Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spike Wilbury (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 17 September 2010 (rv unexplained archive revert). 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:Factocop reported by User:O Fenian (Result: blocked 24 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


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

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

    Comments:

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

    May as well add first, second, third and fourth reverts to previous version on Shane Duffy (soccer player) too, to save me making a new report. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version on Republic of Ireland national football team. O Fenian (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version (without the Irish name, I'm sure there's a more recent version too, but that's now academic since he's managed a fifth revert anyway) of City of Derry Airport. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Doncram:

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

    Polaron:

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

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

    Belligerents notified [9] [10]. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit warring seems to have stopped with just 2 reverts, however since they were recently blocked, and there still happens to be a previous report at the very top of this page, it seems this isn't an isolated incident. It might be prudent to keep watching and make sure things don't get out of hand. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Oh, yes, the previous discussion is above, currently at #User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Both 48h) (update: archived here) Okay, well, please consider this carefully and look for differences in behavior. This article and similar National Register of Historic Places listings in Greenwich, Connecticut are new list-articles which i just split out from National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which I have been developing in detail over many months, in fact as part of a WP:CONN and WP:NRHP co-sponsored article development drive. At each of their Talk pages, I posted about a problem of unsourced info. Polaron declined explicitly at the Stamford talk page to address. I removed the unsourced info in both, which is justified by wikipedia policy: unsourced information can and should be challenged and removed. Considering that P had not seen my last Talk page edit, in which i explained the removal, i chose to call attention to that and remove it once more in an edit. I don't think you have to judge that as edit warring by me. P simply re-adds. Also, not yet noted above, P never commented at the Talk but re-added similar in this edit using Twinkle at the Greenwich article.
    • This is a regular pattern: often butting in on an article where I am doing active, productive development, P takes a position and uses Twinkle and minimal edit summary statements to enforce his view. The way it could go forward normally with P is that i or other frustrated editors post more and more at a Talk page, and P may or may not deign to come out with little bits of explanations. But the problem is basic, that unsourced info should not be added, and the behavior is entrenched. P has been cautioned about this many times by many other editors. Also, I had already requested that editor EdJohnston who imposed the 48 hour blocks, take a look. In my comment there i characterized P's patterns too, as either not responding (as applies in the Greenwich case where he also restored unsourced info) or as responding minimally and unsatisfactorily (as applies in the Stamford case).
    • I would like to develop these two list-articles as i have been doing with the Fairfield one, and now i am frustrated again with dealing with the appearance of edit warring. I consider it a lot more like removal of vandalism. I think the right thing to do is to delete the unsourced assertions, and I would like to have the support of other editors in doing that. EdJohnston, Acroterion, Orlady are some administrator editors who are familiar with much of the history. In the last ANI discussion, another editor asked: what am I or other editors supposed to do, given P's behavior? --doncram (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I see in this diff that Polaron, under a new user name, is right now editing! The new account was created a few hours after P's block started, and there's another indication or two that it is he. --doncram (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please open a sock puppet investigation, as this is not obvious enough with just a brief glance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, did so, with some more explanation. --doncram (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comments by Mbz1.

