Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Erikeltic reported by User:Jake Fuersturm (Result: No violation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Previous version reverted to: [1] and [2]

• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6] (slight difference from the first three, as I had edited the formatting in-between in an attempt to reach a compromise, otherwise the content is identical)
• 5th revert: [7]

1. Note: reversion nos. 1 and 2 were posted by a different editor, however the content of reversions nos. 3 and 4 posted by Erikeltic are the same as nos. 1 and 2, and therefore is a continuation of the same edit war, pushing it into a 4th reversion overall
2. Note: reversion no. 5 is an unrelated reversion to the same article as per "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8] and [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] and [11]

Here's the links to the full discussions diff'd above: [12] and [13]

Comments:

1. Erikeltic insists that it's not an edit war just because multiple editors "oppose the inclusion of these edits" [14].
2. Erikeltic is a habitual edit warrior, as evidenced by two previous blocks for violations of WP:3R here (a scant two weeks ago) and here

-- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• No violation You seem to be claiming that another editor's reverts count against him? That's a fairly innovative position. The last revert also contains a copyright dispute claim, which is generally given a wide berth until the claim is settled. Kuru (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree - it's quite clear that the identical reversion has been made, and given the short time span between the first pair of reversions and the second pair of reversion it is reasonable to link them even if not posted by the same editor. It's tantamount to gaming the system to avoid going offside on WP:3R. The two previous blocks have also established a pattern of behaviour. Furthermore, I did discuss the issue of "tag-teaming" already [15]. Respectfully, I request that you reconsider your decision, which was reached in barely five minutes. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the copyright dispute claim, it would have made more sense to go directly to an AfD on the image in question, rather than posting an additional reversion to the article itself. He only posted the {{db-filecopyvio}} when I suggested the alternative course of action. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're confused. If you're claiming they are the same editor, then please take your report to WP:SPI. If you're claiming that the two editor's edits should count as a "group 3RR" violation, then no. It's not gaming the system, it appears to be two people that disagree with one other one who is pretty close to a 3RR violation himself. Kuru (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my TWO reversions (i.e. restorations) is in any way close to the FOUR required to put me offside. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

23:54 is a partial revert (restoring a ref removed in the previous edit), 21:20 and 19:40 are two simple reverts and labeled as such, 19:23 removed the extra verbiage added by Mattbuck in the previous edit. That's four in about four hours. Do you understand the nature of the problem and will you avoid editing the article for the next 24 hours, or is preventative action needed? Kuru (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't agree that 23:54 is a partial revert, because the deletion in the previous edit caused a claim that was left intact in the article to be UNSOURCED, which I believe Wikipedia tends to discourage
2. I also don't agree that 19:23 is a revert, as the edit did not seek to restore a previous reversion, but instead made a tangential change.
3. By my count, I am at TWO - if you're saying that I'm at FOUR, then NO, I don't understand the nature of the problem
4. If you are suggesting I be blocked from editing the Spock article for 24 hours, I would contend that it is unnecessary as a further reversion of the two edits in question really WOULD put me into numbers 3 and 4, respectively. Furthermore, it would be grossly unreasonable as my edits are no more tendentious that Erik's, and in fact I was the one who tried to bring the dispute to an end by initiating a talk page discussion. FURTHERMORE, Erik insisted on posting a revert a full TWO HOURS AFTER that discussion had already been initiated!! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading this as you will refrain from further reverts. I assure you that the other two edits revert the actions of other editors. I remain concerned that your understanding of the edit warring policy is flawed, and it is likely that you will need to slow the pace of your editing to avoid a re-appearance at this notice board. You may also note that it is indeed possible to discuss issues without using bold, all-caps, and red fonts to sound important; it just makes you look fervent when you do that and does little to build credibility. Kuru (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I assure you, I slowed the pace of my editing considerably (from ~30-40 edits/day a couple of months ago, to ~10 edits/week now (the flurry of activity over the past day has been an exception, for obvious reasons)), but you'll excuse me if I actually care enough to take a stand on something I feel strongly about. I feel no need to be "less fervent" about my editing, but since that seems to be the prevailing attitude around here, I'm not surprised at the ongoing issues Wikipedia has been experiencing with declining editorship.

