Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: )

Page: 2014 insurgency in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soffredo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618741031 by RGloucester (talk) Why not use short names? For the "War of Transnistria" infobox, we list it as Transnistria despite not controlling all claimed territory."
23:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "But he's not representing Russia, which is also involved."
23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""
21:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Flags in the Campaignbox Post-Soviet conflicts */ notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user doesn't seem to "hear" what other people are saying. He repeatedly reinserts edits that multiple people revert, without ever trying to engage in a frank discussion. This is not the first time he has done this. I warned him of discretionary sanctions related to Eastern Europe-related articles, and yet he kept on reverting. I don't know that he needs a block, but I do know that someone needs to explain to him that it doesn't accomplish anything to revert without discussion, especially when multiple editors are saying that one's edit isn't appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, is there a particular reason this "case" hasn't been either responded to or dealt with? RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎S20003 reported by User:26oo (Result: Indeffed + master)

Page: Exclusive economic zone of Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎S20003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1

Diffs of the user's reverts

1
2
3
4
5

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Keeps removing cited work, vandalising.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user keeps blanking sections and replacing it with texts such as This page contains misleading information, and cannot stand. It should be challenged or deleted. I've messaged the user as well as having posted a message on the article talk page. I believe he's using a second account called User:K200003. 26oo (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly him. AcidSnow (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. K is the master and S is the puppet. Both have been indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tasnuva tahnin reported by User:APerson (Result: Locked)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments: I'm a completely uninvolved editor who was notified of this on the IRC help channel. Tasnuva tahnin was never warned, and no discussion was carried out on the talk page. I think indefinite semi would be a good idea on the page, too; it's been an IP battleground for a while. APerson (talk!) 02:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected (full) for one week. There have been a great many problems with non-autoconfirmed accounts. The reported editor is not autoconfirmed. However, the editor the reported editor has been battling with recently is autoconfirmed, and although that editor hasn't breached 3RR, I'm not inclined to block the reported user given the circumstances. He's also apologized on his talk page. I took an unusual step and reverted the last edits by a new user who made a BLP and formatting mess of the page. What concerns me is whether there's anyone editing this page who is sufficiently responsible to do so in a constructive manner; in other words, what's going to happen at the end of the week? My guess is a repeat of the chaos.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24.36.80.217 reported by AcidSnow (Result: Protection)

Previous version reverted to: Latest revision as of 06:58, 28 July 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
All though they have not broken 3Rv, they clearly are being disruptive and refuse to corporate no matter how many times told to. AcidSnow (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a very slow-burning edit war, and the reverts seem to have been prompt and left in place, what administrative action would change the situation? Short of a multi-week block, all I can think of is an new note requesting that the issues be discussed on the talk page -- SCZenz (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, can we protect the page at least? AcidSnow (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for a short time, and Pending Changes implemented indefinitely the panda ₯’ 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lugnuthemvar reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2006 Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lugnuthemvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

10:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""
12:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "Israel retreated. that's a fact and NPOV. the fact that you want it to be indecisive is an attempt to save face for the IDF. making it non NPOV"
15:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "stalemate is an POV view. withdrawal is fact. check your biases before you post"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2006 Lebanon War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user was warned by admin not to edit war and yet he reverted after the warning [8] Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaca4 reported by User:Damián80 (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
The user Zaca4, appears to be a puppet Sky0000 (I have requested a verification of accounts). You have started an edit war in the article mentioned only to add information without references and irrelevant. A month ago to explain it in a thousand ways and not seem to mind, I think the user Sky0000 has returned with a new puppet.--Damián (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me talk too. I haven't done more than 3 edits there, but he is. I asked from him information , what I do wrong and how I go against rules. He didn't even answer me. Understand, please my edits are necessary, and he hasn't explained me, what I do wrong. I'm very sorry. Zaca4 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that Damián80 was recently reported for edit warring on another telenovella page here, after three reversions. I think both parties need to review WP:BRD here. Neither party is even using edit summaries. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@0x0077BE:, That has to do with this?, Is that case is trying to support the other user?. First I need not explain anything to this person, as it is a puppet of another user who was blocked for a month for this reason. Add death of each character is irrelevant, if wikipedia is to be placed everything that happened in each chapter in a soap opera?. To entertain that come here. For to this you should not come to any consensus. If someone has to know how to die urgency of each character in a soap opera, as you see it, that's why it was created!. Always have placed the characters and the actors. This information that the user attempts to add is irrelevant. So I ask you, if you agree that this information will be added, he believes that wikipedia will become?.--Damián (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the previous incident shows that you're aware of the policies on edit warring, and have a tendency to ignore WP:BRD. Regarding the content, that's not an issue for this page. Read WP:BRD. You need to at least try to work it out on the talk page before running for administrative action. You aren't explaining it just to Zaca4, you're explaining it to everyone else who is trying to figure out why editorial decisions were made. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say you , too Damian, what that Sky0000 user thing has to do with this problem. I don't know that person. Also if watcher didn't see a few episodes, and he doesn't have chance to watch episodes again, person comes to Wikipedia. Also Damian has deleted united states broadcast from many articles without no reason. Why it disturbed you now? Before it you took all information from cast and then broadcast disturbed you. Please, understand, that person thinks that Wikipedia's for him, but it's for everyone. I just want to help other people. Also I viewed his talk page archive too, he's been in a lot of edit-wars before also. Also I did also my own article about cast in Corazon Valiente, and he even does not let me refer to it, he says it is poorly written, but maybe for other people it is not. Understand, that person just wants to have fun in wikipedia and wants to look articles like he wants and when someone is trying to hinder him, he comes here and says bad about others. Also I looked to internet, I didn't find such a good programming guides as they were in wikipedia. Please I'm not trying to slander him but I tell how things really look like. Also I'm very sorry for my behavior but with that person is impossible to talk. I hope you understand me. Zaca4 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to add this type of information, this user a month ago did the same article, and I'm sorry, but I will not be trying all the time to reach a conseso so unnecessary to add information to each art.

