Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR 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. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

• Page: List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:14 UTC, 1 July 2009

• 1st revert: 19:17 UTC, 3 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 18:44 UTC, 5 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 19:08 UTC, 5 July 2009
• 4th revert: 07:04 UTC, 6 July 2009
• 5th revert: 22:24 UTC, 6 July 2009
• 6th revert: 10:16 UTC, 7 July 2009
• 7th revert: 07:15 UTC, 8 July 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:59 UTC, 7 July 2009

• Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Refer to items 10, 13, and 15 on the article discussion page, where this issue has been discussed for the last two years, resulting in the article being stable until Fyunck reopened the issue unilaterally a couple weeks ago. Also, Refer to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 13, 14, and 20 on the List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions article discussion page, where this identical issue has been discussed for the last two years.

Chidel (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has already been filed with mediators days before this, to comment on the crux of the matter is really pointless here. I will only say that one person cannot make an edit war and Chidel didn't warn himself or the other party involved. How fair is that? To be fair Chidel is brand new to wiki so he may not realized all that was said (even behind channels) two years ago. As I said this is why I brought it to the attention of Wiki administrators a week ago and by email. The only thing I think that was not mentioned was the fact that there were two pages of charts one of which was deleted recently. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, "they" (whoever "they" are) authorized you to edit war? Where exactly is their intervention in evidence? Chidel (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not observe clear edit-warring here (although the final set of 4 edits are the same they occur over 3 days). Fyunck should probably go into further discussion on the re-adding of this reference but there is certainly no breach of 3RR in this complaint.--VS ^talk 09:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His edit warring is continuing.

• 8th revert: 06:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Chidel (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I could be just like Chidel and total up the reverts he and Ryoung122 have imposed on my sourced material but it seems counterproductive and petty. Those two must have one more revert than mine. It seems Chidel and Ryoung122 should be at the top of their own list and that there might be a bit of bias in his posting this here. This is why I brought this to a mediator's attention long before this. Chidel, are you ex Tennis Expert? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9th revert by Fyunck(click): 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Chidel (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tennis Expert/Chidel. That must be 10 for you and Ryoung122. At least mine are sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click)'s edits have included such unsourced fantasies that the French Open began in 1925...yet even the Roland Garros website says 1891:

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html

His edits are, therefore, unsourced, because the sources he is adding do NOT support his contentions.

Clearly, what he is doing is edit-warring, but trying to get around that on the technicality of not reverting several times in a day. Nonetheless, his edits are damaging to Wikipedia and those that read the articles because he is not following the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, which require articles to reflect major, mainstream sources, not one's own POV bias. Sources as varied as ESPN, the World Almanac, and the Encyclopedia Britannica list all the major winners, back to the start. Thus, his deletion of the names of French pre-1925 winners is a particularly egregious offense.

Also, Fyunclick has overemphasized "grand slam counts" when most major sources vary in their presentation...some count just open-era; some count all titles back to the start. Some don't count those before the advent of the challenge round. Historically, the idea of the "Grand Slam" did not even exist until Don Budge won four major tournaments in 1938, when the idea that these were the top-four coalesced gradually, over time. Since all sources do not agree on the second major issue...counting career slam titles...the appropriate response, in line with Wikipedia's calls for a pluralistic approach, is to have lists for any major way to count. This has already been done with pre-Open and Open-era counts. There is no reason why a similar approach could not be done with the pre-1925/post-1925 French Open winners. To do so would allow the reader to decide which version of events they wish to support. Currently, Fyunclick is attempting to impose his WP:OWN-violating, single "hardline" POV, which is also biased because though it excludes early French winners, it includes the early winners of other tournament that were no open to international competition, such as the US Open in 1881.Ryoung122 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every source counts "grand slam" titles since before they were called "grand slam" titles. Every source. Just like the triple crown in horse racing does the same since before they were called the triple crown. The question is when before. You can certainly change the date of inception to 1891 and if you had done that we would have left it stand. But it started international play in 1925 for slam purposes. I have mentioned dozens of sources and list 10. This was all put in my contacting wiki mediation a week ago. You POV is certainly not helping this article nor is your constant reverting. I noticed that for the last year, before two charts merged, that when non-slam winners names were left grayed-out people were constantly changing counts and totals. How many did you and Chidel change back. Zip. I had to do it all for 2 years. Some I wouldn't catch for weeks and weeks. With the charts moved together (also against my will but fairly talked about and voted on) if this article is going to be accurate it needs to be truthful with a preponderance of sources verifying it. That has been done by me in a friendly manner, not with constant snide remarks and threats on my talk page. If I owned this page you would think I'd be the only one writing to it as opposed to dozens and dozens of others. Please stop the reverting. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck's edit warring is continuing, sadly:

