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:68.194.239.60 reported by User:XLR8TION

Page: Puerto Rican people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.194.239.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ongoing vandalism of articles relating to Puerto Rican themes such as Puerto Rican people and Puerto Ricans in the United States. Vandal was blocked for two weeks but has resumed vandalizing articles and putting non-referenced items. Apparent sock puppet of both blocked users User:Afrodr and User:DDatGuy1. Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24h)

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

Mindbunny has been engaged in a slow revert war since February, removing details of Lara Logan's sexual assault in Tahrir Square on February 11, 2011, during the Egyptian revolution. More details below in the Comments section.

February 16–24

• 1st edit 16:39, February 16, removed: "An unnamed source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes," during which the assailants were heard screaming, "Jew! Jew!"

• 1st revert 16:59, February 16, removed: "An unnamed source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes," during which the assailants were heard screaming, "Jew! Jew!"

• 2nd revert 19:33, February 16, removed: "A network source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes" during which her assailants were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" Logan is not Jewish."

• 3rd revert 03:49, February 17, removed: "A network source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes" in which her assailants were screaming "Jew! Jew!" during the assault; Logan is not Jewish."

• 4th revert 05:30, February 18, removed: "A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault."

• 5th revert 05:42, February 18, removed: "A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault."

• 6th revert 06:05, February 18, removed: "A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault."

• 7th revert 22:58, February 20, removed: "It was later reported in a South African publication that she had provided details of the assault to her family who live in Durban, South Africa. She was reported as telling her family that the attack was "sudden" and she had "no chance of escaping" what was her "darkest nightmare". During the attack that followed, her clothes were ripped off, she was kicked and punched, her hair pulled out and she was "sexually attacked" but escaped being actually raped because of the intervention of a group of women who "threw themselves on top of her" thus protecting her from further harm.

• 8th revert 00:27, February 24, removed: "Chants of "Jew" and "Israeli" accompanied the assault (Logan is neither Jewish nor Israeli)."

March 3–28

• 9th revert 22:36, March 3, removed: "During the Feb. 11 attack, according to the Times of London; "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching". As she was being abused, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew," apparently believing her to be a spy."

• 10th revert 00:07, March 5, removed: "During the Feb. 11 attack, according to the Times of London; "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching". As she was being abused, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew," apparently believing her to be a spy."

• 11th revert 04:44, March 16, removed "During the February 11 attack, according to the Times of London, "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching." As she was being abused, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew," apparently believing her to be a spy."

• 12th revert 00:13, March 17, removed "During the 11 February attack, according to the Times of London; "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching". While this was ongoing, the crowd of roughly 200 men chanted "Israeli" and "Jew", apparently believing that Logan was a spy. State-owned Egyptian media had been reporting that Israeli intelligence agents were posing as television crews."

• 13th revert 16:03, March 28, removed: "During the 11 February attack, according to British newspaper The Times; "Logan was stripped of her clothes, punched and slapped by the crowd. She was beaten with the poles demonstrators used to fly flags during the protests, and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching".

May 3–6

• 14th revert 21:58, May 3, removed "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."

• 15th revert 22:37, May 3, removed: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."

• 16th revert 22:52, May 3, removed: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."

• 17th revert 23:45, May 4, removed: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."

• 18th revert 03:11, May 6, removed: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued pulling her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp."

Comments

The details Mindbunny is removing are (a) that a trigger for the attack was someone in the crowd shouting that Logan was a Jew (a "match to gasoline," according to CBS), and (b) details showing the severity of the attack. He is not working on the article in general; all his edits to it that I can see involve removing this material. The article has already been fully protected three times because of it. He is careful to avoid 3RR, as seen in the May reverts, where he reverted four times in 26 hours.

The details are reliably sourced, and Logan recently offered the information herself in an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes. In February, he said he was removing the material because the sources weren't good enough. This continued when the source was The Times of London. It continues now that the source is Logan herself and CBS. It has led to an uncomfortable situation on talk (BLP-wise), where editors are being forced to discuss the details (what is rape? did they do x or y to her?). All we should be doing here is reporting the key points from her interview, and leaving it at that.