A month ago this person did this:

Is it that these edits are correct? and should discuss this in all pages of discussion?.--Damián (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Comment: As of this point, Damian is at 5 reverts (1 2 3 4 5) and Zaca4 is now at 3 (1 2 3). Damian is in clear violation of 3RR. Zaca4 is probably guilty of edit warring as well, given the notice. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like you two want, and leave the article as it was before, and mine are not 5 reversals learn to look good. I'm tired of this and this user, all here everyone does what he wants..--Damián (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already Placed the article "Corazón valiente" as I was before, as presumably are very important items were.e. I tired to continue wasting time user you do what you want.--Damián (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After Damian self-reverted and decided to "give up", I, explaining my reasoning, restored the page to the version before Zaca4's version, as that was the stable version and didn't have the style and grammar issues, and requested that Zaca4 please justify any further edits in the talk page. Zaca4 then performed his 4th revert on the page, with the "explanation" on the talk page given being: "Can you let me keep that information, here okay?". I do suspect he may be doing some editing as IP, but it doesn't seem to be to create a false consensus or avoid 3RR. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user Zaca4 has not reached a consensus on the article where the edit war began, and started again.

Has not yet reached an agreement to add this type of irrelevant information. And the user wants to start more wars editions.--Damián (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I add this other article that has already started another edit war Part of Me (telenovela): Revision history.--Damián (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start a war, I just made some changes. I am a victim of Damian. Look at all pages, when someone wants to change something always Damian undoes it without no reason. That person harms Wikipedia and makes false accusations. I am sorry for all, I maybe will not continue, but I'm not only one, who is guilty, Damian is too. He thinks some pathetic justifications to explain his reverts. Please do something with him, I am really sorry for all but this person thinks that I am again a user, who doesn't let him have fun in Wikipedia and who he has to remove with some false accusations. I don't want to start a war but that is not fair that one person does here what he wants and nobody stops him. Also he said me do what you want and now he comes here and says that I am here to start a war. I hope that you understand me. Zaca4 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of accounts that have asked tell the truth, you are a puppet Sky0000, edited in the same way. A month ago I explained on your issues and you do not seem to mind. Also on July 25 just blocking.--Damián (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may admit yes Sky0000 and Zaca4 have same IP, but I don't confirm, that behind them is same person. I am sorry for my behaviour, I promise, I will not touch telenovelas again and please I don't want another month or more, forgive me. That's your decision you punish Damian or me or no. But I say I am not and I won't be first or last person , who has problems with Damian. I hope you understand and you let other better people make changes in telenobela pages. I refuse to do it, I do not want any more problems. Really sorry. Zaca4 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tomwikiman reported by User:Theironminer (Result: Warned)

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

I'm new to wikipedia, so this is my second report on a user, but I'm not 100% clear on how this works. There was a user who kept repeatedly editing the genre for a movie on a page and never stopped. User has been asked to stop but has not responded and continued to edit the genre.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Result: Warned. User seemed to be engaged in mass genre-changing of thriller movies to mark them as action movies. This may have stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:46.7.249.19 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result:36 hours )

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16], [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:
Apparent block evading ip sock of User:Theyuusuf143. Began disrupting the same pages a few minutes after the main account was blocked for 3RR. Along with the just blocked socks User:S20003 and User:K200003, appears to be a meatpuppet associated with the indefinitely banned User:Reer Woqooyi. Also see here ("its mine (somaliland) not for somalia, somaliland army is watching you online, just like we defeated you on the ground") and here ("And yes I asked people on a blog to come and edit some pages"). Middayexpress (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Blocked this editor yesterday at 18:14, 28 July 2014 without knowing about this report. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Bloodofox (Result: Pointless squabble; stale)