• 10th revert: 10:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• 11th revert: 10:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

And his "mediator" or "higher up" is a no-show. Not on Fyunck's discussion page. Not on the article discussion pages. No where to be found. Who is this person, anyway? Chidel (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that sources as varied as the World Almanac, ESPN, and the Encyclopedia Britannica list all the French "grand slam" winners back to 1891. Consistent with Wikipedia's calls that their articles must be pluralistic (including multiple major points of view), all you have to do is list the pre-1925 winners but put an asterisk next to their name and a footnote. But while you're at it, the US "Open" in its early years was open only to Americans. For you to exclude early French winners, but not early winners elsewhere, is hypocritical. Further, as one pointed out: should we exclude Wimbledon when it didn't allow blacks?

As for the counts, personally I believe the French champs should count, so why would I revert something I agree with? Also, it seems a lot of other people agree with myself and Chidel, or you wouldn't have had to revert so many times. That you did, shows that you are not being constructive but instead being an obstacle to having a consensus article. You should consider that the point here is for Wikipedia to put all the information out, and let the user decide.

Ryoung122 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Princess Tiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 173.60.208.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: When warned user on user talk page they said they didn't care about any rules.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts to talk on user talk page were met with accusations of racism.

Attempted to get discussion to article talk page, but was then met with more accusations of racism and hostility. Asked for page protection to resolve dispute, but has not been addressed at this time. Cactusjump (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stale User hasn't edited the main page in over 24 hours, thus there's no ongoing edit war and no need for intervention. If you're having issues with the editor on the article's talk page, then consider reviewing the dispute resolution procedure, particularly consider filing Wikietiquette alert, etc. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User keeps arguing and threatening to change the article without gaining consensus on the talk page. They are not a regular user--they do not show up daily. Yet it is extremely disruptive on both the talk page and the article itself. Cactusjump (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filed a Wikietiquette alert. I'm at a loss of what else to do. Cactusjump (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:34, 12 July 2009

• First Revert 22:20, 12 July 2009
• Second Revert 22:30, 12 July 2009
• Third Revert 23:17, 12 July 2009
• Fourth Revert 04:05, 13 July 2009
• Fifth Revert 15:47, 13 July 2009
• Sixth Revert 19:21, 13 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:34, 10 July 2009

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Currently, he is even edit warring on the POV-tag, as he also notes in the referenced talk page discussion. Appears to be fallout from Verifiability Noticeboard issue and Neutral POV Noticeboard issue. -- Yaf (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following appeal, I've reconsidered and am not comfortable with this block. In particular I don't like the fact that Yaf failed to report this [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which was overwritten through SaltyBoatr's subsequent repeat of the same reverts, restoring the same content that he self-reverted this one time. Whether there were 6 reverts or 5, there was still a clear violation of 3RR. But, no block. It appears that the 3RR bright line doesn't apply to some editors. Yaf (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: User_talk:HAl
• User: Scientus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]

Warning by me on user:Scientus talk page [13]

• 5th revert: [14]
• 6th revert: [15]

I have reverted all of those as my own user space is exempt from the 3RR rule.

This user has been accused of WP:Vandalism, WP:Edit warring and tendentious WP:Disruptive editing on the Office Open XML article (see also: talk:Office Open XML which has included obsessive fact tagging, deleting sourced information and has now moved to personal attacks against me on my talk page. This is another sign of a disruputive editor. (see WP:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing.

These disruptive edits led, after me reverting as per WP:Disruptive_editing#Dealing with disruptive editors, to me being blocked for edit warring and also user:Scientus being blocked for edit warring.

An example of the disputed edits then [16] where user:Scientus added 12 tendentious critisism citations on Office Open XML citations in the Office Open XML article lead to a neutral sentence

Microsoft developed the over 6000 page [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] standard

which did not even need a citation. Removing these 12 unnessesary and tendentious critisism citations led to me getting a block for edit warring (as some how an admin reverted the 12 tendentious citations back in and blokced me for reverting them). Since then another user has also removed them of course and has User:Scientus put in other effort to delete information from the Office Open XML article and put the removed links back in on some other place.

This user has taken his disruptive behaviour from the Office Open XML article now to edit warring on my user talk page with the example 6 reverts listed above. hAl (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since then another revert has been made

7th revert [17]

This increases the continuous edit warring by user:Scientus on my user talk page. hAl (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing story. This guy keeps reverting:

8th revert [18]

hAl (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Filipino people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Orceuos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert (edit): [23]
• 5th revert (edit): [24]
• 6th revert (edit): [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicenarian (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]
• Diff of comment on user's talk page, asking to bring dispute to article talk: [28]

This user appears to be engaging in edit warring behavior similar to that of Orsahnses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who previously was blocked for warring over this same article and issue. While the final diffs listed aren't technically reverts, they are edits to the same material, blatantly ignoring requests to discuss such changes on the talk page. Please see the previous edit warring report regarding Orsahnses when deciding what action to take here. Many thanks, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Ancient Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Thephilologist7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and IPs 94.64.200.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.64.198.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 94.64.245.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); proof of identity: [29])

• Stubborn POV-pushing reverts against long-standing status quo and consensus of multiple users. Two 3RR vios on each of two days, 11 and 13 July:

1. 11 July, 20.25 (rv. to immediately previous [30])
2. 11 July, 20:28
3. 11 July, 20:30
4. 11 July, 20:36
5. 13 July (slight variation of previous edit)
6. 13 July, 16:03
7. 13 July, 16:20
8. 13 July, 17:43 (rv to intermediate edit [31])
9. 13 July, 18:13 (yet another variation of the same edit)

• Warnings: User talk:94.64.200.5

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked account indefinitely. He is not here to help, he is here to push his point of view. If the article gets out of hand, I can protect it. A rangeblock may be possible as well if he decides to follow you around, but it would not be desirable (a /16 on of one of the largest ISPs in Greece). J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Països Catalans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Taraborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: 14 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 14 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 14 July 2009
• 4th revert: 14 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

The user has been edit warring in this and other articles for several weeks. He has been warned by several users (User:Mountolive, User:Dúnadan, User:Maurice27) and politely invited to discuss his proposed changes ([35]). He has ignored all warnings and invitations. He has even tried to delete the discussions ([36]) and has attacked those who were trying to make him understand that his behavior wasn't appropriate ([37], [38]) breaking Wikiquette with offensive words like 'idiot' and 'retarded'. --Carles Noguera (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be pretty easy to run out of "reverting credits" when Cnoguera double teams someone with his comrade User:Dúnadan. Moreover, I've said like a dozen times the former version was NPOV (and factually wrong) and clearly stated the reasons. They decided to team up and revert like crazy. And he's unable to understand that I can remove his trolling from MY discussion page if I want to (he kept on spamming like crazy). --Taraborn (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I like the idea of "reverting credits". But you seem to have stopped for now; don't continue William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Gorillasapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 12 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 12 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 14 July 2009
• 4th revert: 14 July 2009
• 5th revert: 14 July 2009
• 6th revert: 15 July 2009
• 7th revert: 16 July 2009

Editor Gorillasapiens continue with vandalism of misinterpreting several most reliable sources possible relevant to the topic. He repeatedly tries to discredit scientific research. His behavior is unacceptable under Wikipedia policies. See relevant Talk Page. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're obliged to at least pretend to follow the instructions: please list some reverts, ideally 4. Also, I caution you that your edit summary here [39] accusing Gs of vandalism is inappropriate; the edit is not vandalism, merely one with which you disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just listed many hist reverts. The reasons why his reverts are unacceptable under Wikipedia policies are clarified on Talk Page: Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits --Destinero (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: List of terrorist incidents, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Dumamd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [40]

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]
• 4th revert: [44]
• 5th revert: [45]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

The IP edit is clearly the same editor, however there's now four reverts from the account anyway. Despite this content also being removed by an administrator and two editors on the talk page being against inclusion, this single purpose account continues to push the ridiculous fringe view that the July 2009 Ürümqi riots were a terrorist incident, supported by a vague Chinese state source. I've asked for multiple independent neutral reliable sources to show this isn't some fringe view, all I get is revert after revert. O Fenian (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24h for both William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a BS block. Edit warring disruptive IP using alternate accounts, and a first class content editor. This is not like with like and rewards disruption IMHO. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Cannabis (drug) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Rocknroll714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [48]

(The above is the first instance of Rocknroll714 inserting a list of slang into the article against previously established consensus. There are many other edits in the history today, but the reinsertion of these terms by Rocknroll714 happens 4 more times below, completely ignoring the discussion on the talk page by several other editors.)

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

• Talk page discussion: Talk:Cannabis_(drug)#Nicknames_in_the_lead

I've reverted this user for other issues (removing a ref with no edit summary, overlinking of common terms, etc.), but other users have reverted Rocknroll714 for this exact issue. They are involved in discussion on this issue on the talk page, but Rocknroll has been silent on the talk page. NJGW (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: PelleSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Before edit-war: 03:17, 15 July 2009

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

• 1st revert: 03:35, 15 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 03:38, 15 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 03:41, 15 July 2009

• 4th revert: 3:56, 15 July 2009

• 5th revert: 4:01, 15 July 2009

• 6th revert: 4:18, 15 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned in talk, AFD, and user page, see below.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Notability tags, unsubstantiated summaries, edit-warring, Removing OR section

This warring is less of a personal dispute and revolves around mis-attribution to policy and poor summaries. User claimed his vast amounts of deleted material was simply OR, even though much of the content was cited thoroughly by the United States Department of Justice and other government/3rd party references. I tried to have him move the content he disputed both at my userpage and the AFD so it would be easier to discuss, but he did not do this. I considered moving the content myself but felt that would be a breach of editing code. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Please take a detailed look into these supposed "reverts" which are not all back to the same version of the entry (they are however all edits Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not fond of). S/he seems to have some rather basic misunderstandings of WP:NOR and WP:BLP. For instance, the last diff s/he has pasted above is a removal of a clear BLP violation. There is nothing to see here except for an example of the usual POV pushing and disruption from this editor.PelleSmith (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User edit-warred almost every single one my additions and was adamant about not resolving dispute in talk and preferred to project it on the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contiguous edits count as one. You can try re-doing your report if you like, though it is likely to be stale. As far as I can see, people are using the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean contiguous editS? Pelle has been edit-warring additions he doesn't agree with relentlessly. Using the talk page/discussion is totally irrelevant when it comes to edit-warring, according to you at least. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor continues to war out additions. Will, you've had no problem doing what you are supposed to do to every other notice report, and now claim it is stale because you consciously waited. I know we have a history so perhaps another administrator can do their job. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan is editing against consensus and in violation of basic policies. William is correct as well about contiguous edits, however if William or another admin commenting here thinks there is a problem with my editing in this instance please advise on how I need to change my behavior and I will comply.PelleSmith (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the diffs are contiguous, but it looks to me (after a cursory glance) that you have just barely come in under the 3rr wire, and then continued to edit war afterwards. I don't think, pace William, that a new report is necessary, though Wikifan, you might want to make a note here of continuing reversion on the article, if applicable. I'd also note, the report is very far from stale. Admin intervention may well be required. IronDuke 02:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Pelle continues to revert my edits, and dubiously said the additions were original research. I just think this is a double standard because Will has blocked me for far, far less. I'm scared to continue editing the article for fear of being blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no consensus. Accusing me of editing against it is simply a lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be good for you to stop reverting while you sort things out, and maybe pursue dispute resolution. I agree that WMC might not be the best person to intervene here. Hopefully, an uninvolved admin will weigh in/actIronDuke 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped doing major edits hours ago. All I've done is minor edits (spelling, syntax) but those too are occasionally reverted. I filed a 3OO but no response. William has always been pretty consistent with blocking edit-warring regardless of reasoning and now he makes a dubious exception. Talk about a double standard. Everyone but Wikifan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Category:English-language surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Page: Category:German-language surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions:
• Category:English-language_surnames
• Category:German-language_surnames

Category:English-language_surnames

• page blanking: 2009-07-07 06:38:36
• 1st revert: 2009-07-09 23:40:07
• 2nd revert: 2009-07-12 17:02:52
• 3rd revert: 2009-07-13 04:58:15
• 4th revert: 2009-07-13 22:55:54
• 5th revert: 2009-07-14 15:44:00
• 6th revert: 2009-07-15 02:39:10

Category:German-language_surnames

• page blanking: 2009-07-13 22:46:02
• 1st revert: 2009-07-14 15:44:41
• 2nd revert: 2009-07-15 02:38:19

In the English case, Badagnani removed the {{Surnames by language}} template, and was promptly reverted by Good Olfactory. Since then, he's been engaged in a slow motion 1 or 2 removals (page blanking) per day. Also, has used an IP surrogate.

More recently, he's started doing the same removal (page blanking) in the German case – once per day so far.

• (repeat offender, previous subject of RFC, blocked for edit warring several times per year for 3+ years.)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
  • English-language_surnames
  • German-language_surnames

With the recent removal of WP:3RR, nobody knows what to expect (looks like that was a bad idea). Obviously, this slow motion page blanking isn't exactly covered. But isn't page blanking still vandalism by definition?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although Badagnani did not respond here, certainly saw notice – about 1.5 hours later edited own Talk, and was taken to WP:WQA by 2 more editors (administrators?) for that infraction, too.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

48h, per this and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Badagnani William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Republic of China Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Liu Tao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:25, 14 July 2009

• 1st revert: 15:49, 15 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 19:41, 15 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 19:48, 15 July 2009
• 4th revert: 20:07, 15 July 2009

NB, this edit was part of the third revert, which restored text previously removed.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:49, 15 July 2009

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19:59, 15 July 2009

Liu has twice been blocked for edit-warring on this page. We also had a discussion with him on the talk page, but because he couldn't gain consensus for the change he re-started edit-warring. He has now tried to continue edit-warring by simply removing the text he doesn't like, claiming it's not a revert (despite the fact I've explained to him that policy says it is).

He isn't listening, so I had to bring it here. John Smith's (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken the 3RR rule. I have only made 2 reversions then stopped. My third edit towards the article was to restore the previous vandalisation done by Smith. My 4th edit was to remove information and POV that had no consensus reached or evidence to back up. I did not break the 3RR rule, all my edits were done in response to discussions in the Talks as well as to fix and revert vandalisations done by others. Liu Tao (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not started edit war either. About the consensus, none was ever reached. I had pleaded and begged for them to continue discussing about the issue, but they refused and chose to ignore my discussions and points. They are the ones who have refused to discuss the matter and chose to edit the article by their own wills. There are multiple of them but only one of me, for each edit they make are multiple reversions I have to make to remove their unsupported and non-consented edits. Liu Tao (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Form. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wikireader41 (talk · contribs)

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

User:Wikireader41 has violated wp:3rr by reverting Kanwar Pal Singh Gill four times in one single day. Please seerevert 1,revert 2,revert 3 andrevert 4.

• Please note that the text in question (which is several rows long) was NEVER deleted, initially it wasflagged by editors and finally some other editor duly preserved in theTalk: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill to discuss its notability and to reach wp:consensus.
• 4 Editors opposed this text User Talk:135.214.150.104-a Paramus-New Jersey based IP, User:209.183.55.111-a Dallas texas based editor, User Talk:99.51.223.161-myself and a User Talk:144.160.130.16-a San Jose- California based editor. Editors have participated in the discussion as well.
• July 9th - User: Wikireader41 asked for some reference from editors (ideally to accept their logic)
• July 11th-He was provided what he had asked.
• But he DID NOT agree with what he had originally asked and now he has started asking for 10,000 references from the opposing editors. wp:pov
• User:Wikireader41 did not care for the ongoing discussion between july 9th (the 1st day he asked for reference) and today, i.e. July 16th 2009 (he was already done with several reverts). Initially he deleted the related wiki tages several times in a row and then he started reverting the article to forcefully add the text into the article. wp:pov, wp:consensus
• Further, Please note that User: Wikireader41 was previouslyblocked] because of his known POV pushing history.--99.51.223.161

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

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

This is a serious violations and need to be looked at.yousaf465' 06:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-07-16T05:33:10 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) m (45,543 bytes) (Protected Kanwar Pal Singh Gill: ew ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Banská Bystrica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wladthemlat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56]
• 4th revert: [57]

It looks like user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Checkuser already requested.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by administrator [58]

B@xter⁹ 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Gorillasapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gorillasapiens appears to be on a continued campaign, using the talk page and this article as a soapbox as well as continuing to revert other editors with the same issue and disrupting improvement to the article. I have offered some suggestions as to how to proceed on the talk page but they have been ignored. In addition to the above list of reverts given by Destinero, here are the most recent two examples:

• 8th revert: diff 16 July 2009
• 9th revert: diff 16 July 2009

—Teahot (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, User:Gorillasapiens has recently raised a request on wp:3O. However, I believe their history of reversions on this page still requires review.—Teahot (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 20:25, 15 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored corrections") (Version generally reverted to, also a revert)
2. 21:52, 15 July 2009 (edit summary: "once again undoing the work of reckless, anti-science vandals")
3. 09:50, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored corrections and removed uncited allegation that scientists have accused him of pseudoscience")

   09:52, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reception */ restored censored statement from two biologists in support of Sheldrake") (These are two sequential reverts, hence count as one)

4. 10:31, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 11:39, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored material censored by anti-Sheldrake fanatic")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rupert Sheldrake User has been warned and reverted by at least three different editors who have questioned his contributions.

• User attempting to justify why his reverts aren't in violation of 3RR on my talk page.

—Verbal chat 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Coraline (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 99.254.62.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [59]

(I believe there are others earlier than the first one listed here)

• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]
• [66]
• [67]
• [68] - several hours after talk-page warning

Point of contention is whether it's "jerkwad" or "jerk wad." Muy importante. This is technically not a 3RR violation (given the 24+-hour window of edit warring). However, the sheer number of reverts and counter-reverts -- including one after a 3RR warring -- make this a clear violation in spirit.

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

I'll add as a PS that User:Montana's Defender has been the other half of the edit war. Although he hasn't technically violated 3RR, he's well aware of the policy and has thoroughly broken it in spirit, too. Per his MO, he's reverted the IP editor without initiating in any sort of talk-page discussion. He placed the warning on the IP editor's talk page, and I placed one on his for edit-warring in kind. Frankly, I believe both the IP and MD should receive the usual block. --EEMIV (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]