning: here (subsequently removed by editor)
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: extensive activity at talk page, here

    —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomoskedasticity—you have been unreasonable. A cogent argument has been made for the position (CEO/Vice president) yet you've persisted not seeing it. A well-reasoned case has been presented that legal charges that were dismissed do not warrant mention in the lead. Yet you've insisted on not seeing that. Even in the absence of BLP concerns your conduct in these matters would be unreasonable. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    None of it is cogent -- but this is not the place for content discussion of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I have reason to believe FederalInvestigator (talk · contribs) is the same editor as Keravelt and that edit count is higher. Mosmof (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Article protected 3 days. It is hard to sympathize with KerAvelt's reverts, and the concern about socking appears well-taken. Nonetheless this is a BLP article and a longer discussion might be needed to be precise about the relationship of Sholom Rubashkin to the troubled company. Since 5W Public Relations is a firm that represented Agriprocessors in the past, and 5W's article was a festival of sockpuppetry, it could be useful in KerAvelt's SPI case to link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • KerAvelt ‎blocked for 96 hours and FederalInvestigator blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.144.72.216/User:70.144.97.243/User:Apollo1975 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: protected)

    Page: Carolina–Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 70.144.72.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    70.144.97.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Apollo1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [40]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] [48]

    Comments:
    Anonymous editor was using multiple IPs (two are listed in this report) to make unconstructive POV edits to this article, then registered an account after one of the IPs was issued a 3RR warning. No attempt has been made on article talk page to seek consensus for these edits which are basically just vandalism. A CheckUser should be run to determine if sock-puppetry is at work here, but I'd imagine WP:DUCK applies. Also suggest semi-protection for this article until this person gets bored and finds other shenanigans to engage in. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.61.99.138 reported by User:WDavis1911 (Result: sprotted both)

    Page: Progressive tax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 75.61.99.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [49]


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page: [53]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page: [54]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page: [55]

    Comments:

    Not sure if this is the place for this, but it seemed to be the most reasonable. A user is violating Wikipedia:Original research, which is not by itself surprising. I respond with a templated message about this on the user's talk page. The original research is reproduced just minutes later. I revert it, and respond by writing a personal note on the user's talk page, encouraging the user to read our policy pages and continue contributing in a more constructive manner. The user then re-adds the information. I once again revert, with yet another templated warning. At this point, it seems to me that the user is just being stubborn about including the original research. It seems more about agenda pushing than anything else-- especially since these same edits were included on the Flat tax article. They were so deeply embedded in the Flat tax article that I just added a refimprove tag and figured I'd clean it out when I had more time (there were a few reasonably decent edits included, soI didn't want to just do a full revert). Thanks a lot for looking into this matter, and I hope I haven't taken up anyone's time unnecessarily. WDavis1911 (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both pages semi-protected. Kudos to WDavis1911 for their handling of this matter. Hopefully the IP will be back to discuss on the talk pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.120.110.224 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: Special forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 24.120.110.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 01:30, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
    2. 05:03, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
    3. 05:11, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ALR identified as vandalism. ALR is editing against majority consensus that Ninjas are special forces which has been on the article a long time. Undeniable")
    4. 05:15, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by CharlieEchoTango identified as pov pushing vandalism against majority consensus. Please discuss and use the sandbox for experimentation.")
    5. 05:19, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "For many years this article has stated that Ninjas are Special Forces operators, if you dispute this show us any reputable source that can prove Ninjas are NOT Special Forces operators.")
    6. 18:13, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv to previous version by Jim Sweeney.")
    7. 19:38, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "revert to previous accurate version by Jim Sweeney")
    8. 00:15, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Ask any SWAT operator at your local Police station, Police SWAT, FBI HRT and CIA Special Activities Division are all considered "Special Forces". You three are trying to push military POV!")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Edit 1 looks like the original addition of unsourced material, followed by 7 reversions of its removal within the past 24 hours - it has been removed by a number of different editors. I issued a 3RR warning yesterday, but the editor blanked it and carried on warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Has now blanked the 3RR warning again and has continued reverting...

    • 09:55, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "reverted 1 edit by ALR identified as vandalism and repeated POV pushing saying that Police SWAT, Ninja, FBI HRT, CIA are not Special Forces when they are by majority consensus.")