Now the discussion is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

([20][21][22][23]—reversion of edits [24] by @Kiyoweap:, which were not "vandalism" as Eric states, but rather tags primarily for poor sourcing issues raised on the talk page })
[25]
[26]
[27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28] (here's the mandatory template: [29])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30] (discussion here; note also that edit summaries above repeatedly request user to continue using the talk page rather than simply remove article issue tags)

Comments:
This is part of an ongoing issue involving problematic sourcing on the Kelpie article, which was recently a featured article. However, when the article became featured, it was clear that it didn't receive the scrutiny it needed; references to the pseudoscience of cryptozoology were employed and numerous issues relating to sourcing have been raised since. Eric appears to have been a major contributor to the state of the article at that time, and these reversions seem to be related to that fact. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your supposed to link to the 3rr warning you issued, and then where they reverted after you issued it. You still haven't issued a 3rr warning, and Eric hasn't edited the article subsequent to your notice of the discussion here. Furthermore, the 3rr rule is not an entitlement to edit war until you hit it, so you are just as guilty of edit warring as Eric is. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What, beyond text in an edit summary warning about revert amounts, qualifies as a "3RR warning"? As you can see, Eric edited after that. This doesn't count as a 3RR "warning"? I certainly didn't violate 3RR, and my edits repeatedly ask him to discuss it on the talk page—where I was discussing the issue—rather than simply reverting page issue templates. I'm also unclear about what has happened in the policy; in the past it's been pretty cut and dry—over 3 reverts and it's a block—but apparently that has changed? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...how embarrassing. I suggest you read up on it a bit more before coming here and throwing accusations around. Cassianto ^talk 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Generally we prefer to see a {{uw-3rr}} (or non-template equivalent message if you subscribe to WP:DTR), or at least a {{uw-ew}} followed by the editor continuing to edit war. The idea is to make sure that there is no question they were aware that continuing was a violation of policy, and that they then proceeded to do so. Intentionally edit warring up to 3rr, is still edit warring, and that you reported it here shows you knew you were participating in an edit war. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was discussing it on the talk page page with your tag-team colleague Kiyoweap, who had yet to respond, which is why I consider your repeated insertion of these defacing tags to be vandalism. Added to which neither you nor Kiyoweap have even the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, as we apparently don't need to go this route, let's just keep the sand in the sand box (Kelpie talk page) so we can all play together like nice kids. We can discuss your choice of sourcing there. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We were already discussing it there. This isn't a route I chose, it's the one that you've chosen. Eric Corbett 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So let me be clear about this (I've been editing on and off for around for several years, and there certainly have been changes to this situation since I was last pretty active on Wikipedia). So, "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 the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours" no longer applies? It's still at the top of the page, and this doesn't seem to fall under the "exceptions". And there is "preferred" means of warning another user before they hit that cap that, without use, invalidates 3RR? And, to be clear, since I'm reporting this in the first place, I'm guilty of edit warring, despite repeatedly asking the other user to take it to the talk page? Given Cassianto (talk · contribs)'s response, I'm guessing we don't have a civility policy anymore either... :bloodofox: (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the policy is not to block as many people as possible, but to stop the edit warring. That said, its also important not to let 3rr be used by one editor to "win" an edit war by getting the other editor blocked. Eric may well end up getting blocked for his violation of 3rr, but its also clear from the page history that you have a history of edit warring with Eric on this topic before today. You come here with unclean hands. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an amount of discussion over changing the wording that I quote above? It seems like this policy doesn't really reflect how it's worded on this page anymore, which does indeed seem as cut and dry as I recall it being in the past. If this was all spelled out above, I wouldn't be wasting anyone's time with it (above it says, for example, "consider warning them by placing [specific template] on their user talk page"—note consider). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins are just more eager to block for 3rr violations than others. Personally, I like to make sure an editor has been given ample chances (such as the warning) to cut it out before resorting to a block. In the past I've warned editors with 7+ reverts, and only blocked them if they continued after the warning. My goal is to not block a good faith editor if there is any way to avoid it. That said, because there are admins who do more aggressively enforce 3rr, its best for editors to know that they are always at risk of being blocked when they violate it. If an admin chooses to block Eric in this instance, it would be within their discretion under the 3rr rule. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: - Seriously? Read the rest of the policy:

The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

The bolding is in the original, not mine, but it's exactly what I would have emphasized to explain this to you. Just because you're discussing it and reverting doesn't mean you're not edit warring.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox, did I see you say that you consider something you said in an edit summary to have been an appropriate 3RR notification to another editor? No way. Edit summaries are to give a summary of your edit - not to make direct communication with another editor, especially for the purposes of providing a formal warning the panda ₯’ 19:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get off on a technicality. A formal warning would have made no difference to me anyway, as I consider the addition of defacing tags to a recently promoted FA to be vandalism. Eric Corbett 19:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD applies here too. After Eric reverted the addition of the tags, the next step is to discuss whether they're appropriate, not to simply replace them. This is especially the case on a featured article. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they qualify as vandalism as defined by WP:VANDAL, but tagging an FA or any article that has been reviewed by so many people is never a good idea until you have first discussed the concern. We don't give special privilege to FA articles per se, but the very act of passing it means several people think it isn't a problem and that has to be taken into consideration. If you tag and it is reverted, you should have the good sense to discuss adding it back before reverting again. Otherwise, it seems WP:POINTy, as it obvious that more than one person disagrees with you, even before you put the tag up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but it's vandalism as far as I'm concerned nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the warring has stopped, the tags have been reverted off and it is being discussed (via WP:BRD) by both parties, I don't see a need to start blocking people just for the sake of blocking people, as there isn't anything to prevent. I think this just needs to go back to the article talk page and be closed, with everyone learning a bit of a lesson what is and isn't warring for the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all assume that Eric has been around long enough to know about 3RR; complaining that he didn't get a formal warning is quite tenuous. Also, this is clearly not even remotely close to vandalism (per WP's definition of the word). Finally, there have been some (brief) talk page discussions about the tagging. Two editors agree that the tags are valid, and Eric disagrees. Seems to me that Eric is edit warring against consensus, even if it is a rather small, local consensus. Not every article has hundreds of contributors watching it, ready to participate in a discussion, so sometimes 2-3 editors is all you get to determine consensus. Since Eric clearly violated 3RR, I believe he should receive a 24-hour block, like any other normal editor would. Of course, we all know that won't happen, because of Eric's privileged status on this site. And therefore, we will perpetuate Eric's belief that he is exempt from most rules (even the ones that are clear-cut and strictly defined). ‑Scottywong| converse _ 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise to see you here campaigning for a block, but three points:
Where have you see me complaining about the lack of a formal warning?

Where have you got the idea from that I'm the only one in dispute with Bloodofox?