Not sure how using emphasis is for making one "sound important" - but it does help to draw attention when comments can be easily lost in a rapidly expanding discussion thread -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Further reversions - what would be the point? Don't forget that I'm the one who initiated discussion - Erik's the one who chose to post a reversion subsequent to that, but that seems to have been forgotten -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at the time stamps; I posted the {{db-filecopyvio}} before I even read your suggestion, which I found highly amusing. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 05:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The time stamps are both as of 23:23, 28 May 2011 [[16] and [17], so you definitely didn't post before me. What IS amusing is that your reversion took place 36 minutes earlier. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this staight:

1. You think another editor's revert should count against me for a 3RR.

2. The time index is IDENTICAL, but claim I only did nominated your file because you suggested it to me in the first place.

3. An old block from 2009 and another 24 hour block from a couple of weeks ago is evidence of me being an "edit warrior".

4. I should not be permitted to have an opinion in Spock because I--and others--have not felt the need to change its content until after your recent edits.

Does that about sum up your issues tonight? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 05:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

1. That should be obvious. Yes. Because you were well aware of a potential edit war brewing, and chose to involve yourself in the same edit anyways.
2. My suggestion definitely didn't come afterwards.
3. A reasonable editor would have learned after the first violation.
4. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but since you're so fond of quoting WP:BRD, then why is it that I'm the one who had to initiate "D" after your multiple reverts? AND, you still insisted on posting a revert a full TWO HOURS AFTER the discussion had already been initiated!! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted twice. Are you suggesting that Mike and I are "in cahoots" or something? What about David? It would seem from where I'm sitting that consensus is against your position and you are unhappy about it due to your clear [[WP:OWN|feelings}} about the article. Filing a 3RR is not the way to go to "silence" another editor and their position. Furthermore, digging into my past edits does not assume good faith or foster any type of collaboration now does it? I would also caution you against uncivil and unnecessary comments like those you made here. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 05:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What about David??? He hasn't posted any recent edits, why are you dragging his name into this?

Anwyays, you reverted twice, but you were well aware of the two previous reverts which were the same as the ones you made. I'm not suggesting cahoots, but rather a gross disregard for the edit history (but given that you seem to show so much deference to Mike .... we'll let the other editors decide ....).

Also, as per the guidelines clearly stated above "If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and warnings." I only looked into your history because it was required of me. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:OWN, what do you call this comment of yours? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm's not terribly civil -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, please do not continue a dispute here. An admin's already given a result; if you disagree with it, please take it up with the closing admin. Continue your dispute with each other at the relevant talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The closing admin is well aware of my disagreement (see thread above) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BelloWello reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

• 1st revert: [19]
• 2nd revert: [20]
• 3rd revert: n/a - this article subject to 1RR
• 4th revert: n/a - this article subject to 1RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

• As stated by MtKing, this is a content dispute, not subject to WP:BLP. BLP is for contentious material. This attribution issue does not rise to the level of a WP:BLP revert. Per WP:3RRNO he should've gone to the WP:BLPN noticeboard. Bello was advised not to rely on BLP in this case, and he did so anyway. Lionel (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