Mindbunny is a relatively new editor (first edit December 1, 2010). He was blocked twice in February for edit warring, though unblocked again because he apparently wasn't warned properly, and in the same month was reported to AN/I for disruptive editing on another article (see here) where it was noted that he was engaging in the same disruption on Lara Logan.

There was also a claim at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noloop/Archive that Mindbunny is Noloop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which he seemed not to deny. I have no idea of the truth of that, but if he is Noloop, it's worth noting that Noloop was blocked four times for editing warring between August 2009 and July 2010; he stopped editing on November 20, 2010. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting that I decided to limit myself to 1 revert per day, started a section in Talk to discuss proposed changes, and proposed my preferred version there, and have not been reverting to my preferred version...and SlimVirgin promptly reported me for edit warring. It's pretty silly to list edit warring from 3 months ago, because it is completely devoid of the context. In this case, the context of the early reverts was that the reporting was anonymous, so that there were anonymous descriptions of a recent sexual assault in a BLP. It was opposed by many editors, including an admin who protected the page (NuclearWarfare), who said explicitly that consensus was irrelevant in such a case [1]. None of this context is present in the above list. Nor does SlimVirgin mention that she is edit warring to get changes into the article, without contributing much in Talk. I am reverting, once a day, to a version that has been stable since March, until a consensus can be reached. Mindbunny (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the early reverts, of anonymous reporting in a BLP, were brought to ANI and the the BLP noticeboard and discussed at great length. I was not blocked then, precisely because the material I was removing violated BLP guidelines. Please pay attention to the context of the disputes, instead of cherry-picking edits to try and get someone blocked who disagrees with you. Mindbunny (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You started out in February by saying the sources weren't good enough, and to begin with you had a point (New York Post). But in March The Times of London started reporting the same material, and you continued removing it. On May 1, Logan herself gave an interview to CBS 60 Minutes, and you're still removing it. So clearly your concern is not BLP, or quality of sourcing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You simply aren't aware of the facts or history of the dispute. It was not just me. It many others, the folks at the BLP noticeboard, and the admins at ANI. There is a reason the version that has been in the article since March omits that material: that was the consensus. This is an old issue. The Times of London is a News Corp (Murtdoch) publication and so is the New York Post; they were running the same story, and the key point in both stories is that the source was anonymous. It simply did not meet BLP standards, and this was discussed many times at noticeboards. The rules on edit warring explicitly mention BLP violations as an exception, and anonymous descriptions of a sexual assault in a BLP were considered such a case. If you are going dredge controversy from months ago, you need to put some research into it. Meanwhile, the version you keep inserting into the article now has no consensus, and I actually decided on my own to limit myself to 1 revert per day. And I started a section to discuss proposed wordings. And then you reported me. Mindbunny (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch is neither here nor there; it's a high-quality reliable source. But regardless, Logan herself confirmed the details on May 1 via CBS, and you have continued to revert the details five times, carefully avoiding 3RR and triggering a discussion on talk about what constitutes rape. It's very disruptive.

Also, if you're Noloops (and that sockpuppet page seemed to make clear that you were), I recall that you engaged in serial reverting with that account too, on articles related to religion. Please understand that it can't continue, because it completely disrupts whichever article you're editing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that every time somebody complains about me to admins, I spend half my time correcting the facts? I have said nothing about "what constitutes rape." I've made no comments about that in Talk at all. (There is no policy or ethical rule that prohibits discussion of what constitutes rape, anyway.) And starting a discussion in Talk is not "very disruptive." It is what you are supposed to do. Yes, I reverted 5 times--over a 4 day period. What you don't mention is that I made my preferred edit just once--the first edit on May 3. The others have been to revert to the provably consensus version, neither mine nor yours, that has been stable since March. You don't mention that your version lacks consensus, as is clear from Talk. Quit trying to "win" by reporting people. Contribute to the discussion. Mindbunny (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of like-minded accounts operating over there, trying to extend the Israel-Palestine dispute (their favorite topic). These accounts seem to assume that an addition to an article, if somehow sourced, would be admissible (and would be the default, or status quo ante version, with regard to a talk page discussion) regardless of the relative weight given to different pieces of information, or of the style in which the content is being presented.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This is clear edit-warring by Mindbunny about whether or not to include certain content. Who wrote the revision you revert to does not matter.  Sandstein  06:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:188.223.133.60 reported by User:ProhibitOnions (Result: Semiprotected )