What exactly do you think a 24-hour block would be likely to achieve? Eric Corbett 20:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that either of your first two points were true. I never said that you complained about the lack of a formal warning, and I never claimed that you are the only person engaged in a dispute with Bloodofox. As for your last point, a 24-hour block would reinforce the fact that we actually have rules here, and when those rules are broken, the appropriate consequences are handed out as a result. This would achieve an outcome where editors are less likely to break the rules in the future, since they would know that the strictly defined rules of WP are actually enforced. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only in your dreams Scottywong. Eric Corbett 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Consistently enforcing the strictly defined rules of WP is a very lofty and unrealistic goal. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not particularly helpful Scotty, and frankly it's soapboxing and drama mongering. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your opinion. I disagree that enforcing the strictly defined rules of Wikipedia is soapboxing and drama mongering. Perhaps we just need to adapt the wording of 3RR to reflect the reality of when it is and isn't followed. I would suggest adding something to effect of: "Brand new editors are typically blocked immediately upon crossing the bright line of 3RR. Established editors (especially ones that have been blocked dozens of times in the past) are generally given the benefit of the doubt, even if they cross the bright line, especially if they are politically connected with administrators, or if they have become WP:INVOLVED with the majority of active administrators." ‑Scottywong| converse _ 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we were policemen or judges, then maybe that would make sense, but we aren't here to dispense justice, only to solve problems. Oh, and write articles. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you agree that if rules were consistently enforced, it would prevent editors from breaking them? In other words, if violating 3RR always resulted in a minimum 24-hour block, regardless of the situation or who the editor is, would that result in a reduction in edit warring among established editors? Would that reduction in edit warring be beneficial to the project? Do you believe that blocking Eric would not be preventive, because Eric has shown that blocks have no effect on his behavior? ‑Scottywong | express _ 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No Scotty, I don't. If that were the case, we could replace admin with bots. Plus bots never have axes to grind. We use humans because every situation is different and requires judgement. We pick humans to find the best solution to a problem. When you take a hardass approach to problems, you just reinforce the idea that they don't matter, they are nothing but little text generators, and if they punch up the wrong column too many times, we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your ~~spank~~ block log. No thanks. I think we treat them like we want to be treated, as fallible human beings that will screw up from time to time. Once put on notice, as long as they don't screw up again, then no harm is done. If you do it again, oh well, you give us no choice but to block. Block is the last resort, not the first. Your lack of empathy is alarming sometimes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The only human analysis that is required in the case of 3RR is to determine whether the editor was reverting vandalism. Beyond that analysis, the decision could be carried out by a bot. There is a reason that we describe 3RR using the phrase "bright line". The problem with adopting a more "human" approach to the application of strict rules is that if the humans are impartial. And, if the editor violating 3RR happens to be friends with the human admin analyzing the situation, then that editor enjoys increased flexibility in breaking the rules. The most laughable part of your comments above is how we need to put Eric "on notice" before blocking him. Which of the previous dozens of blocks would you consider not putting Eric "on notice"? How many "notices" does an editor get before we can reasonably assume that he is aware of the rules and is consciously breaking them anyway, because he knows he can get away with it because people like you consciously allow it? The corruption of your character is alarming sometimes, as is your lack of impartiality and sense of fairness. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 22:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - And there lies the real reason as to why your persisting in this; the good old Eric witch hunt! Cassianto ^talk 22:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't know the ins/outs nor correct procedures in this sort of situation - so my apologies if I'm acting incorrectly. I'm sure many are aware of Bloodofox's previous antagonism of Eric (I know I have seen Bloodofox state that if anyone requires help to go after Eric to contact him but unfortunately cannot find it at the moment, it was around the time there was a dispute concerning Malkin Tower. Bloodofox also reported Eric for 3RR at that time [31]). Kelpie is a featured article, Bloodofox maintains that one source used (Varner) is, in his opinion, an unreliable source. However, this source was found via Questia, a resource WMF has negotiated for editors to gain access to. Kyioweap decided this morning to tag every ref to Varner determining it, in their opinion, 'a weak source'. Why would Eric or I be expected to find additional sources when neither of us feel Varner is inappropriate/unreliable? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion should be speedily closed, or is it being deliberately kept open because Eric is the subject? Cassianto ^talk 21:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Scottywong is making that abundantly clear. Eric Corbett 22:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've acquired a new pawn. Congrats. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 22:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that remark is directed at me, Scottywong - think again - I am no bodies 'pawn', never have been and never will be. Your remark is offensive, un-necessary and certainly un-becoming of an Administrator. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my remark was directed at Cassianto. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty, you need to stop, now. That is over the line badgering. Your behavior here is more disruptive than the little tit-for-tat on the article. You need to find something more productive to do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong, porting your old grudges here has been unhelpful from beginning to end. Also you don't get to issue personal attacks just because you're an admin, such as calling Cassianto or Sagaciousphil (I took you to be referring to Cassianto, but your arrow was too wobbly for me to be sure) Eric's "pawn". Would you like a formal warning? Please note that I for my part don't normally post on Eric's page nor do I take take his side or anybody's side in the civility wars (in fact, fuck the civility wars), so if you're going to call me part of his entourage or whatever, we'll need diffs. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Bishonen, I honestly have no idea who you are, so I couldn't possibly make a judgment as to whether or not you take anyone's side over and over again, finding a way to bend the rules for them every time their name comes up in a dispute. If you believe I deserve or require a formal warning or a block or some other consequence for my transgressions, then you don't need to seek my permission. But, I must admit that I'm rather confused by your admonishment for a perceived personal attack while in the next breath exclaiming, "fuck the civility wars". ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I"ve left a notice on your talk page Scotty. Calling my character corrupt, I consider that a personal attack, so you need to either back it up, or strike it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In reality, I don't actually need to do anything. Nor do I intend to. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - So that's personal attacks on two separate editors in this discussion because they disagree with you? Do you think that's even slightly becoming of an administrator? Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it time for the semi-annual pointless "Eric" squabble??? Surely ya'll have heard "insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."? Can't we just skip to the end where everyone gets tired and disgusted (of the stupid squabble, not Eric per-se) and gives it up? Or do we have exchange barbs for hours to days and then give it up? NE Ent 23:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its already been going for days. Started at WT:AN a couple days ago. There are still some offshoots of that brewing. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have taken this issue to WP:ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's close this as discussion is ongoing at the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. All other discussions have been closed and this is all that is left. Eric did truly violate 3RR so:

Support block for 3RR violation and that alone.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:FelixRosch reported by User:Moxy (Result: No action)

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

[32] - July 24, 2014 - (about Chronological sequence)
[33] - July 24, 2014
[34] - July 24, 2014
[35] - July 25, 2014
[36] - July 25, 2014
[37] - July 26, 2014
[38] - July 26, 2014
[39] - July 28, 2014

Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] was warned months ago that this behavior is not the norm here. As seen on the users talk page - many concerns have been raised over a period of time.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: FelixRosch has been involved in some talk page discussions but seem not to be willing to listen to others or perhaps simply does not understand. -- Moxy (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The editor is also involved in other edit wars on multiple pages as seen by the Ukraine: Revision history and Romeo and Juliet: Revision history. We have unacceptable, disruptive, tendentious and dishonest behavior..that could all just be a competence problem as recently pointed out here. Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Criticize the play before it was written again? and Talk:Ukraine#Declarations of War and Casualty/Death toll statistics are not censored by Wikipedia policy demonstrates his lack of understand of whats going on pretty well. -- Moxy (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made the competence remark I want to add it did not come out of the blue, but rather was the result of seeing many head-scratching remarks from this editor. He finally seemed to get BRD (perhaps) but adds this. I didn't know Andrew Lih (who has no connection to the discussions whatsoever) holds such an exalted position here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only involved on the Ukraine talk page, but user does have some issues understanding policy such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. In general, editing is becoming tendentious on Ukraine. Similar experience a few months ago on Russia, which I have since stopped following to preserve my mental health. While I cannot fully comment on edit warring accusations, there's certainly a lot of WP:IDHT and general tendentiousness. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like EvergreenFir, my only interaction with the editor has been through the Ukraine article and the Russia article (see identical editing practices in April) where s/he avoided discussion on the talk page and persevered with adding content contravening UNDUE, NOTNEWS and WP:BALASPS despite lengthy discussions on the talk page demonstrating consensus that these policies and guidelines were of primary concern, particularly in the context of the articles. Once forced into discussions, judging by the lack of comprehension of policies and thrust of the discussions, as already noted by Moxy and NeilN, I've also found myself wondering as to the competence of this user. It's difficult to ascertain whether this is a case of IDHT or truly IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. Either way, it amounts to ongoing disruptive editing. As an addendum, further to the question of competence, I've yet to work out where "... the normal time frame of 48-72 hours should be allowed for the discussion comments to be collected of all editors involved." Where did the user find this timeframe for BRD processes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action. There might be a problem with the edits of User:FelixRosch but this report doesn't make the problem clear enough to do anything. It is hard to know which of the supplied diffs are actually reverts. Even if they are reverts, the complete list of edits doesn't add up to a timely report of 3RR violation. At most we have an editor who may be confused about policy and sometimes rambles in discussions. Consider WP:RFC/U if you have a concern about this editor that can't be expressed briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gibson Flying V reported by User:Bagumba (Result: )