While this is a sound editorial change, this is an extreme stretch of WP:BLP which has the appearance of circumventing the 1RR restriction on that page. I would urge BW to revert this change and allow another editor to make it. Kuru (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're the 3rd editor to point out that this revert is not BLP--and he hasn't self reverted--and no block. "Sound editorial change? Maybe not according to Mathsci.[23] "Just another beautiful day in Bellopedia. Lionel (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I just saw this. Kuru, did you read my explanation on the talk page of the article as well as the edit summaries that are contained within what Lionelt posted? If you still think that BLP does not apply (or that it was "an 'extreme' stretch") I would like to hear your rationale. Thank you for not jumping to conclusions based on Lionelt's misleading report (without discussing the edit with me) in his campaign to get me topic banned. bW 01:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above User:BelloWello has again transgressed the 1RR on the page with this edit less than 24hs after his last one, I have asked him to stop editing the page for the time being. Mtking (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That was more than 24 hours after my first revert. I still believe that the WP:BLP one is exempt, unless someone can show me how that was not a violation, which nobody has done. Again, this would be much clearer if one would read the full rationale on the talk page and provide a rationale as to why the rather clear false attribution to a living person should stand. bW 02:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice how Bello is attempting to insult me by referring to me with the female pronoun "her." From his previous account he is well aware that I am male. This was his trademark insult at his previous account. He used it frequently to degrade editors he perceived to be enemies, as well as admins. Lionel (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Corrected. Just a simple oversight, not meant to be insulting, I do not consider you an "enemy." I aim to treat all editors with good faith. I do, however, find it insulting that you find a female pronoun an insult. If you would like, you are welcome to call me a female pronoun whenever you like. bW 05:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week for violating the 1RR restriction recently imposed on this article and for long-term edit warring. The BLP exemption from 3RR is very narrowly worded and in my judgment this is not covered by that exemption. I'm imposing a one-week block since BW has just returned to editing after being blocked for nine days. The 24 May unblock was premised on an expectation of better behavior in the future, and came with a warning against further edit warring. Other admins should feel free to adjust the block length in either direction. Continued reverting after a lengthy discussion at ANI (in which BW participated) tends to frustrate our usual scheme for dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:120.20.51.50 reported by NeilN ^{talk to me} (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 120.20.51.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 15:04, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 15:10, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "edited to remove original editors personal beliefs and bias toward the subject as it was written without any fact or reference to back it up.")
3. 15:16, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "left leaning atheist vandals opinions not based in fact have been removed")
4. 15:19, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431497280 by NeilN (talk)")
5. 15:25, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "removal of biased atheist propaganda with reference to more atheist propaganda not based in any fact.")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various warnings at User talk:120.20.51.50

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Graduated to ordinary vandalism with this and got blocked for 31 hours. Favonian (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kristhehistorian reported by User:Favonian (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]
• 5th revert: [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
User is clearly the same as 174.49.107.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Favonian (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Self admits to being the IP; was warned about 3RR. Kuru (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fatty2k10 reported by User:Jasmeet 181 (Result: )

Page: Thurmaston Bus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fatty2k10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1nd revert: [33]
• 2rd revert: [34]
• 3th revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]
• 5th revert: [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

The user has also tried to make the changes while adding new content.[39] I have twice tried to start a discussion with them rather than using templates, as Casliber had told me that it would not be helpful,[40] but the user simply removes them. I didn't edit for a day to allow for a cooling off period. The user did finally contact me after their third revert of the day but when I disagreed referring to MoS and another editor made similar changes to mine, Fatty2k10 simply sent me an edit warring/3RR warning instead of continuing with discussions as requested. Fatty2k10 has previously been blocked twice for editing warring, including a 3RR violation. The user is currently claiming to have retired but has being doing so a long time. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

various 99.180.128.0/19 anons reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )

Page: Climate change policy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

1. 99.181.140.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 99.181.143.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 99.181.135.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 99.181.156.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:00, May 25, 2011

• 1st revert: 22:57, May 28, 2011 (as IP 1)
• 2nd revert: 00:46, May 29, 2011 (as IP 2)
• 3rd revert: 02:41, May 29, 2011 (as IP 3)
• 4th revert: 18:42, May 29, 2011 (as IP 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: difficult. I'm sure someone in the 99.181 range has been warned before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm getting tired of trying to resolve disputes with these non-English-speaking link-spamming IP editors, still, I tried, at 11:29, May 29, 2011 and 19:16, May 29, 2011.