Page: Funnybot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.223.133.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]
• 5th revert: [7]
• 6th revert: [8]
• 7th revert: [9]
• 8th revert: [10]
• 9th revert: [11]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments: Anon user repeatedly reverts page to remove any reference to the Daleks from Doctor Who, which are parodied in this episode of South Park. While edit summary is correct that sourcing is desirable, this should not be difficult to find, and is no excuse for nine reverts.

ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Semiprotected for a month to allow experienced editors to sort this out and, per WP:BURDEN, source it if they wish it to be included.  Sandstein  06:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Backedupinfo reported by User:Mike Rosoft (Result: warned)

• Page: Jonah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Backedupinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]

Revert warring at Jonah, making unreferenced changes on whether or not it would be plausible for a sperm whale to swallow a human whole. Warned twice on user talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am putting the report on hold for now; the user has finally started discussing the changes. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Warned If the edit warring continues, please re-open this report or make a new one. I also note that it would be best if discussion of sources and wording were to occur at Talk:Jonah. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Luciano di Martino reported by User:AnnekeBart (Result: 72h, ARBMAC)

Page: Giulio Clovio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luciano di Martino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This is an older version by another editor that is now being reverted to [20]

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

The editor named Luciano di Martino is reverting back to an older version by an editor named Davide41 after the latter got into a case of edit warring that ended up at ANI. [24] Davide41 has promised not to edit the page anymore, but against consesus and without discussing the matter on the talk page Luciano do Martini is now making the exact same edits.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

As mentioned above, this issue has been discussed extensively on the talk page. Most of the talk page and the archive are about this issue. [26]

Comments:

The history of the page shows an attempt at consensus was made [27] --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Response I am a man of strong academic attitude who respects prof David's (University of Rome) academic background and experience. After reading the article talk page content I unconditionally supported prof. David's contribution to the credibility of this article.

I did not enter into any discussion here for an obvious lack of mutual respect (visible on the article talkpage) necessary to carry out any civilized discussion. A student of a provincial university (Zagreb) throws primitive disqualifications of the prof. David's (University of Rome) academic background this way:

Philosopher12 (talk) This user is from Croatia. This user is a student of history and philosophy at FFZG.

Dear Davide, professor of history in Rome, who apparently does not know history.
OK, so you are a vandal that will be banned in a no time. I don't have to say anything else. It's sad I've spent time on you. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Respect. Thirty five years of teaching. --Davide41 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok "professor", i don't know history, you do. Now, could you show me a map where Grisane in Lika is part of the Republic of Venice? Could you show me books dealing with Klović ONLY, his life and works, that state he is an italian illuminist. I'm also happy with his contemporaries.Philosopher12 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"professor" I'm offended.
This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate
Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

At the end a few questions to User:AnnekeBart

• how someone can claim a consensus over article content if out of five two are against of it?
• how it is possible that only one person (me) is involved in the edit war for each war must have at least two participants?
• how it is possible that User:AnnekeBart who does not have any background in the Italian medieval history knows what are second and tertiary references supporting the article context?

As a university professor of medieval history I support decisions of the universities and colleges across the Globe to disqualify Wikipedia as a valid academic resource as long as I see the nonsense pointed at above.