Page: Rugby league (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) to last revision by Gibson Flying V. (TW)"
03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) to last revision by Gibson Flying V. (TW)"
03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618910916 by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk)"
11:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618663075 by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

04:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rugby league. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Longtime editor of over 7 years is expected to know better. Has been blocked three times before for edit warring/disruptive editing, and has an active topic ban for disruptive editing in another sport area, association football. Editor is also attempting to bully the other editor by giving inappropriate vandalism warnings when IP's edit summary provided an explanation. This is a content dispute and not vandalism. —Bagumba (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar edits from 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F being reverted by two other users previously: 1 2 The most cursory look at the edits in question reveals that they are inappropriate. They had also been discussed on my talk page. Therefore consistently undoing their reversion is quite clearly disruptive. User:Bagumba has a habit of involving him/herself with my edits. Not sure why. Probably due to previous content disputes between us. Stalking?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"habit of involving him/herself with my edits": I consider it an occupational hazard of keeping this a civil place. The revert you showed by the other editor gave the reason "No reason to delete a referenced entry". The IP subsequently provided a reason, and nobody but yourself has reverted since, nor edit warred with the IP except for yourself. WP:VANDNOT policy is quite clear: "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "the most cursory look at the edits in question reveals that they are inappropriate." Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, since being warned I have stopped editing the article, whereas the intended target of this report has not, and their disruption has now been reverted by a 3rd editor.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now a 4th.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Note #4 on the list is two days before the other three. Gibson appears to be within the bright line.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And this from last month.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user of that obviously throw-away account is still asking for a block and has been for quite some time now. Would someone (perhaps User:Bagumba as a sign of maturity and good faith) kindly oblige them and close this hastily opened report?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kayastha Shiromani II reported by User:Redtigerxyz (Result: 36 Hours )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49][50]

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

Comments:

In my defense, I have been inviting editors for discussion but no one seemed interested. The page has been subject to recent edit wars and I had reverted it to an earlier stable version. A topic has been started by me on the talk page and I would take this opportunity to again advice the editors to act responsibly and not aggressively. --का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second. (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Kayastha#Discussion_on_current_version_of_this_Article_https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fw.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DKayastha.26oldid.3D618943617 User:Arjayay as well as I have attempted to discuss. The alleged "an earlier stable version" is not actually an earlier version, but a new version added by you. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JJ: Invitation? Walk your talk, and discuss, instead of revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, my friend. This is in fact one of the most stable version which stayed on for many years on wikipedia with minor changes here and there. Here is one instance https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=277047083. I thank you for crediting me with such scholarship. Also you can find the article in sync with this primary authentic source published in 1877. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AH0IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP9&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false. You are most welcome. --का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani , The Second. (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours regentspark (comment) 14:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:77.97.151.145 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Blocked )

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58] [59] (note as this is a war on a talk page, discussion took place on user's talk page)

Comments: Attempt to start an RfC to rename the article to "Mega Drive". Not in itself problematic per se, but the user has previously been blocked for similar discussions, [60] and a long standing consensus is that new discussions that bring nothing to the table is disruptive. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reverting, but McDoobAU93 and Ritchie333 are colluding with one another and edit warring via each other also so they never hit 3RR, and Ritchie has already conceded he is fine with the RfC and the RfC is nothing to do with these users, it is to seek outside opinion as these users opinions are well known and they enforce their views on others with an iron fist 77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's correct the record, shall we? You stopped after the 4th revert, and then launched spurious ANIs against two of the three different editors who are tired of this nonsense (including one who is as British as your IP suggests you are). And yes, Ritchie said he was fine if no other editor reverted it. Well, one did, and you couldn't just let it go, so revert #4. Time to move on. --McDoob AU93 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Sergecross73 has closed the ANI, so that is no longer an issue. The IP's behavior, unfortunately, still is. --McDoob AU93 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indrian reverted him also. [61] He has previously been reverted for starting this up yet again in the past. Dream Focus 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one month by Sergecross73 (talk · contribs). This should be dealt with, now. --McDoob AU93 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gamaliel reported by User:Msnicki (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see edit comment here: [69]