Comments:
After further consideration, I removed the entire sentence with the disputed Wikilinks, as an unsourced opinion about the motives of a living person. But perhaps something can be done about the IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Note also that I violated 3RR also, but self-reverted, before deciding to delete as a BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Shurusheero reported by Jayjg ^(talk) (Result: 24h)

Page: False flag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 19:21, 25 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* As pretexts for war */ added 9/11 false flag attacl")
2. 19:24, 25 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 430894720 by Gogo Dodo (talk)")
3. 19:25, 25 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* As pretexts for war */ added the gulf of tonkin incident")
4. 05:38, 26 May 2011 (edit summary: "rev/ The only conspiracy theorist here is you")
5. 15:40, 26 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 430969703 by 71.201.236.190 (talk)")
6. 15:32, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "put back the proven and sourced facts")
7. 22:02, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "rev Wikiacc")
8. 09:53, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* As pretexts for war */ added gulf of tonkin and 9/11")

• Diff of warning: here and here

• Comments: This is not a 3RR report, but an edit-warring report. Shurusheero has edited the False flag article exclusively, and solely for the purpose of adding the September 11 attacks and Gulf of Tonkin incident to it. He's been reverted by 5 different editors, and warned, but has continued. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

—Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and placed on formal notice of ARB911 sanctions. Courcelles 00:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome reported by User:Tommyjb (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Vext (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

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

Diff of user-talk-page warning: [45]

Comments:

Please excuse my ignorance, but I'm not sure what to do here, so I am asking for advice. Here is what happened:

1. The user removed some content without giving a reason.
2. I reverted this, saying "Content removed without stating reason", and added a warning on the user's talk page.
3. The user then undid my revert, and also blanked his talk page.

—Tommyjb Talk! (21:34, 29 May 2011)

• Note User has already been reported for WP:3RR violation here. -=- Adam Walker -=- 00:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Looking through the edit history, I attempted to find a reason for the removal, and could not. I reverted the removal, and it was almost instantly removed again, twice.[46][47] I posted a message on his talk page[48] asking him why the content was being removed, which was then removed from his talk page with the vague edit summary no more bibiliography (which explains what he did, but not why.[49] Editors are allowed to blank their talk page as per WP:REMOVED, but removing an article's content, and continuously reverting to "his" version without an explanation is not in line with the collaboration that Wikipedia is supposed to be. Even if his edits are the "correct" edits, and he has a perfectly good reason for the removal, if nobody else knows why, all it does it creates problems (such as unnecessary back and forth editing that could be solved by something as small as an explanation). - SudoGhost™ 00:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I believe a consensus was reached somewhere to remove bibliographical information from comics-related pages, but I'm not sure where, and Brian Boru is awesome isn't helping anyone (including himself) with his constant reverts and the fact that he rarely (if ever) uses talk pages or edit summaries to explain what he's doing, so I think there's a real problem here. All he needs to do is briefly explain what he's doing and where the consensus was reached, but he virtually never does so. DeadpoolRP (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this is a plain 3RR violation committed by an editor who almost never participates on talk pages. I recommend a block and would do so myself, except I issued his last block three years ago. It is better if another admin looks into the matter. Brian made five identical edits to remove the bibliography section from this article beginning at 20:45 on 29 May (UTC). EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, Ed is correct on all counts, so I've blocked Brian Boru is awesome. Since his most recent block was three years ago, I've blocked for only 24 hours rather than escalating. Brief note to the reporter: You listed only three reverts, but four are necessary for a 3RR violation. I was able to find four easily enough in this case, but in the future, you should be sure to include four to be sure the closing admin can follow your report. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster reported by User:209.36.57.10 (Result: declined)

Page: Talk:Falkland Islands (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands#History_Section

User being reported: Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

These are discussion page comments, not page edits – user has reverted discussion posts 3 times today, Revision History of Talk: Falkland Islands has been modified to show only one instance which I’m reporting below, date is in UTC

1. 20:57, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431535620 by 209.36.57.10 (talk)") rv disruptive banned editor