My professional and academic based response to the quality of this article content is appended to the article talkpage.[28]--Luciano di Martino (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 72 hours for nationalist edit warring. He is insisting that this artist is Italian rather than Croatian, and in his pursuit of the cause, he has removed modern scholarly sources that specifically look into this matter. Does the case for his side become stronger if he deletes the evidence for the other side? I've also warned him under the WP:ARBMAC decision. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: a study of identity in pre-nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the medieval and early-modern periods, University of Michigan Press, 2006, p 195 Google Books)

User:AmiAyalon1969 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)

Page: Homs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmiAyalon1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

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

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

Comments:

This edit is actually subject to a one-revert rule under WP:ARBPIA. The editor (a suspected sock) is edit-warring over several different articles, and is already the subject of discussions at ANI and AE. Despite this, s/he is continuing to edit war, in breach even of 3RR, over many articles. RolandR (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor has also breached 3RR at Racism in the Palestinian territories[35][36][37][38] and at Judaization of Jerusalem[39][40][41][42], to both of which 1RR applies. RolandR (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: Indefinitely blocked for abuse of multiple accounts by User:Timotheus Canens, per a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.19.191.48 and User:79.35.189.102 reported by User:David in DC (Result: no violation)

Page: List of living supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
86.19.191.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
79.35.189.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]
• 5th revert: [48]
• 6th revert: [49]
• 7th revert: [50]

Edit warring/3RR warnings:
User talk:86.19.191.48
User_talk:79.35.189.102

Discussion attempting to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_living_supercentenarians#Flag_icon_issue
Comments:
I'd kinda hoped the talk page discussion would head off the kind of edit warring we see now. Apparantly, it just led the warriors underground to IP addresses.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
This case lies in the background of the current dispute.

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Flags_-_Policy_discussion
Please note especially the collapsed particpation of a topic-banned editor.

An admin explains to the topic-banned editor why his participation in the discussion above was inappropriate.

I believe, but cannot prove, the edit warriors are associated with the group identified in this discussion, and that the second set of reverts was most likely set off by the discussion.

Diff 5 through 8 are evidence of increasing (and slightly scary) hostility. David in DC (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• No violation Consecutive edits are not separate reverts, so each of them have only reverted once. If you feel there's a bigger issue in the works, please drop a note on ANI (or SPI if you feel these are all the same editor), but I don't see edit warring. I'll leave 86.19 a waring on the goofy personal attacks. Kuru (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fat&Happy User:Loonymonkey User:Mystylplx User:Johnuniq reported by User:Sempi (Result: stale)

Page: Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

Fat&Happy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Loonymonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mystylplx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Johnuniq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]

Check history for many others, these are just the most recent. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

History: [60]

Comments:

Note, these blanket deletions of any and all references to Vattel and the Law of Nations by a handful of censors on this article is historical. This is not merely an "edit war," but appears to be a focused direction on their part, regardless of discussion, regardless of contributor, and regardless of sources. No matter what editor posts a Law of Nations source, nor what references they cite, this team of censors has been managing to delete it without providing any references or sources themselves justifying such deletions. They do participate in discussions, but it's nearly all irrelevant, non sourced, and appear to be for show.

In summary, this article is about the "natural born citizen" clause of the US Constitution. Yet, the Law of Nations source, which has a direct "natural born citizen" reference, and which is also referenced as being used by the authors of the US Constitution is being repeatedly deleted as even a mere possible source of "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution.

In short, this handful of people are gaming Wikipedia rules in order to censor knowledge, which would seem to be the antithesis of Wikipedia. I'm probably just the first one that really decided to do something about it.