    -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Dazs reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: declined)

    Page: List of The Event episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: The Dazs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: oldid

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

    1. 05:52, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Episode summaries should be BRIEF, explaining only the general events. They should not summarize an entire episode. Reverted ep.1 to 20:19, Sep 27 by Grsz11.")
    2. 06:15, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision by (talk) as my previous revert fully complies with wikipedia's spoiler guidelines.")
    3. 10:27, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Removed episode 2 summary. Go here to find out why.")
    4. 12:07, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted as I do believe the removal of spoilers within this page is acceptable under the spoiler guidelines. Join the discussion")
    5. 12:26, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Removing content (but still following the spoiler guidelines)! Join the discussion")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: previous discussion on article talk page, current discussion at WP:SPOILER

    Comments: With under 30 edits under his belt, this user claims to be not edit warring because he believes BRD is a process that takes place after every reply in the discussion. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined This is a valid and well-formed request, but Dazs has now agreed to stop edit warring while consensus is built. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pmanderson reported by User:Rjanag (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: move on August 26


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Pmanderson#Turfan (last month)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Turpan#Naming (RfC and 3O)

    Comments: Pmanderson expressed his disagreement with the page title back in August and had a brief move war back then ([58][59][60]); after his third move here I let the title remain at where he kept putting it and opened up an RfC, during which time four editors (Thparkth, Shenhemu, Vmenkov, and myself) commented in favor of moving back to "Turpan", and only Pmanderson was in favor of keeping it at "Turfan". I waited 20 days without any further comments, and no one else expressed any opinion one way or the other, so when the RfC closed I took it as consensus in favor of moving the article back, so I moved it back to "Turpan", after which Pmanderson started the edit warring described in this report. It is difficult to get him to discuss article content issues, as during the entirety of the RfC he only talked about user misconduct and never presented evidence in favor of either article name, and now he has specifically says he wants to "deter" people from contacting him at his talk page.

    I also note that Pmanderson has been reported for edit warring just two weeks ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive140#User:Pmanderson reported by User:Taivo (Result: No action)) and has a long block log with numerous blocks for edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This irresponsible admin moved Turfan to Turpan, despite strong opposition by User:Alefbe; closed the eventual discussion on the title at Talk:Turfan#Title, and now, after a further inconclusive discussion at Talk:Turfan#Naming in which he was the chief advocate, has moved it again twice (using his bit to delete the redirect). He himself admits that it was not closed by a neutral observer. It should be so closed; but I would appreciate 24 hours to locate and quote the standard works of general reference I consulted several weeks ago. In the meantime. it should stay where it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you need 24 hours now when you had a month-long RfC during which you refused to address any of the arguments? If you want a neutral observer to close it, go get one—the consensus of the RfC is clear. Anyway, AN3 is not a place to continue content disputes and to argue about what the outcome of the RfC was. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure this can be resolved as a basic edit warring issue. Here, both parties have moved an equal number of times (or perhaps equal+1, but either way). This seems to be a mix of content dispute and, perhaps more fundamentally, a question of how to interpret a discussion and where consensus lies. Unfortunately, this noticeboard (and for that matter Wikipedia as a whole) is not really suited to such a task. That's what I'm seeing here, unless I've missed something (in which case please let me know). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Here's what I'm going to do. No one is getting blocked today. The page is going back to Turpan, where it started this whole mess in 2004. The page will be move protected. I expect no one to use sysop buttons to undo this. Then, someone will follow the policy and open a requested move discussion. After a week, an uninvolved admin will close it and then we'll get on with business. Everyone understand? Courcelles 02:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Heimstern: Pmanderson refused for over a month to contribute constructively to an ongoing RfC, and now when he's worried about getting blocked he suddenly decides he wants to re-open the RfC and contribute some arguments. Clearly he is not interestsed in discussing the issues or finding a consensus except when a blockhammer is hovering over his head. Maybe he hasn't broken 3RR, but this is clearly not cooperative editing behavior, especially for someone who should know better (given his numerous run-ins with this noticeboard.
    Courcelles: That sounds like a good solution, thank you. I will not be moving the page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought when I protested that Rjanag has done this; no-one would have been so improper as to move and protect the article in the absence of any cvonsensus besides that of Rjanag and Rjanag. This is shameful disregard of Rjanag's years of misconduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=387842935"