User is a habitual EW who, with a group of other editors, has for years violated WP:GAMES with several users to establish a POV slant in violation of WP:NPOV. Engaging in discussion with them goes nowhere, only their chosen citations and interpretations count as they back up each others’ conclusions. This user particularly has a habit of citing arbitrary WP:OR reasons for excluding other editors, i.e. saying “your argument is not robust / simplistic / irrelevant / WP:FRINGE, etc”. He then proceeds to question why editors don’t WP:AGF and eventually deletes new editors’ comments from even the Talk page, and today he has violated 3RR insofar as my posts are concerned. He regularly violates WP:RFC as evidenced by the following discussion threads:

• "Sub-optimal" July 2007,
• "Nootka Sound Conventions vs. Argentine POV" September 2007,
• "Phrasing and Sourcing" Jan 2009,
• "CIA World Factbook" August 2009,
• "Respecting while rejecting Argentine claims" Feb 2009,
• "Starting Over" April 2009,
• "Units of Measurment" August 2009,
• "Revision of the History Section" January 2010,
• "Falklands is a Non-Self-Governing Territorry" Dec 2010,
• "UN Resolutions and more Argentinian references need to be included in this article" Feb 2010,
• "Invasion?" Feb 2010,
• "British bias and edit warring and POV pushing" June 2009

User has even reverted my discussion posts on the Talk page of Langus-TxT, I have warned user but his disruptive behavior continues; please intervene.209.36.57.10 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What banned editor is the IP supposed to be? Can anyone link to a sock report? EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin intervention has been sought and provided already, in that Talk:Falkland Islands is now semi-protected (roughly an hour before this report). This is in order to prevent the IP from continuing to WP:SOAPBOX on this article.

Note the disruptive nature of the edit concerned: it is a raft of personal attacks and is essentially an attempt to discourage editors from contributing. This is plainly not constructive. I suggest that similar attempts above be collapsed or removed.

Note also the contents of User talk:209.36.57.10 and his previous edits (from December-January), where the IP cites his intention to recruit meatpuppets and to edit war until "the earth crashes into the sun".

IPs and accounts reverting to a similar soapboxing rant in December and January were:

• User:AndeanThunder
• 66.177.19.78
• 166.137.9.162
• 166.137.9.165
• 166.137.9.249
• 166.137.11.153
• 166.137.11.221
• 186.122.217.13
• 186.124.60.14
• 209.36.57.10
• 209.36.57.248

All, with the possible exception of AndeanThunder, are believed to be the same individual. There is some evidence (that I would prefer not to reveal on Wikipedia) that the IPs may be User:Alex79818 AKA User:Smackyrod. But regardless, it is the IP that is the more disruptive. Pfainuk talk 08:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Declined --slakr^\ talk / 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:173.2.46.41 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 31h)

Page: Blood type diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.2.46.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All edits made by this ip to article space are reverts to Blood type diet

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 5 May 2011

Discussions related to dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blood_type_diet#POV Talk:Blood_type_diet#POV_concern --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted and warned this IP as well and he continues to make the same edits. Attempts to engage him on the talk page have led to soapboxing. Aside from the discussion posted by User:Ronz, there is also another section above entitled "POV" which I believe is the same user based on the arguments and writing style. N^oformation ^Talk 04:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 11:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Iamgymman123 reported by User:Shovon76 (Result: warned / blocked)

Page: Eden Gardens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iamgymman123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
I have tried to engage the editor in discussion, both at his talk page as well as the article's talk page. Have suggested him to go through the diff. WP policies, to which the editor has not paid any attention. I have not reverted the latest edits by the user and wanted an uninvolved admin/experienced user to take a look. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Both editors have engaged in edit-warring, repeatedly reverting each other. Consequently:

• Iamgymman123 is Warned. I see no evidence of a previous warning against edit-warring, which I think is a requirement for a block.
• Shovon76 is Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. By making this request, Shovon76 has demonstrated their knowledge of the edit-warring policy, so no warning is necessary for them. Also, at [57], Shovon76 has mischaracterized a content disagreeement as vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND.  Sandstein  21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Financeguy222 reported by User:Icerat (Result: )

Page: Network TwentyOne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Financeguy222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
User:Financeguy222 is an SPA whose edits are primarily related to Amway and directly related topics (eg Amway, Amway Australia, Network TwentyOne, XS Energy Drink, Adaptogens, Peter Island, Libby Trickett, Chloe Maxwell) virtually always pushing a "critical" POV and including removal of non-controversial sourced material that may be considered to put the company in a "positive light". In the current circumstances he has been insisting on adding a disparaging statement about Network TwentyOne using a primary source UK court document in a case in which the company was not involved. I listed the issue on RS/N for discussion and the consensus was that the source was not appropriate[65]. The user rejects Noticeboard consensus [66] and simply reverts removal of the unsupported material. The user has a history of tendentious editing and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue and working towards consensus[67] including submitting bogus COI claims to try and silence opposition to his POV editing [68][69]. His very first edit on the current article was to remove an external link to a 3rd party organisation supporting company and replace it with an external link to a personal blog (believed to be his) critical of the company.[70]. All attempts by me to engage in constructive, consensus building dialogue with this user have failed. --Icerat (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My username can be substituted with Icerat with almost every statement above (except his edits in Amway related articles are in the thousands! The contentious issue is currently in talk, and unresolved, yet Icerat is using provocation to continually edit war and push POV, and accused my many of COI and POV, not only myselfFinanceguy222 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly accused of COI by a small number of editors known to have an anti-multilevel marketing perspective, yes. And the accusations have been rejected not only multiple times on the COI/Noticeboard but also twice by independent admins during formal dispute resolution. Yet this user persists in that type of "attack the editor" approach rather than consensus building and utilising of noticeboards to obtain other opinions. Contrary to his claims, my *total* number of edits in the wikipedia articles space is currently 868 spread over 4 years [71]. This month alone that's been on 15 different articles, of which edits on 5 articles have been related to Amway. Interestingly I've made more edits on talk pages than in articles, in an effort to obtain consensus. In contrast Financeguy222 has made 155 article edits in just over a year, nearly 4 times his edits on article talk page [72]. Only 17 of those 155 edits have not been directly related to Amway (and pushing a critical POV) [73]--Icerat (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a long-term dispute between these two guys. This is a new 3RR violation by Financeguy222. Icerat did not technically break 3RR but he made four reverts in 36 hours and he was the only one reverting back. This qualifies him for an edit-warring block. For a previous simultaneous 3RR, I issued 48 hours to both. Icerat's use of a noticeboard could make us more sympathetic to his position, but it doesn't excuse a revert war. Since I made the blocks last time around, it is best if another admin close this. Blocks of both Icerat and Financeguy222 of at least double the previous length might be considered. Repeated flouting of 3RR suggests either great determination or socking. It shows that the person has no fear of consequences. Whatever COI situation may or may not exist doesn't excuse this kind of behavior by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect, 4 reverts over 36 hours, of material rejected on the noticeboard, and with other edits in between, and *after* being the one to submit it for noticeboard consideration following FG222 editwarring isn't quite the equivalent of Financeguy222's four reverts in 13 hours with no intervening edits. I would however very very very much like independent editor assistance on this and related articles. I'm trying to achieve consensus on talk and via noticeboards but it simply gets ignored every single time. --Icerat (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm obliged to comment on this because I have witnessed a recurrent pattern of disruptive behavior in Icerat's part, and it seems to be escalating to a crescendo in the past couple of weeks. In addition to the recurrent pattern of edit warring, the user is now wikistalking me on Juice Plus and John A. Wise and POV pushing while ignoring the consensus of other editors on several Talk and noticeboard pages (eg, [74]]). This user has become a major liability to WP and is unnecessarily eating up resources. A long block (or ban) would be appropriate IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What is unnecessarily eating up resources is users like FG222 and RIR who constantly ignore polices, including serious ones like WP:BLP, falsely claiming consensus is reached in their favour, and resorting to personal attacks of the kind here, meaning virtually every single edit that does not fit their fringe POV needs to be submitted through noticeboards, which they then ignore and mischaracterize. It's worth noting that RIR, while happily pointing out my two technical 3RR issues (born out of exasperation), has conveniently not mentioned he recently emerged from a 6 month ban, and threatened with permanent, for precisely this kind of behaviour already on the Juice Plus article, [75], and is currently ignoring direct requests from three different admins to not edit that article [76]. --Icerat (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Look here mudslinging edit warrior, I was blocked (not banned); it wasn't recent; it has nothing to do with your conduct problems or edit warring, and it was levied because I inadvertently outed a Juice Plus distributor who had been vandalizing the article and editing contentiously (including a non stop barrage of personal attacks against me) for years. I learned from the inadvertent error and as a result I have been careful not to out you, although like many others I am 100% convinced that you have a COI and should be blocked or banned because of it and your chronic incapability to work harmoniusly with other editors and to respect WP policy. Next time, I'll simply take it directly to the admins privately so that the COI issue and disruption can be dealt with without the risk of outting. During your next block, which appears to be inevitable, take some time to rethink your tactics and find some new articles to work on where you'll be less likely to be chronically disruptive. Sayonara. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:113.166.111.12 reported by User:HXL49 (Result: 24h and semi)