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

    1. [18];
    2. [19]
    3. [20];
    4. [21];--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That simply is not true. The first edit is not a revert, it is just an edit. The same is true for the second edit, which is also contiguous with the first edit. No prior version of the article had that formulation, it is by definition not a revert. The third edit is likewise not a revert, it was an attempt at compromise by including both what Shuki argued for and what I argued for (which Shuki could not accept). The last edit is also not a revert, no version of the article had that formulation. What version of the article was I reverting to Mbz1? I tried multiple different formulations without making reverts, Shuki just insisted on his or her favored formulation. nableezy - 20:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    no matter what if it's a revert or not (i didn't understand your explanations of why it's not, but maybe i just don't know exact specific rules about revert)... it is still edit warring from you too. maybe it would be smartest for you to withdraw this complaint because probably you will just get punished from it LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I simply read what you yourself wrote in this very thread just above. You wrote: "but as I do not wish to exceed 1 revert and be blocked as well I have come here instead of continue the edit-war". For the last 2 days you made 5 edits on Ariel (city). I brought up 4 of them, and you're saying they were not reverts. So on the one hand you admitting that you were edit-warring and were afraid to get blocked for that, on the other hand you're claiming that none of your 4 out of 5 edits I referred to were reverts. Strange.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Me attempting different possible formulations is not edit-warring and if Shuki had attempted something other than just repeatedly going back to the same version that he or she supported we would not be here. Instead, for any edit I attempted to make Shuki just reverted. I was not reverting so I was not edit-warring. None of the edits you referenced are reverts, they were all edits. Even when I kept what Shuki wanted to include in one of the edits you list, Shuki still performed a straight revert. And really, why are you here? What does this have to do with you? nableezy - 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But since you seem confused, let me break this down for you:
    1. 19:16, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit.
    2. 19:24, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit
    3. 19:29, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit
    In each of the reverts Shuki reverses another edit and restores the line to a prior version. In none of the edits that you list do I restore the line to a prior version. Each version is new, they are edits, not reverts. nableezy - 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Shuki

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

    So Nableezy set up an RfC, which didn't establish a consensus that everyone could accept, but nonetheless he did at least try dispute resolution. In my book thats better than not trying. What is needed is another attempt to establish a consensus, not yet more name calling and edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, he has one little star to his recognition and many black stains like this one in which he ignores the DR and tries to push his POV as if we forgot the past. See his edits at Susya as well. He has nothing better to do, no information to add and expand, and merely hangs around WP in order to change labels and articles lead paragraphs. He is warned many times from admins, and the warnings never add up to anything from the admins. I am not interested in committing WP suicide like he is and taking others with him. The vast majority of POV editors, give up their battleground mentality, loosen up, and learn to collaborate meaning allowing opposing POV into articles and accepting others, some even become admins years later. Nableezy has not changed his attitude since he started editing on WP. This 'primary descriptor' claim is so lame, there was a loose consensus to just leave the articles alone. What does handling infoboxes add to making WP a better place? --Shuki (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't suppose anyone noticed the first bullet at the top of this page requesting that disputes not be continued here? Cut the meta-discussion please. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure we know this, but it'd be best to reply that to Nableezy and then warn him again for dragging this to the noticeboards, again. --Shuki (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was directing that to both of you. I've asked Stifle to comment here and possibly take action, since he seems to have familiarity with your problems. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restricted Nableezy and Shuki to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. Does that close out this report, then? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Warned Taivo

    Kwami:

    Warned Kwami


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

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

    This complaint is frivolous. PManderson has done everything in his power to escalate this conflict rather than to resolve it. It is evident from the diffs provided by Pmanderson that he has in fact introduced 8 different edits to the article that he knew were unacceptable to his coeditors each of which have been reverted (some of them blanking of sections or remobval of sources). There is as such no breaking of the 3rr as each revert is of different content. This looks like a completely deliberate and calculated strategy from Pmanderson to provoke each of the other editors into reverting 4 times (each time reverting different content) and then accusing. He was at no risk himself since each edit he introduced was different and so he did not revert to his own version, but instead introduce new content or blank a section. A blatant example fo gaming the system and wikilayering. I have protected a version of the page from a month ago before the dispute began and I would advise strongly against unprotecting untill the participants begin to work collaboratively towards solving the problem instead of simply causing eachother mutual grievances.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have made every effort to make any change in a widely disliked, inaccurate article, which misrepresents its sources. Wareh, Akhilleus, McZeus, Radagast, Cynwolfe, and others have objected to the article; I have tried to change it - and have met with days of revert war. Others have met with insult and lies - as the talk page will show. Taivo and Kwami are incapable of editing cooperatively with anyone but each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)First, PMAnderson is lying about why the article was protected. It was protected because of his actions reported here, here, and here. Second, this revert was to restore vandalism on PMAnderson's part (blanking of a section without consensus). Third, none of my reverts are the same thing; WP:3RR only applies to reverting the same thing three times in 24 hours. Fourth, just yesterday, I warned PMAnderson about 3RR here, but didn't report him at that time. There is an open AN/I case against PMAnderson's incivility here. Fifth, PMAnderson massively overstates the support he has for his POV. Sixth, read the edit history and you will find that I have made many positive contributions to both the discussion and the text and PMAnderson's claims are grossly overstated. --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The protection request does not show any sign that it was because of my actions; indeed I asked for it.
    WP:3RR covers all reverts on the same article - precisely to make this sort of refusal of all changes impractical.
    First I've heard of the ANI case; it is traditional to notify the subject.
    The extent and the vehemence of the objections to Taivo and Kwami's version vary, but support for it is limited to Kwami and Taivo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post on your Talk Page about the AN/I case when I saw this and responded here first. You are completely wrong about your characterization of support. Most of the editors on your list of "supporters" have been neutral. None of the others except Radagast has ever offered unqualified support for your position. You conveniently ignore other editors, such as Erutuon and MarkNutley who have more fully supported Kwami and myself. As you consistently exaggerate to overstate your case on the Talk Page, you consistently minimize in order to understate the evidence that Kwami and I have mustered. --Taivo (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need to rehash things here. Any other admin looking at the page history can see Maunus's point. I mean, Sep's edit warring and disruptive edits over 24 hrs denying the aorist is an aspect or asserting that it's a tense are [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. That doesn't count multiple pointy or dickish taggings or multiple reverts of other changes to the article, which would double the number. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected The page has been protected by Maunus and hopefully that will stop the edit warring. I'm loathe to block potential participants in the ensuing discussion, and I think it would be unfair to block these two now when I declined to block PMAnderson previously. This extended content dispute simply has to stop rearing its head here. This board isn't the place to discuss topic bans and whatnot. Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [30]


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

    prior reversions Sep 12

    current reversions


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] Several suggestions have been made, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_language#Iranian_theory

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

    Nyisnotbad has repeatedly, and without discussion on the talk page, made the same edit to present this fringe theory as fact. He cites Franz Bopp, who died in 1867. He falsely cites the recently deceased Winfred Lehmann, author of a reader of 19th century of historical linguistics, who holds Armenian to be a separate branch between Iranian and Slavic [39] as supporting the theory.

    The editor has a history of nationalist POV disputes.

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [40]

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

    Enok

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

    Mercenary2k

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41], [42]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43] but see entire talk discussion at talk:List of countries by number of troops#Pakistani Armed Forces

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

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

    Edit-war policy discussion

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [44]

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

    • previous version reverted to: [46]
    • revert 1: [47] (totally unexplained)
    • revert 2: [48] (totally unexplained)

    On another page:

    • prev version: [49]
    • revert 1: [50] (reverting [51] this) (unexplained, no edit summary)
    • revert 2: [52] (unexplained, no edit summary)

    On another page:

    • prev version [53]
    • revert 1: [54] (unexplained)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55] (regarding the move edit warring); [56] (regarding others)

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

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

    User:74.226.117.61 reported by User:Stonemason89 (Result: Semi-protected)

    Page: The Political Cesspool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 74.226.117.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [57]

    • 1st revert: [58]; note, this edit is from a different IP, which geolocates to the same city (Dyersburg, Tennessee), and so is quite obviously the same person. 3RR restrictions apply to editors, not IP addresses.
    • 2nd revert: [59]
    • 3rd revert: [60]
    • 4th revert: [61]
    • 5th revert: [62]
    • 6th revert: [63]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

    Comments:

    Since both this IP and this one appear to be the same person, they should both receive a block. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Since the edit warring is coming from IPs, I'm semi-protecting. Trying a bit longer since it's coming off several shorter terms of semi-protection for vandalism. We are definitely dealing with a dynamic IP in this case and they could very well come back with something different in the morning. Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=385380444"