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)
1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
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)
316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Tbilisi International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: 11:41, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "revert (yet more) nonsense from this IP")
• 2nd revert: 15:23, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 119.155.37.2 (talk); NOT a destination for PrivatAir. (TW)")
• 3rd revert: 17:00, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394391636 by 119.155.37.2 (talk)")
• 4th revert: 03:42, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394663960 by Inspector123 (talk) as before")
• 5th revert: 09:09, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Inspector123 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Jasepl. (TW)")

This report is for edit waring, not 3RR. This user keeps removing a Privatair flight with a tech stop in Tbilisi from the article. One might argue whether this is a sensible edit or not, but what is not acceptable is the slow edit-warring without any discussion on the article talk page or the involved editors talk pages. Problematic is also the labelling of edits as vandalism when they are clearly not vandalism.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past. Furthermore, [2] shows that User:Jasepl is familiar with the 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Comments:
WarnedUser is warned and I will watch the page for further violations. Hopefully we can avoid a block. JodyB _talk 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This editor now canvasses other editors to do the reverts on his behalf, see [4]. Stepopen (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stepopen, there is a discussion going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Tech stops as destinations. I suggest that you not continue to add technical stops to airport articles until you have a consensus of other editors. Our article on Tbilisi International Airport is now locked due to this issue. It seems that your own preference is to put technical stops in the main destination list. I see nobody at WP:AIRPORT who supports this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: September 18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Das Baz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

The above two fields are really irrelevant here; this editor has been warned in the past about edit warring and blocked for the same. Editors have tried to discuss it with them, but they have refused, they haven't even used any edit summaries. As they have seemingly learned nothing since last time they were blocked for edit warring, I would ask that this block be made longer, as they are doing exactly the same thing as the first time; slow edit-warring and refusing to talk about it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Going back over the article history, I count about 19 attempts to add this in the last 14 months. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've notified Das Baz of the discussion here, and invited him to participate. In my opinion the best option is a long block, which might be lifted if the editor will agree to follow Wikipedia policy. He hardly ever edits his own talk page except to remove warnings and comments by others. The problem may be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope that his cooperative response here will avert the need for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what if they don't post here? What if they just decide to 'disappear' for awhile, then come back and resume edit warring after everything has 'calmed down'?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His last WP edit was 6 November. If he resumes editing Wikipedia but does not respond here, he will most likely be blocked. If he makes no edits before this report is archived, then I suggest a one-month block to be sure the matter gets his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do the "Edit summary" thing. I suggest that if such a problem rises, you just have an administrator send me a message like this: "The opposition to your position on this (e.g., the date of the Catalonian Bullfight ban) comes from a majority of editors, not just from a single editor." Or words to that effect. If so, I will cease to assert my position and will not insist on it on the face of a majority opposition. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. How about instead, when an editor reverts you, you don't edit war but take it to the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Das Baz is an experienced editor, with 6,696 edits since 19 December 2005. That he still doesn't use edit summaries, despite the fact that for 6,696 edits the line just below the field in which he is typing says 'Edit summary', and despite the fact that I asked him to use them on October 5th, is worrying. The fact that he was blocked for edit warring over a similar edit at 2012, that I mentioned this article in the ANI discussion that led to his block, and that he was reverted almost 20 times at this article and still didn't get it, is also worrying. And he hasn't agreed to stop making this entry at September 18. We need a commitment that he will not attempt the entry again and that he will use edit summaries. As blocks are meant to be preventive, if he makes these two commitments there is no need now for a block. But I think he has to make them both. And, I guess, he may need to learn to read other editor's edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not blocked I'm closing this case as not blocked: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity (sorry Das Baz, please don't take it personally, but the essay applies in this case). However, if the edit warring starts up again, by all means report the editor again, and we can commence with mercilessly pounding the banhammer, er, uh, temporarily blocking the user for disruption. ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: St. John's University (New York) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.108.204.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous block [11]
CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 66.108.204.65 has been on the st. john's university page making nasty comments to myself and other users. calling us sockpuppets and i believe the word is volitads. he then created a user name CAtruthwatcher. he continues to edit war and revert, finally is finally blocked 10:03, 6 November 2010 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) blocked CAtruthwatcher (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Violation of the three-revert rule: St. John's University (New York)) . Immediately he uses his IP address and continues to revert war. Please, what should I do about this blatent block evasion?

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

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]

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

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.58 (talk • contribs)

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

Comments:

Somewhat convoluted... I can't really see edit-warring... besides, username is already blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Result - Protected one week by User:Tcncv. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

username is blocked but he is also edit warring on education in new york. can anything be done about the ip address for 48 hours? 24.239.153.58 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any current edit war at Education in New York City. And CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs) is still blocked, as well as 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs). -- EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look here at st john's page you'll see that once catruthwatcher was blocked, 66 immediately came in and started reverting the article back to the version that Catruthwatcher wanted. [18] 24.239.153.58 (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the activity of IP socks, I think that semiprotection for St. John's University (New York) might be considered when full protection expires on Nov. 14. No need to decide that now. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doesnt seem bad. just got to watch the above IP's. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bluebadger1 (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: [23]
• 5th revert: [24]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:
User responded to 3RR warning, so they have seen it. Since then, they have opened up a discussion on BLP template and not responded to talkpage. responded with the same behaviors as mentioned below. User has been reverted by 4 seperate users and improperly marked edits contrary to what he/she wants as vandalism. User also insists that those who wish to keep contentious material out of BLP are the ones who need sourcing. Soxwon (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs as formatted by 3rr.php:

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

1. 02:41, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "WP:V Referenced water boarding/charity promises, offers, and lack of fulfilment by SH. Removed subjective comment " though there has been no public follow-up" and referenced reason/followup.")
2. 08:34, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Manual restore due to Vandalism for Section Blanking. User:Niteshift36 states "that it happened is not in dispute". Then there is no undue weight issue, as these are facts and notable events.")
3. 09:12, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Freedom Concerts */ removed "liberal" as CREW Wiki article states group is non partisan.")
4. 09:12, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Public Offer to Undergo Water-boarding for Charity */ corrections")
5. 10:05, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395514884 - No references: If you chose to redo the change, please reference according to WP:V why they are liberal organizations, not non partisan.")
6. 10:38, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Freedom Concerts */ added "VoteVets.org, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans" according to the referenced article wp:v. Added rebuttal to Freedom Alliance President comments for equal weight.")
7. 18:47, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395553148 rv: due to wp:v and wp:wellknown. Just because one might it is negative, doesn't mean it is wp:coatrack. Referenced and relevant.")
8. 19:14, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Soxwon (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Bluebadger1. (TW)")
9. 19:20, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Soxwon (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Bluebadger1. (TW)")

• Edits 2,3,4 were consecutive and so were 5,6. So I make this to be six reverts in 24 hours by the usual 3RR calculation. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I gave a slightly more in depth explanation regarding BLP issues on the user's talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [27]

• 1st revert: [28] reverts [29]
• 2nd revert: [30] again
• 3rd revert: [31] reverts [32], which is, itself removing blatant plagurism.
• 4th revert: [33] repeats the first revert
• 5th revert: [34] repeats the first revert again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36], and I am not the other party in this revert war.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Warnings aside, the block log shows that the user should be well aware of 3RR/edit-warring and his response to the warning suggests he is very unlikely to stop edit-warring. Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I should add that User:Ma8thew has come very close here. I count four reverts but am inclined to discount this revert which was essentially trying to respond directly to a concern of the opponent in the edit war raised in a preceding edit summary. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Urmston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nordy23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert: [40]

• 5th revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (haven't warned the user about 3rr, but have warned him about using Wiki for advertising - [42]

Comments:

This user is almost certainly the site's owner, considering this post on a community forum. Its a dead site though, it has been for about 2 years. The only site for Urmston that is regularly used and read is www.urmston.net, and has been for the last ten years or so. Parrot of Doom 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Baptists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.151.58.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

For the IP

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

For Farsight001

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:

I am not involved in this dispute, but these two editors are doing a pathetic job reverting with vague and sometimes personally abusive explanations in their edit summaries. I recommend a block without warning, as they've already past 3RR before I even had a chance to warn them. Minimac (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported the IP myself before I saw this. It's two reports below this one. There are many more diffs on the IP's and my parts (and one or two diffs from others) that are not listed here. And if this is a 3RR rule issue instead of a disruptive editor issue as I assumed it was, could someone please explain the difference, as I seem to be having some serious trouble figuring it out. I've been reported for violating 3rr a couple of times now(no block though) when I thought I was just reverting disruptive editing, to which the 3rr does not apply. Thanks. ^_^ Farsight001 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Result - Semiprotected two weeks. I notice that the IP has already been blocked 24 hours, but am semiprotecting because the history suggests the same person may be reverting with more than one IP. I recommend that Farsight001 not be blocked, since it sounds like he is willing to follow the policy from now on. Farsight001 is urged to read WP:Edit warring carefully. All parties should cease the personal attacks, either on the talk page or in in edit summaries, or more blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Yitzchak Ginsburgh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: M656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:08, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ deleting entire quotation due to its extreme libelous character")
2. 21:49, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ Re-deleted libelous (understatement) content")
3. 22:25, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ in accordance with wiki rules libelous material can deleted any number of times")
4. 09:36, 9 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ the deleted quotation is challenged as libelous and is now being considered on Noticeboard. Don't reinsert prematurely.")

• Earlier deletion, showing that the first is indeed a revert: here

• Diff of warning: here and here

• See also discussion at BLPN

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:
This editor has made it clear on the article talk-page that he intends to carry on reverting. The BLP exemption here does not apply -- a couple of editors here have explained to him that the material is not libellous, instead the material is a quotation from a perfectly reliable source (an academic book published by SUNY Press). He has, at least, now stricken his legal threat (first introduced here). The belligerent attitude continues, though. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only editor to point out the WP:BLP problem of the quotation in question. Debresser stated on Sept. 27, 2009 "Frankly, I also felt from the beginning there is some wp:blp problem here." So there are currently 2 editors who think there is a problem and 2 that disagree. I am following the instructions of Wikipedia saying that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." It is Nomoskedasticity who is doing belligerent edit warring by repeatedly reinserting the material. The rule further says "If such material is repeatedly inserted..." (which is what Nomoskedasticity did) "or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard." (which is exactly what I did). So the subject is now under consideration on the Noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity does not seem to understand that not everything that is published at a university automatically complies with all of the important Wikipedia restrictions. I have explained to Nomoskedasticity that the material is extremely libelous. Please note that it is not libelous just to Ginsburgh, but is defamatory to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole. This type of irresponsible text is used by neo-Nazi-style fringe websites. m656 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the material is not "unsourced or poorly sourced" -- and so the BLP exemption does not apply. The idea that the problem here is anti-Semitism (defamation of the entire Jewish people) is risible. You don't like what Inbari has to say, but that doesn't make it libellous and indeed no-one else on BLPN appears to be taking that view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into the BLP matter, just far enough to see that the reverts don't meet the exception in the WP:3RR policy that keeps them from counting toward the three-revert limit. Text published by a university press qualifies for consideration as part of this article, and should not be considered defamatory. Ginsburgh holds unusual views and it should not be a violation to simply report what he believes. Further discussion on the Talk page is needed to decide what material deserves to remain in the article. Since User:M656 has broken 3RR, I've asked him to agree to stop reverting, to avoid a block. I suggest that admins wait for his response before closing this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't happen in Wikipedia that a person is said to have religious views other than what he himself actually professes. For such an extraordinary claim having a quotation from an academic simply is not sufficient. There are more than 60 books referenced on Ginsburgh's site, and not in any of them will you find such a view.

I was only deleting this extreme quotation (which I still consider quite unacceptable) until a decision was made (either by editors or an administrator). Now that you have made this decision, I have no intention whatsoever to re-delete the quotation by myself. But rather intend to redirect this issue to the Wiki Media Foundation.m656 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Result - M656 warned. Any continued reverts before consensus is reached may lead to a block. Ginsburgh can't be defamed by a statement of his own views, if they are being correctly reported. If there is a more nuanced way of presenting Ginsburgh's views, you should consider proposing new sourced material for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Baptists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.151.58.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also posted originally from IPs 67.143.34.62 and 96.19.185.78

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=prev&oldid=394440697

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&action=historysubmit&diff=394530399&oldid=394440697
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=394546335
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395412109
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395487161
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395536697
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395549699
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395665112
• 8th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395666111
• 9th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395723294
• 10th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395727238
• 11th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395728750
• 12th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395733396
• new addition, little better than rest: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395734922
• 13th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395735648

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.151.58.242&diff=prev&oldid=395724640

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baptists

Comments:

The IP appears to have edited from multiple ips, but has settled on the current one. His edits are really not that horrible, but he makes no attempt to discuss and instead insults and mocks. (see some of the edit summaries in the diffs above and the talk page) I also think one of his edit summaries is rather edifying and seems to imply his ultimate goal here - "I can do this too, till with both get banned for violating the 3RR". In that vein, I feel as though it has been disruptive editing from the start because of IP's refusal to follow BRD, but if that is not the view of whoever reviews this, I will accept a block as well. I don't quite know how to handle disruptive editors well (obviously since he got to 12 reverts before anything was reported), so I might have been a little off in how I handled it, like being late in trying a talk page discussion. If anyone has suggestions for handling stuff like this better in the future, I would love it - probably on my talk page though. Don't want to clutter up this place. Cross my fingers and hope I didn't demolish the formatting of this report somehow.Farsight001 (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And fyi, it appears that User:Minimac has reported both the IP and I above. (two listings up) Farsight001 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that I've screwed up the coding a bit somehow. Never can get these quite right. >_< Farsight001 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Semiprotected. See rationale above, in WP:AN3#User:Farsight001 & User:75.151.58.242 reported by User:Minimac (Result: Semiprotected). EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: John Lennon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wrapped in Grey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: 14:52
• 2nd revert: 15:04
• 3rd revert: 15:46
• 4th revert: 20:59

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:59 and 18:18

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:42

Comments:
The article is being considered for TFA on 8 December, the 30th anniversary of Lennon's death, and will need watching until then for 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I did check the history, but I can't see what the first diff was a revert of. That said, he has clearly been edit warring and editing in quite an aggressive manner all afternoon, which is unacceptable at the best of times, but more so on an FA, especially one being considered for TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It will need watching all month ... and it took Incompetent Me 13 minutes to file that report! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll add it to my watchlist. It took me a lot longer than that the first time I filed a report here, so don;t worry too much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of most populous cities in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dangerpatel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: 1 (first to revert BostonPunekar (talk · contribs))
• 2nd revert: 2 (second revert to revert me)
• 3rd revert: 3 (third revert to revert SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs))
• 4th revert: 4 (Same as third)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]. Just look at their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]. See also their talk page.

Comments:
Dangerpatel has been unwilling discuss on several articles. This is not just the one. Though he hasn't broken 3RR, he's basically edit warring against 3 editors and not trying to gain any sort of consensus or discussion on the page reported. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry: Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
164.107.203.227: 164.107.203.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Original edit: [59]
• 1st revert back: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]

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

Also, pointed toward talkpage here: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Michigan_–_Ohio_State_football_rivalry#Title_of_article_and_Info_Box

Comments:
Name order dispute. Consensus formed at the page says stay alphabetical, but anon will not have this. I would block for the 3rr vio myself, but as I am somewhat involved I thought to bring this here. Obviously only block the anon if there are further reverts from now (no point in a punitive block if they have stopped). Malinaccier (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RomanHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66] Note:I've never really understood what this is asking.

• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]
• 3rd revert: [69]
• 4th revert: [70]
• 5th revert: [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Previous block for edit warring on Christian article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] He has barely discussed any of edits on the Talk page.

Comments:
Previous warning and discussion about edit warring on ANI: [72]

Those were only two reversions, and both were reverting the reversions of other editors (Noloop was one). The two reversions are here and here. The other edits he is listing were normal edits modifying the page, NOT reversions of recently added material.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have discussed these edits on the talk page at length. This page has been having a lot of edit warring over the last few weeks. Just look at how contentious the talk page is. Other editors need to get involved in this page, as it has gotten badly out of hand.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at how contentious the talk page has been over just the last week (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Apologetics.2C_primary_sources), (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#POV_Pushing), (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Christian_presses_are_not_reliable_sources), and Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). Look at all of the space in those threads devoted to claims of personal attacks and insults, counter claims, claims of bias, of POV pushing, ect. Look at how massively the article, especially the intro, has changed over the last few weeks. I have not seen many articles that are this contentious.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take an few moments to look at the talk page on that (Historicity of Jesus). Noloop has been a party of the pretty blatant fighting going on there, and has taken a pretty hostile position to me. Take a look at all of those edits he posted, and at the history in the page. You will see that only those two edits are reversions, the rest are just the additions of material. Is Wikipedia now going to have a policy against normal edits?RomanHistorian (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one more thing, take a look at all of the sources and prior edits Noloop has deleted off of this page recently.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever admin looks at this, take a look at the comment by Griswaldo (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). After all of the claims of ad hominim attacks and counter claims by a number of users, including my accuser here Noloop, Griswaldo notes that Noloop reverted what Noloop himself said was 8 hours of edits by different editors. Note these edits here, here and here which came after my edits although I didn't touch them because they were productive. They, and others, were included in Noloop's massive revert-sweep. If anything, reverting such a large amount of material so adjectively is edit warring itself.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then go look at the page right now, where RomanHistorian is busy edit-warring. It would be nice if the accuser were somewhat less guilty than the accused. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that, contrary to this accusation, Noloop has indeed discussed the article on its talk page. See for yourself. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Comment - Given what Tariq saw, without being a regular at the entry I can't blame him for protecting the page. This wasn't a 3RR violation but it did indicate the early stages of an edit war. What Tariq might not know, however, is that Noloop has a history of trying to get this particular entry protected, and it is starting to get disruptive. He uses protection as a way to win POV battles. RomanHistorian's edits should have been reverted, and were. If he continued and actually broke 3RR then he could have been blocked, but the page would not have needed protecting. When there is one editor against many page protection is not the solution. Letting that person breach 3RR and sending them to the chopping block is. Admins need to be weary of Noloops page protection scheme. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Four Asian Tigers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.45.181.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated insertion of uncited numbers changing statistics, apparently to older set.

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• Declined I see no attempt at dispute resolution - no use of any talk page save a warning. Please attempt to engage in dispute resolution first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Photocredit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• See article history for today 10 November 2010. I think both editors have made around 10 reverts of eachother's material today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: On article talk page [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] and discussion on my talk page [75]

Comments:
I am uninvolved in the dispute. Both editors seem set on edit warring.

• To Photocredit's..er..credit, they did say here that they would try to resolve the dispute but reverted after that comment. They haven't reverted since. They may also have a legitimate point that some of the material should be reverted per WP:BLP.
• To 68.173.122.113's credit, as you can see from their contributions, they have tried to discuss the material and they tried pretty much every noticeboard in existence.

They are clearly edit warring and I'm not convinced that they will resolve it on the talk page. Eitjher way, it strikes me as 3RR report worthy. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in a AFD/content dispute on another article with the IP user, so I've stayed away from this article, but please note that 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the same person. Looking at the edits, there are issues with tone and how informations from sources are paraphrased into the text, so input from a knowledgeable (not me) but a neutral editor (probably not me) would probably be welcomed here. Mosmof (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Storm King Art Center}}
User being reported: User:N2smd

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

1. 05:36, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "Recent controversy regarding possible conspiracy theory")
2. 06:25, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "grammar correction")
3. 16:51, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 17:00, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Freedom of Information Act Revision")
5. 17:03, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Freedom of Information Act")
6. 17:05, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395963461 by Mike Rosoft (talk)")

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

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

Comments:
I am just an interested bystander, I reverted the first version of the changes and now he has put them back in again, and now gotten into an edit war with another editor. I am not too familiar with how to stop it, but I did put a warning on the culprit's talk page, but it does not seem to have made a difference. Thanks.

Page: Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronaldc0224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Comments:

I've tried multiple rewrites to attempt to accurately communicate the sources, but all have been reverted, including my changing of the word "conclude" which is not used in the sources, to "allege" which is closer to the "suggests" used in the source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]