Page: South China Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 113.166.111.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]
• 5th revert: [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. I have not touched that page for 16 days. Note that although the IP in the first 2 reverts may be numerically different, it is most definitely the same person, given the insistence and persistence on changing every instance of "South China" to "East Vietnam", which violates WP:COMMONNAME and is POV pushing... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and semiprotected for a month.  Sandstein  21:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Solopiel reported by User:Hohum (Result: )

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

Long term edit warring, reverted by several other editors.

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]
5. [87]
6. [88]
7. [89]
8. [90]
9. [91]
10. [92]
11. [93]
12. [94]
13. [95]
14. [96]
15. [97]
16. [98]
17. [99]
18. [100]
19. [101]
20. [102]
21. [103]
22. [104]
23. [105]
24. [106]
25. [107]
26. [108]
27. [109]
28. [110]
29. [111]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112] - User has been warned and blocked for the same disruption.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113] (same link as warning)

Comments:

This user has been warring over essentially the same edit since January. Has been blocked for same twice, restarts after block expires. (Hohum ^@) 17:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: the https links break popups and are not dated, which makes the case unnecessarily difficult to review IMHO. An improved presentation of the case might result in faster action.  Sandstein  21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş reported by User:Athenean (Result: )

Page: Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: See explanation below, rv to two different versions

• 1st revert: [114]
• 2nd revert: [115]
• 3rd revert: [116]
• 4th revert: [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Comments: Fresh from a block for edit-warring just last week, SIYKB has again broken 3RR. His first revert is a revert to this version by User:Basilwiki [119]. He restored the same text ("and elements of the (mainland) Greek Army"). However, when I add something from the same source [120], it is not to his liking and he removes it [121]. His second revert is so quick that I am not even finished adding, so then he reverts again (3rd revert) [122], and then one more [123]. His reasoning goes something like this: The source is Greek, therefore it can be used to "confess" that coup in Cyprus had backing from mainland Greece, however, for the same reason it cannot be used to source Turkish intentions. One can only describe this as tendentious editing. He has reverted 4 times in 30 minutes, so a clear cut vio, and on the back of a block for the same exact kind of behavior a week ago. I believe a warning of arbitration enforcement is in order in order in addition to a block. Athenean (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. I'm not sure that this qualifies for 3RR, since I believe that it requires the same thing to be reverted four times; however, this is an obvious case of edit warring, and we're definitely allowed to block for edit warring when 3RR isn't technically violated. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)