Review this recent comment between two of the conspirators, "You were reported at WP:AIV (permalink), but the report was assessed as "content dispute" and removed. Let's proceed calmly, but it is clear that something will have to happen to remove the disruption from Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution." Johnuniq to Mystylplx [61]

• Comment The reporter, User:Sempi has violated 3rr, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 reverts, And the reporter is on notice of the 3rr rule, warning from before the first revert on a related incident. I was not going to report them because they had stopped, but in light of bringing this to the venue, it seems necessary to raise it. I would also mention there was a fruitless attempt to have one of the editors being reported here blocked at AIV. Monty₈₄₅ 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see a couple of 3RR problems here, but it appears to be stale at this point. There's no such thing as "group edit warring"; it usually just means consensus is against you. I'm sure this article is a conspiracy theory magnet, but I would encourage regular edits not to get drawn into edit wars with new users. Kuru (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If by stale, you mean they appear to have stopped at the moment, then yes. However, the main point of filing this is because of the history of deletions going back months, involving the deletion of contributions from multiple people on the exact same specific content. I was expecting an admin would at least review the history to see what was really going on, and for how long, rather than only drawing a conclusion based merely upon the most recent week. Maybe I should have made that more clear. This was not an "edit war with new users," but an edit war against any users that sourced the Law of Nations.

As for not following the standard template, I thought it better to consolidate since all four are doing the exact same thing, in the exact same article, and appear to be working as a team to game the rules, i.e. one would make a deletion, then another the exact same deletion later, and so on. My thought was also that multiple reports would have been even less likely to result in anyone taking the time to research what was really going on between these users; this report already appears to have been ignored or overlooked as is. Would multiple reports have further complicated things? Nevertheless, I'm glad they at least appear to have stopped doing it for the time being. Maybe, in a way, reporting it did work!

I was wondering if a single user using multiple proxies and accounts could create the illusion of consensus on articles or use dummy accounts to cause mischief? Not that I suspect that in this case, but the question arose. Is that possible?

I see User:Mystylplx has now been blocked for a history of edit warring. [62] Is this permanent? IP based? Sorry for the questions. I hope someone has a few seconds to answer. Sempi (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• IP Editors are not able to issue blocks. User:Mystylplx has never been blocked. Check the block log. I find the timing of this very ususual... Monty₈₄₅ 03:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. So it was just someone faking it. What about someone using proxies? Couldn't they pretend to create consensus? Sempi (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (talk) (Result: declined)

Page: Guy Fawkes Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 07:09, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "undo nonsense changes")
2. 07:47, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 428040706 by Moonraker2 (talk) try reading the paragraph")
3. 08:23, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "There is nothing wrong with this section")
4. 10:00, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 428051698 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) for the last time WILL YOU PLEASE STOP THIS?")
5. 10:56, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Parrot of Doom. (TW)")

—PBS (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

PoD is an experienced editor, who has been reported here twice since 21 March for breached of 3RR to the page Guy Fawkes Night:

• 22 March Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive153#Parrot_of_Doom_reported_by_Philip_Baird_Shearer_.28Result:_No_action_taken.29
• 28 March 2011 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive154#User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS .28Result: protected.29

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

See the talk page and most recent archives. However most of these reverts were to bold edits (not changes the text placed on the by another editor in the last 24 hours). In only one case was the edit to revert a the same previous edit in the last 24 hours but that edit was made by a different editor partially reverting an edit by POD.

Comments:

It appears that the last edit by PoD was using Twinkle, and the comment indicates that Twinkle was used in an inappropriate way: Reversing a good faith edit and calling it vandalism. --PBS (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• See User_talk:Iridescent#User:Philip_Baird_Shearer. Parrot of Doom 12:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• PBS's edits were in violation of WP:POINT and were an active attempt to disrupt an ongoing FAC because he feels the discussion isn't going his way. Now, PoD may or may not have edit-warred - but I don't feel he should be blocked, because it's quite obvious that PBS was not acting in good faith. I would also be reluctant to protect the article, because it's currently at FAC. I'm not sure how best to resolve this. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• I believe PoD should be admonished not to violate the letter or spirit of 3RR at any time, but I'm not comfortable with PoD being blocked here, because the behavior on the other side was in no way less problematic, and because he's in the middle of a FAC that requires his attention. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• PoD has merely reacted to constant gaming of the system by an editor who is determined to trivialise a good article. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• I am not commenting on the 3RR possibility as I don't intend to involve myself directly in the article history (I prefer to stay uninvolved in content matters until the direction of the FAC is clear and I can weigh reviewer commentary about the text without prejudice), but it is abundantly clear that PBS is disrupting the FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1, making demands without providing yet a single source on the FAC to back his assertions or concerns. The appearance is that he will do anything he can to cause the FAC to be archived and to make it difficult for reviewers to enter legitimate commentary or for nominators to address concerns. If any blocks are in order here, I hope they will apply to all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I hope the closing admin will not choose to block PoD for this. He's been trying to write a featured article under trying circumstances for several weeks. Philip Baird Shearer has, it appears, been trying to disrupt the process at every turn, including engaging in drawn-out talk-page discussion about one minor point after another; then after they've been addressed, unarchiving weeks later and continuing to demand answers (example). If the issues he's raising would improve the content, or if he were offering high-quality sources, or helping to improve the writing, that'd be one thing. But the suggestions of his that I've seen would have caused deterioration. It's extremely difficult to work with this going on, and this is far from an isolated example of Philip behaving this way. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Declined I do not think that this situation calls for a block of any party at present. I am loathe to protect an article while it is at FAC, both because it interferes with development and because there should be sufficient experienced attention on the article to prevent disagreements from becoming edit wars. The proposed Request for comment looks like the best next step here. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:MosMusy reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: declined)

Page: 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MosMusy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments: I have worked very hard, as have other users, to bring about a compromise here. I have presented WP:RS to support my position and encouraged the other user to do so. Instead the other user has repeatedly declared that he is the "winner" of the argument and has instituted his controversial edits twice after being explicitly warned he did not have consensus to do so. I've filed a request for mediation because I'd like the ultimate issue we're debating to be settled, but I don't think edit warring is an appropriate recourse for this user and I don't seem to be getting across.

-Kudzu1 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I see no violation. There were more than 24 hours between the reverts. What I do see is that Kudzu1 has developed an attitude that he OWNS the page lately. TL565 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Declined MosMusy has not edited the article since the 3RR warning, and has stated a willingness to seek compromise. I am sufficiently concerned by their talkpage posts, though, that I am notifying of WP:ARBAA2. I would advise Kudzu1 to be more circumspect in reverting, but I do not think that their edits over the past week indicate an inappropriate degree of article ownership. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Rafy reported by User:77.44.210.15 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [69]

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:

User:Rafy wants to force certain edits and he does not want to reach a consensus formula through the discussion page.77.44.210.15 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment please read the definition of the 3RR before accusing me.

I provided references in the article and raised some issues about your edits in the talk page. You might want to discuss the reasons for your reverts in the talk page first before including them in the article.--Rafy talk 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I don't see a direct 3rr violation due to the timing, it is getting into edit war territory. I would strongly urge you both to pursue additional Wikipedia:Dispute resolution steps rather then continuing to revert each other. Maybe requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion would help. Monty₈₄₅ 17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a 3rr violation, but it is obvious edit warring from his part. User:Rafy tried repeatedly to force his edits and refused my attempt to reach a compromise with him.77.44.210.15 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Icerat reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [76]

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

The user (Icerat, aka User:Insider201283) has repeatedly reverted the removal of an old WP:OR tag. I first removed the tag yesterday based on the fact that it was added in 2009[81] (by Icerat/Insider201283) at which time the content in question (one sentence in the Politics and Culture section of Amway) was discussed on the article Talk page by several editors who disagreed with Icerat's assessment and were of the opinion that there was no OR. I came across that Talk page thread[82] for the first time yesterday when I was following up on a COI/editing conflict complaint regarding this user's contributions on another related Amway page Amway Australia. After not having made any input on this issue since 2009, Icerat immediately reverted my removal of the tag on the basis that a link cited with a sentence he objected to was dead.[83] Icerat also removed the entire sentence itself[84] despite the fact that he had already reverted the removal of the OR tag. I replied that a dead link was not valid basis for removal of the content (the relevant text from the source in question had been quoted on the talk page[85]) and that instead, a 'dead link' tag should be added. I again removed the OR tag. The editor was clearly intent on keeping the OR tag in place even when the alleged offending content was removed from the article. The goal seems to be to denigrate the entire section of content in (Amway:Politics and Culture). Despite repeated warnings, the presentation of additional supporting references,[86][87] and input from another editor on the noticeboard indicating that the content in question is not OR,[88] Icerat violated 3RR today.[89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90][91][92][93]

Comments:
This was simply ridiculous edit warring and verging on harassment on the part of Rhode Island Red. We are talking here about a tag, not article content. He removed an old tag, which triggered a watch for me, I reviewed the problem and in my opinion it still existed, so I added a new tag, with current dating. He challenged this and kept removing the tag, despite ongoing discussion. I raised the issue on the OR\Noticeboard to get additional viewpoints. He continued to remove the tag despite this active discussion and my concerns. Indeed, including the original case, he removed the OR tag four times within 24 hrs [94][95][96][97]. I've no idea what he's referring to about me wishing the tag included after the alleged offending material was removed. RIR replaced this info in his first revert and I believe it remained until it was rewritten. In any case, tags are in place to try and encourage other editors to contribute to an article and any discussion, removing them in spite of another editors concerns, and ongoing discussion, is simple disruption. Even more bizarrely, the issue the tag was about has now been resolved on the OR noticeboard and the section in dispute rewritten, and the tag removed, by myself. In other words, there's no problem. --Icerat (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

NB: The issue has not been resolved. I'm merely letting your latest edit stand until the admins have had a chance to review the evidence of 3RR violation; that doesn't mean I agree with your edit or that anything has been resolved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How is the issue not resolved? You found a source. I've since found another source. Both have been added to the article and the text improved to reflect them, and the tag your so stressed about has been removed. If you've got a problem with the actual text there now there's no reason not to continue discussion in talk while your pursue this petty 3RR vendetta. --Icerat (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You raised this issue in 2009 on the article talk page. Two editors replied at that time and both diagreed with you. You did nothing about the 'issue' in the 2 years that elapsed. Yesterday you posted a comment on the OR noticeboard, and again, the editor who replied disgareed with you. And lastly, I disagree with you. When you continue to insist on denigrating a whole section of content based on the fact that you alone don't like it; ignore the unanimous comments of other editors; display WP:OWN and ignore WP policy; and engage in unjust edit warring, then the principal problem clearly lies with with your conduct. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're embarrassing yourself, particularly given the content in dispute, and the tag itself, were removed by myself some time ago - indeed, before you registered this 3RR claim [98]]. The OR dispute was resolved because additional sources were found that (a) actually existed and (b) did not require original research. It's still POV-pushing and doesn't belong in this particular article, but that's a dispute for elsewhere. --Icerat (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) The tag is still there.

(2) After violating 3RR, Icerat made additional edits to the content in question, and not only did this user revert the deletion of the OR tag again, they added a second tag (POV).[99] This conduct is clearly over the top. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I removed the OR tag when fixing the text and adding the POV tag. I certainly intended to. I've now removed it. --Icerat (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate to belabor this any further, since the evidence already speaks for itself, but I couldn’t help noticing a lot of significant refactoring of Icerat’s comments on this 3RR.[100][101][102][103][104][105] It’s just my opinion, but it seems like tinkering with excuses until they fit better (jamming a square peg into a round hole?). Much like the user's comment above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now re-editing something for clarity is a crime? Good grief. In any case, I've re-added the OR tag as the overall issue has not been solved. Having to deal with your multiple personal attacks in various forums is making it difficult to focus. The overall issue now is one of WP:SYNTH (see Talk:Amway#Politics_and_Culture_POV_pushing), which is a part of WP:OR but not explicit in the tag. I'd removed the OR tag then re-added it on this basis before submitting the edit, and then gotten distracted with having to deal with this petty 3RR case. --Icerat (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)