Comments: I am an uninvolved observer and reporter. I don't believe I've ever crossed paths with either editor in this dispute. Gamaliel has been edit warring to change another editor's comments on WP:BLPN. Given that he's admin, the behavior seems especially troubling.
Msnicki (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While "change" is accurate, strictly speaking, I feel that description is misleading. I was attempting to remove, and then when that did not work, strike comments that I felt were uncivil, unproductive, and disruptive, directed towards a third party, User:Cwobeel. I feel this is well within my administrative purview and I've done so numerous times in the past. In the past when editors have persistently restored such incivility, I have locked the page or blocked them. In this case, I felt that the incivility was too mild for blocking (though still inappropriate, obviously) and that I was getting too heated. I was unfortunately negatively influenced by the recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the feeling among many editors and even administrators that one of our four pillars should not be enforced. So I decided to disengage, while noting to Cwobeel that I would take up the matter again if s/he wished. It's clear I handled this poorly, but given the loud opposition among a vocal minority to even mild enforcement of what is supposedly one of our core values, there are few options open to administrators who do not want to leave editors like Cwobeel at the mercy of negative behavior. Barring a complaint from Cwobeel, I considered this matter dropped before this report was even made. Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have no desire to see this pursued. I don't think the comments needed removed and I don't think Gamaliel should have removed them over and over. That said, he did disengage and there is no harm done. I, like Gamaliel, could have probably handled it better but, as far as I'm concerned, it is a closed issue at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider this issue closed, then you should not have directed several comments at Cwobeel after posting here. If you want to drop it, a desire that I share, then that means you actually drop it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that prior to this, the other involved editor, User:Niteshift36, bypassed 3RR on Curt Clawson per BLP [70], though I contested Niteshift36's use of BLP for these reverts on the talk page. [71] I didn't think it was a big deal (since consensus has changed from when the 4th revert was made, so the current version is fine), and I think that editor was clearly acting in good faith, but seemed relevant to this incident. 9kat (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Is this the right board? Edit warring is discouraged because it disrupts the process of reaching consensus for edited articles. But consensus is not an issue for talk page content. The EW guidelines do not make this explicit, but IMO they do not apply. Rather, WP:TPNO is the guidance and this discussion should be moved to the ANI. This is in accordance with WP:UNCIVILNESS#Dealing_with_incivility number 8. – S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection if someone wants to bring this to ANI. It seems the appropriate forum, though no one seems to have any desire to prolong this. Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The initial two editors have calmly backed off, so I doubt any action over minor editwarring is required. (I have no further issue with the BLP reverts, given that.) User:Cwobeel is welcome to weigh in on the original redacted comments, of course. 9kat (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they can't accomplish it in the Middle East, but it looks like we have a ceasefire here. I would suggest a close. Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Although there are many things that bother me about the edit war, rather than go into specifics, given the disengagement, I'm just going to close this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:111.68.38.116 reported by User:K6ka (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Philippine Arena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 111.68.38.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619157975 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619156752 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619146811 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619145992 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
14:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619141777 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Philippine Arena. (TW)"
16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Philippine Arena. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

49.144.202.50 is also involved in this. Both have received two edit warring notices, issued by me, on their user talk page. Both have ignored and continued to revert. User:ForwardGWR is also involved, though from what I see they have not violated 3RR. I'm remaining mostly uninvolved, and have not edited the article at all. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for 72 hours. This is a long-running edit war that may involve more than these two IPs. Semi-protection appears the best fix. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:DieSwartzPunkt (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Wtshymanski's addition of Original research [73] The edit summary makes it clear that all of this has been derived from his observations of the stock in 'any' emporium. This is original research.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First revert re adding Original research[74]. He claims a 'Swart' reference, but nothing added is referenced.
Second revert adding OR [75]. Again he claims it is referenced but once again nothing he has added is referenced.
Third revert adding OR [76]. Now asking anyone to see the cite which has not been provided.

He then belatedly adds two references but only for two minor points that were already in the article before he added the original research. [77].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]. This receives the standard Wtshymanski response [79].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]. This is replied by an invitation to review the references that have not be provided [81].

