Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2over0 (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 15 May 2011 (→‎User:Bjmullan reported by User:WizOfOz (Result: protected): closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:Medeis reported by User:Alba Illyrian (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    • 1st revert: [2] (at 02:35).
    • 2nd revert: [3] (at 02:50).
    • 3rd revert: [4] (at 03:09).

    Diff of 3RR warning: [5] (warned at 02:56).

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] (replied at 03:08 to a comment made at 03:01).

    Comments:
    User has reverted an edit I made three times, despite having been warned and engaged on the talk page. He has accused me of making three reverts, but I have made only two ([7] partial revert at 02:47) ([8] revert at 02:52). Medeis (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit-warring two weeks ago. Alba Illyrian (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note Reporting user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, as per the report, it appears to have been resolved now on the article's talk page. There was no presence of 3RR violation, there was only 3 edits and 4 are required for violation of the 3RR policy. -=- Adam Walker -=- 20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avanu reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: template protected)

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

    Previous version reverted to: April 28

    Diff of edit warring warning: Skomorokh, May 12, SarekOfVulcan, May 2

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: April 28

    Comments:
    There have been extensive discussions on the template talkpage where several editors have told Avanu that the tag should not be changed, but he has nevertheless continued reverting it to his preferred version. There's obviously not a 3RR violation here, but it's definitely an edit warring problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    After discussion on this topic before, I felt I was abiding by Bold, Revert, Discuss. I initially boldly proposed an improvement to the Rescue Template and it was initially *very* quickly reverted (13 minutes later) by Sarek with a reason saying that the template must have the word "rescue" in it. (diff). The insistence on a *specific* word and no other seemed like an illogical choice, especially for a respected Vulcan like Sarek, so, I explained my reasoning further and waited for discussion.
    Over 27 hours later, and having 7 editors comment with various pros and cons, I reverted it again since the Talk page commentary was composed of people with no suggestions for improvement, people who seemed to feel this was a losing battle because ARS would strike against any change, and comments saying improvement was a useful thing.
    Again, after waiting nearly two and a half days, and going out and doing additional research, providing facts and information to back up my proposal for improvement and change, I reverted to the neutral point of view text again.
    This final change was after I had waited for nearly 10 days, and allowed editors to present alternatives and suggestions, but most editors seem to be falling into the 3 aforementioned camps. (1. No change at all - 2. Give Up 3. Improvement is good).
    This latest change was reverted by Skomorokh, who is a fairly neutral party in this, and he and I have discussed this (see links below), and it has prompted me to review the WP:BRD guidelines a little closer, so I feel we can work this out positively.
    Sarek has shown himself to be a *very* involved admin and editor, and this template *directly* relates to a block he issued. I believe that he is a little too involved and is simply being a little opportunistic with this report, and I hope that a review of the facts shows that I am trying very strongly to abide by WP:BRD. I'm trying to give others time to comment, and after the discussion with Skomorokh, I will also try to propose alternatives, rather than simply saying "no, I insist this is well written". So, again, if I went against WP:BRD, it was not my intent, and I would hope this is recognizable from the pattern of edits in this case. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Avanu, I really don't care all that much about breaking "BRD" - that's just an essay designed to help editors understand how to avoid edit warring. I am concerned about repeated reverts back to the same material despite what appears to be a complete lack of consensus for those reverts. I don't see Sarek as an involved admin in this instance since s/he has taken no administrative action; indeed I'm very glad to see this here instead of in an unblock request. Involved editor, sure, that's kind of how it works. The discussion with Skomorokh appears constructive - can you commit to cease reverting until you have gained consensus for your edits on the template's talk page? Kuru (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have no problem committing to that. I've been told I was ignoring BRD, so I made an attempt to focus on that. Despite making mistakes here and there, I'm not trying to intentionally go against the community or consensus, I'm just looking to make positive improvements. -- Avanu (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there would be nothing preventative about taking administrative action. As an unsolicited suggestion, it may be better to continue the discussion on the talk page and let one of the other editors there make the negotiated changes to the template; you would then be isolated from any possible edit warring. Kuru (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This would work if several of the editors were not completely opposed to any change, despite a clear indication in the tag's guidelines that a 'rescue plan' should be made, many editors do little more than place the tag, and !vote. I even directly quoted policy from the consensus page, and one of the editors flatly contradicted it. I suggested *and* requested help and guidance in the proper way to solicit outside opinions as per consensus guidelines, these same editors called that canvassing, and this was before I had done anything. In short, I am dealing with a small group of people who are as far as I can tell, completely opposed to improvement, despite claiming to be members of ARS, whose #1 goal is improvement. They have demonstrated ownership of this template (see Template Talk:Rescue#Poll on specific changes that should or shouldn't be made to the Article Rescue Squadron's banner), and really are being very difficult. I'm trying new ideas and taking theirs into account. I would hope this isn't wrong. -- Avanu (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to have to reopen this as the editor in question has made two significant edits after the above here and here (in two parts). At this point call it a lack of WP:CLUE or WP:COMPETENCE, or evidence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but it's past the point of disrupting progress on that page. Skomorokh 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Note that these edits came after this final warning. Skomorokh 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Skomorokh, I have a grasp of what the guidelines say, and I am following recommendations. Am I missing something here, because I am reading the same WP:Edit warring page we all are. Please show me where coming up with a different proposal constitutes edit warring? I have proposed new (and different from before) wording. I'm trying to contribute and trying to incorporate others' comments. It falls in line with what several editors have said they want, and it falls completely in line with Bold, Revert, Discuss. People are welcome to revert and propose alternatives to my proposed wording, and this was discussed prior to being added. If the idea is that no one can propose any new wording until everyone gets on *exactly* the same page on wording, it will be a very long time, since some editors want it exactly as it is now, some want changes, and some editors want it gone entirely. -- Avanu (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I came up with another alternative, keeping the word 'rescue' and leaving the words 'deletion discussion' and 'discussion' in place, while still trying to improve the Template *and* make it line up with its own guidelines for use, and you are calling it edit warring. Now, I have presented facts, I have presented discussion, and I have listened to others. The one thing I have done, that others have not done, is provide suggestions to improve the template, and provided contributions in the Template for that purpose. It is clear from the facts that things need improvement, and I have just today soliticed outside input from the Village Pump and NPOV Noticeboard. I'm not sure how waiting days, weeks, or months for others to come up with positive suggestions contributes to the encyclopedia, but could you enlighten me? -- Avanu (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And he removed "help improve the article". That was about as unhelpful an edit to that template as you could possibly make. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I already replied at the Rescue Talk page on the edit comment you left, but I'll include my reply here also, to help others understand the rationale.
    TEXT OF REPLY: Yes, I did (in this suggested iteration), because nowhere does the 'Article for deletion' demand people delete the article. So in fairness, why should this tag have a declaration that people "help improve it"? What you didn't mention yet, is that in my proposed wording, I called for people to review the rescue nominator's rationale (in light of the guidelines for its use). Such a rationale would have much more detail and offer a better chance for true improvement than a vague "help improve". -- Avanu (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So after all of this another editor finally proposed a tiny change. Dream Focus - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Rescue&diff=429114299&oldid=429114290 Progress achieved! Change inserted, we'll see if others revert it because *I* added it, or if they leave it alone. Either way, maybe a tiny step forward. -- Avanu (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your mentality is clear in your above statement, and the constant statements on the ARS talk page. No one is against change for its own sake or because they don't like you. They are against the specific changes you have previously made. A minor change from the word flagged to tagged doesn't make any difference at all. The other changes were quite major, and every single other editor who commented on these specific changes has been against them. Dream Focus 19:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would dare say that most independent observers would probably say the changes I made were minor but significant in important ways. If the tag is going to be misused, and if ARS or others are going to insist on it working this way, then something in the wording of the tag should be changed. If people are willing to remove the tag when it is misused, then I have a lot less of a problem with the tag as written. -- Avanu (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected I've protected the template while the content dispute is worked out. I'm very disappointed you broke your commitment to me, Avanu. Kuru (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My committment to you was this "can you commit to cease reverting until you have gained consensus for your edits on the template's talk page?" I've not reverted since. I've been discussing and proposing new language. "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." None of the other editors have made any effort to propose changes (save 1 word by DreamFocus), so I've been working within the guidelines *they* set and proposing new material. The only reverts of work have been the work I've done back to the work that was in place before I began editing the template, which has generally been in place since 2009 and earlier. WP:BRD indicates that proposing new material is an acceptable practice. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a proactive method for reaching consensus on any wiki with revision control." I'm certainly not the first to propose these sorts of changes, in fact, looking at the revision history, it generally seems that this same small group of editors pushes out editors who try and improve this template. I'm making good faith efforts and that doesn't preclude others from reverting or proposing other material instead. The nature of this discussion shows they are VERY VERY protective and ownershippy of this template and that isn't in line with Wikipedia policy. I'm doing my best to work within the ever contracting box you guys are drawing, but honestly soon it will be hard to call your efforts good faith. -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're confused about what a revert is, please ask next time. Let me be clear: if the protection expires before you have arranged a consensus on the article's talk page, 'do not continue to make changes. At this point it is very clear that there is significant opposition to your changes. You are free to use any avenue to resolve your dispute (see WP:DR), but continued edit warring is not acceptable. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a result of my actions, DreamFocus finally proposed a small change, which was implemented before you protected the Template. I'd call that progress. As far as significant opposition, I would characterize it more properly as very vocal and strident opposition. I'm incredibly chill about the way this turns out, I'm not emotionally tied up in its outcome, I just don't like it being used as a tool for bias. Since these particular ARS members feel it is OK to disregard the tag's own guidelines and will fight for the tag to be included despite its misuse, I have to work on the template itself. I'm not opposed to improvement, but for some reason the improvement-minded ARS seems to be. Oh, I forgot to mention, I won't edit the Template:Rescue again without your leave. (but I will push for process to be improved) -- Avanu (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm taking Avanu's side in this template usage discussion, but I endorse full protection at this time. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 72 hours)

    Page: Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [9]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

    • Attempts to resolve dispute on user talk page: [13]
    • Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

    Comments:
    This article is under a 1RR restriction. Darkstar1st has been blocked for violating it once before. I asked him several times to self-revert.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Duration due to previous block for same issue. Kuru (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fleetham reported by User:Odiseo79 (Result: Both blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    User has been warned already three times about edit warring in the article in cuestion Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:
    User deleting sourced content at will. Not willing to reach any consensus and only trying to impose his own version. The user ignores verifiable sources and keeps reverting content and now unilaterally has tagged the article for notability, ignoring again sources provided. The user has been warned three times about the same issue and that didn't work.

    --Odiseo79 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User Fleetham has a long history of contentious and disruptive edits, and a marked inability to cooperate with other editors. When thwarted, he will often respond by a steady stream of challenges to those who he considers "hostile". There is a long frustrating discussions here (share taxi), which shows some of Fleetham's usual habits of continued arguing coupled with constant reverts to the article, claiming there is no consensus. At Roewe another losing argument can be seen, followed by a possible vendetta: an attempt to remove a perfectly reliable source used by one of his opponents. Fleetham's targeted articles (all listed on his userpage) are all gutted and broken up into very small fragments, studded with countless references. Tons of useful and often referenced content is deleted without any discussion or respect for other editors, and never ending arguments follow. Most editors give in after a long boring battle, but Fleetham really must be made to adopt community standards of civility and style practices.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked Kuru blocked Fleetham for 48 hours (as this is his/her second 3RR violation) and Odiseo for 24 hours. Minima© (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a good candidate for protecting the article, but it appears that tactic has been tried back in April on this same article to alleviate an edit war with Fleetham. I've blocked Fleetham for 48 hours for significantly exceeding the 3RR (his second edit warring block), and Odiseo for 24 hours for the same (his first block). Attempting to work out the dispute on the article's talk page is fantastic, but it does not mean you can continue to revert war on the article. Kuru (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:117.206.107.58 reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: 31h block)

    Page: Chera Dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and many more User being reported: 117.206.107.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [29]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

    Comments:

    massive edit war with Sodabottle and some other users, also reverted the cluebot and this IP is an indef blocked sockpuppet--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Materialscientist Minima© (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GEAT BEOWULF reported by User:Crashdoom (Result: 24h block)

    Page: Template:Television in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GEAT BEOWULF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATelevision_in_England&action=historysubmit&diff=428945325&oldid=428740638

    1. 15:46, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428906693 by AxG (talk)")
    2. 16:14, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428939735 by Rangoon11 (talk)")
    3. 16:22, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428943452 by Crashdoom (talk)")
    4. 16:31, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428944791 by Crashdoom (talk)")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Talk:GEAT BEOWULF

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template_talk:Television_in_England

    Comments:
    The user has failed to be willing to discuss this on the talk page and failed to understand a secondary article for the same subject is not required. They have failed to abide by the 3RR policy preventing them from making more than 3 reverts on a single article and for this reason, they are being reported for this violation. This is currently happening on the template and on various other articles edited by the user.

    -=- Adam Walker -=- 16:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Banzoo reported by User:Owain the 1st (Result: meh)

    There seems to be some dispute on this thread 1996 shelling of Qana .We have both reverted the work of the other, I have only reverted back to the original.The debate seems to be if changing the title of a sub article from Israeli response to Israeli spin is fine. I believe that Israeli response is fine and that changing it to Israeli spin is not a NPOV, obviously the other editor feels different.I would like an admin to come and sort it out please.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Could be considered Edit Warring, but wont fall under the 3RR rule (Only a single revert in 24 hours). Have you considered attempting dispute resolution before reporting the user here? As stated in the template for edit war reporting: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" -=- Adam Walker -=- 19:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Adam. This is pretty mild, and it appears others are now involved in the discussion on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is mild but it was going nowhere, as it happens I did discuss it on the talk page here [36]but cannot come to agreement.Others have since come and reverted the change and commented that his POV was not NPOV.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thigle reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 48 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [37]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:
    User is adding overly-technical writing into the article, without explaining what it means (chulen). His response was that It doesn't matter what chulen is. The point is that it is a secondary condition for rainbow body. If you want more info, reference the source. He just got off of a block for edit warring in the same article yesterday, and the only reason he didn't try to restore his original text in its entirety, I suspect, was because I pointed out that it was a copyright violation.

    It also seems that the information he is currently adding is taken directly from here, most notably chulen is a necessary secondary condition for attaining rainbow body. This is not just their teaching however, chulen is mentioned in the sgra thal gyur etc. , which is a word-for-word match to what is being placed in the article. The other sentences in the whole paragraph he inserted are also in that forum posting, some being slightly reworded at the beginning, most not. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Sigh. These are not all reverts. Way to lie SudoGhost. Hopefully the administrators will catch you. I only have 2 reverts. The rest added material and references. Thigle (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You are the one who reverted my SOURCED MATERIAL THREE TIMES!! You did not add any material into this page at any time. Thigle (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that the additions that Thigle is adding is a copyright violation of this forum, which I am reverting as per WP:COPYVIO and WP:3RR. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He just did it a fifth time. SudoGhost should be blocked automatically. There is no copyright violation. Refer to the source I referenced. When he ran out of legitimate reverts, he trumped up a copyright violation. This user should be permanently banned. Thigle (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting copyright violations is exempt from the WP:3RR rule. Unless you mean to suggest that you happened to add a word-for-word match of a forum, without meaning to, explaining concepts which you yourself don't understand? Adding a source (which you likely haven't checked) does not exempt you from adding copyrighted materal. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no copyright violation. You just ran out of legitimate reverts. Thigle (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For something that isn't a copyright violation, there's a strange similarity between the two. The first forum post mentioning 'chulen' occurs on May 10. Thigle's first edit including 'chulen' occurs on May 11 (which includes verbatim information taken from the forum). Each time the forum adds more information, Thigle's edits become more informational. I don't see how it's anything but a copyright violation. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    CHECK THE SOURCE. JESUS CHRIST. Thigle (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tacking a book onto the end of a copyright violation does not make it a "source" and does not give you license to violate copyright. Also, you seemingly "forgot" to include your source until (at least) your 7th reinsertion of the material. Seeing as how you've had a problem with not having sources for some time with your edits in this article, I doubt that's a valid source for the material. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Kuru (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see the oddity with the forum posts; I'm not sure if it's a copyright violation until it can be looked at in more detail, but the mere question of it should have stopped the re-insertion until that could be cleared up. This seems like a good exception from 3RR. Kuru (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if its relevant, but this is the second time this oddity has occured, which is why I looked into it. The first here this, in which this diff is even more verbatim from this than the one above. It also has the same timeline, with the forum post first, and the first diff showing up a couple of days later. The copyright notice at the bottom of the forum, and the lack of attribution was the concern for me. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nuthos reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Protected)

    Page: List of Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nuthos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

    Comments: I've attempted to discuss this on the talk page but this editor is not inclined to discuss it.

    • Note Fixed template error. Page protection request has been submitted here on the same issue. -=- Adam Walker -=- 22:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected I note that both editors are guilty of warring. I considered blocking both but determined that page protection combined with reverting the most recent edit appearing to be a BLP concern may start them discussing things. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Indépendance des Chercheurs reported by User:Drmies (Result: 48h)

    Page: Luis González-Mestres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Indépendance des Chercheurs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [52], and after the fifth revert, [53]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] (by another editor)

    I've presented arguments for the tags on the talk page--see lengthy discussion, particularly for the COI tag. I've also indicated the problems with sourcing in the edit summaries of a number of edits to sections of the article--but those few edits only scratch the surface.

    There is currently an ANI thread as well, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_brewing.2Ffringe_science.2Fownership.2Fetc._on_Luis_Gonz.C3.A1lez-Mestres_.28and_Superbradyon.29, where I called for attention early on in the process and also touched upon ownership and COI issues. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) (I was first drawn to the issue by this edit).

    Comments:

    Drmies (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: 48 hours for 3RR violation. The fierce advocacy on behalf of the article subject suggests the possibility of a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.192.72.29 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Rescinded)

    Page: Alpharetta High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 98.192.72.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [60]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

    Comments:
    The IP has been edit warring after my 3RR warning on this article. I'm not involved myself in the edit warring. But what's more, the IP has told another user that he may not edit the page if he's not affiliated with the subject ([67]), a clear opposite of WP:COI. Even though these reverts are over a 2-week period, this IP clearly doesn't get the concept of edit warring and didn't use edit summaries.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporarily striking this report. Will unstrike and add diffs if the warring continues.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note Marking report as Rescinded by reporter -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.90.197.244 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 72 hours )

    Page: Human evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 99.90.197.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [68]


    1. 09:13, 4 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427373357 by HiLo48 (talk)")
    2. 22:30, 9 May 2011 (edit summary: "as higlated by Moxy & using 'his' source, see talk")
    3. 22:36, 9 May 2011 (edit summary: "spelling")
    4. 10:58, 10 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
    5. 11:07, 10 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Denisova hominin */ early migration out of Africa, rm misleding link to' recent out of Africa'")
    6. 11:18, 10 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Denisova hominin */ {fact} but not realy fact but nonsesne:: Nenderthal if migrated then migrated into Africa (was cold ice age) not out of Africa.")
    7. 09:12, 11 May 2011 (edit summary: ""hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected (P < 10^-17)"")
    8. 10:40, 11 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
    9. 10:41, 11 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
    10. 10:53, 11 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
    11. 12:23, 12 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
    12. 11:18, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "added: around 100,000 years ago as quopted")
    13. 11:25, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
    14. 11:45, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "there was obscured wikilink (fixed), removing one misquoted source")
    15. 11:56, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Moving left source with words " dominant view" after the words dominanat view. The source, highly here protected (see talk), is a kind of website for kids with ?title? (sic) " SITEMAP for ORIGINS Theology of Creation,"")
    16. 22:31, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "old Citation removed (by previous editor, right it was not WP:RS ) - curent {citation neded}. Adding qoute and date to the last one open, remaining 2001 source.")
    17. 23:31, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428999251 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)")
    18. 03:50, 14 May 2011 (edit summary: "plese discuss changes in talk.")
    19. 05:27, 14 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 429032168 by Leadwind (talk) this was silly you expect scientis to put wikilinks in they articles ?")

    —OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

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

    Comments:

    This individual has been blocked before on the same article. And we've tried to discuss, but the IP just says the same incomprehensible stuff (seriously, several editors are confused by the comments). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I noticed you haven't put a link to a discussion, but I would see why you couldn't with an IP user. Anyway, they have been blocked twice previously for disruptive editing, first for 1 month, second for 3 months, and they still appear to not have learned from this action. An extended/indefinite block may be the best option, at least until the editor understands how to interact and edit alongside other Wikipedia editors. -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Thought about it. But they keep adding the same thing over and over and over again. I think a couple of weeks ago they were at 10RR. I don't get why admins don't deal with editors like this. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is the first 'edit warring' block, albeit a pretty egregious one, I've just set it at 72 hours. I have not reviewed the content of the edits - if there's something disruptive there like his previous blocks, point it out and I'll escalate from the last 3 month block. Kuru (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: semi)

    Page: Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [70]

    • 1st revert: [71] 07:30, 13 May 2011
    • 2nd revert: [72] 11:34, 13 May 2011
    • 3rd revert: [73] 12:34, 13 May 2011
    • 4th revert: [74] 05:25, 14 May 201


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75] for the same behavior just prior to article being locked ~2 weeks ago

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Fanny_Alger_2, Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Fanny_Alger and Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#.22Nature_of_reliable_sources.22

    Comments:

    John Foxe is well aware of WP:3RR - in fact, this same behavior a little more than two weeks ago contributed to the article being locked. See also a previous report at that time. I find it telling that despite that previous warning and locking of the page, John Foxe returns to the same behavior. As I commented before, his comments on the talk page indicate a edit warring mindset, issues of WP:OWNership, and editting with an agenda to push and only allow his particular POV. His comments on the talk page now including [76]), stating that he would continue inserting the same material that led to the edit war and locking of the page after the page was unlocked (which he did) rather than trying to gain a consensus. Per the advice given at the previous report, since the pattern has repeated after the protection expired, I am reporting again. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note User has previously been blocked twice for violations of the 3RR policy, and this is their second time causing a violation of the policy on the same page after page protection. Has the user been warned regarding the latest 3RR policy violation? -=- Adam Walker -=- 14:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected Semi-protected for one month. This looks like an extension of the events leading up to the recently expired semi-protection, and should otherwise be amenable to talkpage discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:190.98.48.73 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 24h block)

    Page: American Idol (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Lauren Alaina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 190.98.48.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    American Idol (season 10) Previous version reverted to: [77]

    Lauren Alain Previous version reverted to: [78]

    American Idol (season 10)

    Lauren Alaina


    American Idol (season 10) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:190.98.48.73#3rr warning on American Idol (season 10)]

    Laurena Alaina Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:190.98.48.73#3rr warning on Lauren Alaina]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Idol (season 10)#Someone keeps removing Lauren's bottom 2 status from the elimination table

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User talk:190.98.48.73#Lauren Alaina Bottom 2 placement in the final five round

    Comments: This new IP user only has edits over the past four days and all of them were to switch the Bottom 2 placement on a results show of American Idol (season 10) to Safe, even though Ryan Seacrest on the show specifically said Lauren Alaina and Jacob Lusk were in the Bottom 2 and then eliminated Lusk. There was a discussion started on the talk page of American Idol (season 10) that had three different editors respond that the IP address was incorrect. Numerous different editor have reverted the changes on both articles, but the IP address has yet to respond to any of the concerns brought up. Aspects (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    In addition to the reports above, the user in question is also vandalizing Scotty McCreery here. A block here would be helpful in at least slowing down the vandalism here, --RadioFan (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bjmullan reported by User:WizOfOz (Result: protected)

    Page: 2011 UK Open Darts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bjmullan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [91]

    • See also complete edit history to date: [96]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97] Response [98]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

    Comments:

    There has been no 3RR specific violation, but this is a long-term reverting war where consensus for the user's proposed change has not been reached. WizOfOz (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs cited as the first and second reverts are, at the time of writing, identical; you might want to clarify that. Skomorokh 18:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Fixed it now and added further detail. WizOfOz (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected. A barely plausible claim of WP:BLP has been made, the talkpage and WikiProject discussions are inconclusive, and several parties are edit warring here. I recommend a request for comment if those discussions do not reach a resolution in the next week. Bjmullan, please be careful that you do not "cry BLP", as it can have a chilling effect on discussion, antagonize editing relationships, and give others the impression that you may be more interested in "winning" than in writing the best possible free content encyclopedia. Please be more circumspect in wielding the policy. To everyone: please remember that there is no deadline; waiting to establish a reasoned consensus is often more important than ensuring that your preferred version of the article is displayed at all times. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnbod reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of tag removal:

    • GPM: A
    • 1st removal: 1
    • GPM: B
    • 2nd removal: 2
    • GPM: C
    • 3rd removal: 3

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ongoing discussion since 3 May 2011

    Comments:
    User:Johnbod seems to have a severe case of WP:Own on the article. Since the start of the dispute on 3 May, he has reverted about everything which I contributed to the article. Today, I made five edits (A to D) and not two were alike; every time I introduced different material, not once did I revert him. Still, he reverted every single one of my edits, as if he were the one to decide. Even worse, User:Anneyh has offered today to set up a mediation process. Even though we both independently agreed (1 and 2), he reverted me on the article for a fifth time a few minutes later.

    I've warned him three times about his disruptive behaviour (see above). Still, he removed at least three times the tags from the article acting as if a solution has been reached (see above). In fact, a discussion with multiple user has been going on since the beginning of May and nothing has been solved. In view of his continuing intransigent behaviour, I don't see any other venue but the noticeboard here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • RESPONSE This complaint cherry-picks items from a couple of weeks of a dispute which is the subject of a request for comment, also initiated by GPM, and has several thousand words on the talk-page, from several editors. GPM has, as usual, edit-warred throughout, and been reverted by editors other than myself. Today he made some edits, some on new points related to the ongoing RFC, others not. One was referenced (to Hoffman) but did not reflect the source very well, so I reworded the new point to reflect the source, & reformatted the ref to trhe article's style. One was unreferenced & very-oversimplified, so I just removed it (two words on Brunelleschi). Another was ungrammatical, and a somewhat misleading version of a point already made lower down, so also removed. There is no 3RR breach here, or close, in my edits anyway - his are probably worth examining. Many other editors have added things to this fairly high-volume article in the 2 years or so since I re-wrote nearly all of it. Accurate, referenced and well-expressed material is left, other edits removed. Many of his edits are very POV, as they are at other articles. His frequent and blatent misuse of sources he has brought forward is documented in detail on the talk page. I don't see any direct connection between User:Anneyh's various comments - which don't exactly suggest a "mediation process" - and the edits complained of. Several other editors have commented on talk, including Deacon of Pndapetzim, who said: [100] "... welcome to Wikipedia Johnbod. ... I'd waste time arguing the case for you, but I'm sure I'd be insulted, WP:OR would be cited, and so on. Best advice is to take the hit to the article and move on. Eventually you may get it sorted, but it won't be worth the effort." He might be right, but one knows from past experience that if that is how it goes GPM will cite having "proved" his case here in other articles to promote his POV agenda. Gun Powder Ma mounted a similar attack on the article, a year ago, trying to remove the whole section, but this was opposed by myself, Adam Bishop & Modernist. I may well be getting paranoid, but he is such a games-player that it occurs to me that some of today's edits (well off-piste for him) were deliberately weak to give him more reverts to complain about.

    Taking "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:" When he starts an edit-war, as he often does (see his history here etc) GPM is always very quick to issue warnings. He has been warned himself by others on this - I don't bother, as he takes no notice.

    Taking "Diff of tag removal" here:

    • The first diff I removed a tag which complained that the two words "generally wealthier" constituted WP:UNDUE in an article of 67k bytes!
    • The second diff I added several excellent refs, and removed a tag asking for more refs.
    • The last diff here is where he tagged as "failed verification" a particular reference on the RFC point, so I obligingly removed that reference and so the tag, as the point was already referenced to several other historians. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is I didn't edit-war and I didn't overstep the 3RR a single time over the past three weeks, while you have been showing this combatitive behaviour since the beginning of the dispute. Your allegation that I misused source are made up of thin air. I've quoted from international authorities like Angus Maddison, Walter Scheidel and others, but you do not want to have none of that.
    In fact, you have long admitted that the whole debate is a kind of abstruse "test case" for me, meaning that at no time in the discusion you have had a sincere interest in resolving the dispute and that you have hold hostage all the others users in the debate just to make a WP:POINT! For this, and your unwavering WP:Own and WP:WAR attitude you need to be blocked. Then we can talk again like adults to solve the debate, if you calm down. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My "point" is that a statement that can be impeccably referenced should not be removed at the behest of a POV warrior, no matter how persistent. I have given details of your falsification of what both Maddison and Scheidel say on the talk page, and provided many references from Fernand Braudel and others, which you as usual ignore. These: [101], [102], [103], [104] are 4 clear reverts by you within 24 hours! Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wanting to mince words, Johnbod is a highly and widely respected editor, author of several FA's and numerous DYK's, and known to be thoughtful, considered and knowledgeable. Gun Powder Ma is an agressive, litigious crank, who digs a position, and fights from there come hell or high water. He is diven by agenda, the basis for which are known only to herself and her maker, and apparently by gruge. This report is a device, born of no other option left to Ma in this latest battle, and best ignored. I've followed the dispute, as it involves a few of my associates, and its extreamly tiresome; Ma vs the world. Ceoil 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod has added valid referenced material to the article and GunPowder Ma is behaving like a troll who WP:OWNs the article. Keep in mind Johnbod has added more than 430 edits (more than anyone else) to the article, (I've added 49) while the GPMa has added a whopping 31 edits and many of those have been reverts and tags. I warned GunPowderMa here [105] after she had four reverts earlier in May, on May2nd and May 3rd all within a couple of hours - [106], [107], [108], [109]...Modernist (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=429163540"