Comments:

This has not made 4RR. but this page is about Edit Warring and 3RR violations. An editor continually attempting to add original research is by definition edit warring

DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Refugez1 reported by User:Oosh (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:
User even reverted my attempts to engage them in discussion! [90] [91] [92]

Blocked – for a period of one week. The new user's edit pattern was borderline vandalism, and that's pretty much all they did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mrm7171 reported by User:Bilby (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [93]; [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupational health psychology#Nature of the re-writing

Comments:

Slow moving edit war over the last few days, mostly over tagging, that has come to a more dramatic head in the past 24 hours. It is a continuation of pervious edit warring over the article that dates back some months - a voluntary topic ban for the last four months kept things quiet, but that recently ended. Both participants are well aware of 3RR. - Bilby (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This heated discussion very much involves editor Bilby long term also who appears very much onside with iss246 & psyc12. Recently discussion has involved Bilby, psyc12, and recently a new independent editor inediblehulk. My reverts have been in response to iss246 reverting independent editor's good faith contributions and everyone else's contributions for the past couple of days back to HIS version against all consensus!Mrm7171 (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. @Bilby: you mentioned both participants, but you reported only one. When I look at the recent history of the article, what stands out is that two editors are edit-warring. Why did you not report the other user?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did - the second editor was reported separately just below. - Bilby (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that after I left the note and started scrolling down. I attempted to self-revert my note, but you beat me to it. It really would have been better to report them in one section.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The format seemed to better suit two reports, and I wasn't expecting someone to sneak in between. :) Next time I'll make sure to treat it as one report, and I'm happy to merge if it will assist. - Bilby (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must apologize today for losing my cool with iss246 deleting every other editor's work back to HIS version. But I was standing up for another good faith editor, inediblehulk, that Iss246 kept deleting for no apparent reason. I guess it was my protective nature and the fact that editor Bilby also an administrator did not stop iss246 from deleting this editor's good faith additions. In fact, again Bilby has completely ignore iss246 deleting this editor's work.

Editor inediblehulk also tried reverting back the changes he made, only to have iss246 delete them again, for no reason. In past disputes Bilby has been very much on the side of psyc12 & iss246 in this extremely controversial article. Please also see my discussion here with inediblehulk on his talk page.

I admit I also 'stand up to' bullies in real life too! Again, today's reverts were a combination of administrator Bilby taking no steps toward cooling things down and me standing up for editor inediblehulk's and other editors being continually deleted by iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other day, for instance, Bilby was part of the discussion, and clearly saw iss246 breach the 3revert rule. Bilby chose to completely ignore it? I had thought perhaps, as an administrator, Bily may have reported iss246 here at that that point? I will collate the diffs and add these to support my claims.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this diff relating to the multiple reverts iss246 made the other day. [106] Bilby was involved then and again, did nothing.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When first occurred, comments on the talk page led me to believe that you were each stepping back, so I chose not to report it then. When the issue reoccured over the last day or so I felt that it needed to be raised, as it was clear that it was (once more) an ongoing problem. Hence my decision to bring both editors here for independent review. - Bilby (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SimMoonXP: reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]

Comments:
Also, SimMoonXP deleted 3RR warning from their Talk page [114], deleted the Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion from their Talk page [115], and additionally deleted the discussion of the subject on the article talk page [116].

Contributor321 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iss246 reported by User:Bilby (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [117]; [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupational health psychology#Nature of the re-writing

Comments:

Slow moving edit war over the last few days, mostly over tagging, that has come to a more dramatic head in the past 24 hours. It is a continuation of pervious edit warring over the article that dates back some months - a voluntary topic ban for the last four months kept things quiet, but that recently ended. Both participants are well aware of 3RR. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On this noticeboard on March 25, in the aftermath of his inserting of a long series of disruptive edits, an administrator asked Mrm7171 to desist from editing the occupational health psychology (OHP) entry in lieu of being banned from participating in Wikipedia. He agreed not to edit the OHP entry. He recently returned to again launch a series of off-beat edits (e.g., claiming that the OHP article is US-centric). His editing of the OHP entry should stop. Iss246 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, it would be nice if you provided a diff or link to that discussion. Second, your edit warring in return is not the right way to handle this.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:]] reported by User:129.133.125.225 (Result: Malformed)

Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts: See history page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128]

Comments:

There is a clear problem with the Eastern Orthodox Church article. One or a handful of editors thinks that the Eastern Orthodox Church has an official name of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Since there is no sole head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is impossible that there could be an official anything. This small group of editors haunts this page and revert edits anyone who dares change the article. There is a long record of them edit warring over this. One editor Not only revert edited me, he also went and revert edited another edit I made to an unrelated article out of hostility. And he apparently also immediately summoned a friend admin to threaten me as well. Jim1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This gang mentality on Wikipedia has to stop.

I have made four reverts in four days. The dispute has been hashed and rehashed and re-re-rehashed on the Talk page and many pixels spilled can be found in the archive regarding this exact point of contention in the article. The accuser here is unwilling to abide by overwhelming consensus. Now the question remains whether he is a new editor here or if the previous reverts belong to him as well. At any rate, at this point in time, there is really no edit warring to address here and this is WP:FORUMSHOP at its finest. I trust that Jim1138 (talk · contribs)'s attention will bear good fruit and this dispute will be resolved peacefully. Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. I can't believe you responded to this unholy mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards