Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 31h)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page: Heathkit H11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated stripping of Category:Home computers from Heathkit H11

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

This is a common pattern of editing for this editor, which I would categorise (civilly and not, I would say, unfairly) as, "the world is wrong and only I am right" (for clarity, I have a long history with this editor, all much the same). They have some knowledge of the subject, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Despite stable categorisation as "Home computer" long being in place, and despite reversion by two independent editors, their assertion is that this is not a home computer. To quote an edit summary, "Didn't hook up to a TV and cassette deck, didn't have ROM BASIC, not much like the other machines in the category."

The sources though differ. This was an unusual home computer - it cost considerably more than the rest, much more than I could afford. Yet from the contemporary ads archived online [5], "the world's most powerful microcomputer comes home" and "the H11 is the best home computer

This is raised at the talk Talk:Heathkit_H11#Not_a_home_computer, but this editor's obstinacy is legendary. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." -- Wtshymanski

August 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive69#User:Wtshymanski_and_Jump_start_.28vehicle.29

August 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:Floydian_.28Result:_Stale.29

February 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:24.177.120.74_.28Result:_page_protected.29

March, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request_for_admin_attention_re:_proposed_deletion_of_multiple_electronics_components_articles

April, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive103#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs

April, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively

July, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29

"The real travesty here is the total lack of of admin interest. It's one thing that there's an editor [Wtshymanski] going round with total disregard for procedure and collective opinion (that's not of itself especially unusual); it's quite another that he's apparently doing it with total impunity. -- RichardOSmith --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 31 hours for 3RR violation at Heathkit H11. He removed the Category:Home computers from the article four times in 24 hours. Though I offered him the chance to respond here, Wtshymanski did not take the opportunity. He has continued to edit elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Too bad I didn't respond fast enough to suit the admin. Unfortunately, real life concerns always trump Wikipedia editing.

In the article List of home computers we define it as "... in this list a "home computer" is a factory-assembled mass-marketed consumer product, usually at significantly lower cost than contemporary business computers. It would have an alphabetic keyboard and a multi-line alphanumeric display, the ability to run both games software as well as application software and user-written programs, and some removable mass storage device (such as cassette or floppy disk )." The H11 was not mass-marketed, it was sold in tiny volumes to electronics hobbyists. It was not factory assembled, it required some skill to assemble all the pieces. It didn't have an alphabetic keyboard or multi-line display - you had to buy a separate terminal for that. And it didn't come with any kind of mass storage, you had to buy separate disk drives (or a paper tape reader) for that. It certainly wasn't priced like a 1980's home computer either - by the time you put together all the pieces to make it other than a fancy light-blinker, you'd have spent as much as on a small car. But let's call it a "home computer" to suprise and delight our readers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is something that should be on the relevant article's talk page, not the 3RR noticeboard. - SudoGhost™ 22:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Straight back from your block and once again you're back to "The world is wrong and only I am right".

That's not the point. This isn't the factual accuracy board, it's the edit-warring board. The problem here isn't the question of the categorization, it's your approach in pushing one viewpoint over everything else: other editors and the references to the contrary. Despite a block, you still don't seem to realise that.

As to the home computer aspects, then none of your points here have any credibility. This was an early home computer, at a time when they were expensive toys for hobbyists. Home-assembly was common, disk mass storage wasn't, some of your points - the need for the terminal or drives to be supplied in a separate box are simply grasping at straws. As SudoGhost says though, that belongs on the article talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the whole world, and a tiny fraction of a fraction of the editors is not the whole world. I think that we had a fairly clear-cut description of machines sold as "home computers" and that the H11 doesn't meaningfully fit into that category, as described above. I will be more careful about counting reverts.

The references are to Heath ad copy; in the very next line under the fateful "the world's most powerful microcomputer comes home", we also see Heath appealing to "Computer hobbyists". So, which LINE of the advertisement supports which position? And the reason that the discussion is here is becuase I've been given ultimatims to discuss the subject here; it would make more sense to discuss article changes at article talk pages (and I'll paraphrase my point and append it to the H11 talk page), but I follow my correspondents to the forum they choose. I'm willing to hope for peace in our time. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing the content issue on Talk:Heathkit H11 where the discussion belongs, but one aspect concerning Wtshymanski's behavior during his edit war is worth pointing out, especially since he exhibited the behavior here and not on the H11 talk page. The definition that Wtshymanski lists above as justification for his edit warring was written by none other than Wtshymanski! ( Diff ). If a newbie made the error of using one of his own edits as a reliable source, I would chalk it up to ignorance, but Wtshymanski has shown extensive knowledge of WP:RS where doing so suits his purposes.

Add to this the rather snarky comment "Too bad I didn't respond fast enough to suit the admin. Unfortunately, real life concerns always trump Wikipedia editing." Is this accurate? Admin EdJohnston asked Wtshymanski to join the discussion at the 3RR noticeboard and agree to accept consensus as to whether this is a home computer on at 18:44, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ) Wtshymansk talked about the 3RR on his talk page at 20:37, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ) and found time to edit Talk:Composition of the human body on 20:45, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), Hysteresis on 20:51, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), BNC connector on 20:59, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), Flow measurement on 20:59, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), and Hybrid integrated circuit on 21:39, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), at which point he was blocked. Clearly, if he had time to edit seven other pages after EdJohnston asked him to discuss his edit warring here, he had time to respond. Apparently when "real life concerns always trump Wikipedia editing." the concerns are rather selective about which edits get "trumped."

These recent behaviors show, once again, an ongoing pattern of insisting that he is always right, dismissing any evidence or arguments by any other editor, ignoring consensus, and gaming the system wherever possible so as to get his way without having any admin take action. I am getting really tired of dealing with the drama. I just want to improve the engineering-related articles without having to spend all my time dealing with Wtshymanski's disruption. Do I have to go to arbcom and waste many more hours that could be used to improve Wikipedia, or will some admin step up to the plate and apply a series of measured short blocks in an attempt to get him to behave? Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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:PM800 reported by User:74.138.214.5 (Result: 1 week)

Page: List of military blunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PM800 (talk · contribs)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

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

Comments:

This user has gone up to "their third revert" but they've been blocked in the past for 3RR and I really am tired of edit warring, I have no interest in doing another revert to see if they revert me again with still no discussion. I'd rather a third party step in at this point than keep this nonsense up. I am trying to remove challenged content from the article (under WP:V), as I explain in my edit summaries... PM800 is just using the default "undo" message to revert me, with no explanation ever given.

I should point out this user did a similar thing to me on several occasions last year, not giving an explanation and really not making a lot of sense with what edits of mine they reverted, for example: [10], [11]. As far as I can recall they've never explained any of these reverts. I have tried to talk to them on their talk page and in edit summaries both then and now, before bringing this issue here. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not looking to get PM800 blocked. I just want them to stop reverting me for no stated reason... I am not vandalizing the article and I shouldn't be treated like I am. If PM800 wants that line in the article they need to defend it. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Piculo reported by User:Valenciano (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]
• 5th revert: [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18] and[19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:For the last month, Piculo has become a single purpose account, intent on adding their own POV into the ETA article without references or by adding references which in no way support the POV being added. Firstly they continually added terrorist to the article, against a consensus in the article stretching back to 2004 at least, now they are adding other commentary, despite being advised on talk and on their user page that they do not have consensus for that and that they should follow WP:NPOV and WP:V. Piculo also broke WP:3RR on the 28th June. On that occasion, I gave them a pass in the hope that they would discuss changes and seek consensus.

Comments by Piculo:

I did respect the NPOV, there is not any opinion about the human rights. I did extend the page with verifiable information adding two references.

• Last modification [21]

--Piculo (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Soundwaweserb reported by User:Aircorn (Result: 72h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]
• 5th revert: [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

The fifth revert is a week after the fourth (which were all in the same day). AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kazvorpal reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Warned under ARBPIA)

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]

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

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

Comments:

Palestine, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert restriction. For more information, see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Shabazz is simply lawyering, here: Someone deleted the line, giving actual, valid reasons: Lack of references, and a word he felt PoV. I added two references, and replaced the word, with a more NPoV one. Then Shabazz comes along and reverts it with a completely unrelated objection, that it was supposedly fringe. I restored it, pointing out that nobody disputes the fact in question. Because the other reversion was a completely unrelated objection, and was fixed, this is a single reversion. If not, then anyone could censor any idea he did not like, simply by reverting with a different objection the second time, valid or no. --Kaz (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should brush up on the meaning of "revert": "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I only undid your work, whether in whole or part, one time. It would be ridiculous for this to apply to completely unrelated objections by completely unrelated users. Surely you're not claiming to be Frederico1234...--Kaz (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It occurs to me, just passing by this out of chance, that the first time the information was removed, it should perhaps have been flagged with the relevant notices, such as {{cn}}, and was seemingly only outright removed due to the sensitive nature of these pages. As such, good-faith remedying of a noted problem doesn't strike me as being as harsh as simply reverting a change, and User:Kazvorpal's first "revert" has fallen prey to misfortune—had the previous editor merely tagged the content with a template for its issues, there'd be no confusion over the definition of a revert here. Perhaps that should be considered in the outcome. GRAPPLE X 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Edits like this i.e. the first time the information was removed, are consistent with the sanctions. Editors who want to edit in a topic area covered by the sanctions shouldn't be surprised to see material deleted when they don't cite a reliable source for "for contentious or disputed assertions". Sean.hoyland - talk 20:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not denying that, it's abundantly clear that that is why the removal was so sudden. My point is simply that there's an odd situation created wherein the page is governed in such a way as to create more opportunities for edits which would be considered reverts whilst simultaneously allowing for less. The very nature of why the page is given to the 1RR standard also encourages swift removal instead of slower vetting of content, so I (personally) would be very very slightly more lenient concerning edits like the first diff wherein content removed for a stated reason is reinstated with said reason resolved—had it simply just be reinstated as it stood before, obviously it would be a clear violation. GRAPPLE X 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the first diff isn't really edit warring but I guess what he probably should have done per WP:BRD was start a discussion to hammer the content out on the talk page. I probably violate the 1RR rule all over the place without even noticing so I probably shouldn't be commenting... Sean.hoyland - talk 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, had Frederic objected again, or Shabazz objected about the same thing Frederic had, discussion would have been the obvious next step, especially considering the extreme nature of the edit restrictions for "all things concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (of which I was unaware, but I probably would have moved to discussion if the same issue had remained unresolved, anyway), but Shabazz' objection was obviously a completely unrelated one. If someone adds a paragraph, and ten people revert it for ten different reasons -- truly different, each dealing with a different sentence and a completely different concept -- surely the original editor shouldn't have to treat them as all part of the same issue. If one guy wants references, another guy wants different grammar, another doesn't like a specific word, et cetera, it's not the original editor's fault if they keep reverting the whole thing. --Kaz (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The repeated additions of similar material constitute a violation of WP:1RR. I am warning Kazvorpal of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA and logging a notice in the case. The editor has made no effort to get support on the article talk page for the material that he wants to add. The Edwin Black material is not widely known but it is probably not WP:FRINGE. It is still up to the consensus of editors whether the thesis of Edwin Black's book is important enough to include in the the Palestine article. Any further reverts before consensus is found may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Francisco luz reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 1 month)

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

Previous version reverted to: Cannot provide diff, has been revdel'd due to copyvio issues

• 1st revert: Revdel'd (Editing as IP 189.73.252.190)
• 2nd revert: [Revdel'd] Edit at 5:24
• 3rd revert: [34]
• 4th revert: [35]
• 5th revert: [36]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Boleto has a discussion about this, as well as the user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Edit_War.

Comments:
User has been inserting text that is a copyright violation of [38], (example "The individual or corporate entity that issues the boleto and whose account will be credited." appears in both the article and the source), and continues to insert the material despite being warned in several different places. Regardless of the copyright issues, User:Francisco luz is in violation of WP:3RR. As for my edits, removal of copyright violations is exempt from WP:3RR.

• Result: 1 month. Continued to restore copyrighted material after a final warning. He was blocked a week for the same thing on the same article in mid-June. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lexein reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: No Violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [39]

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments: This is a strikingly lame dispute, and rather than trying to force a 3RR violation I'll bring it here directly. User: Lexein is quite determined to include some remarkably silly content about Helena Christensen being a "cheese addict" in her bio, a few months back edit warred against guideline if not policy to emphasize the claim in the article lede, and now insists that the material must remain in the article even though no one bu he defends it and at least two editors support its removal. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while discussion about subject's taste in cheese might be appropriate in an article about a chef or a food critic, it's not generally encyclopedic with regard to celebrities (or even noncelebrities). Lexein has pretty much announced his intention to edit war on this [45] and his various groundless accusations[46][47] of canvassing and other sorts of bad faith against both editors who recently removed this silliness are completely inappropriate, even given the WP:LAMEness of the substantive dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Can't block without a 3RR violation of some sort. Sorry, FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 03:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Not to put too fine a point on it, but: 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. Isn't the fact that the editor rejects the majority sentiment and declares "I won't be silent, or compliant, in the face of deletion" enough to get some scrutiny after he repeatedly adds back such disputed content without any valid backing from policy or guideline? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reality check: for all concerned, my statement, "I won't be silent, or compliant, in the face of deletion of sourced content" simply meant that I will be WP:BOLD, and won't simply let deletions of reliably sourced content go by without on-policy response by me. As an editor in good standing, my edit history shows that I'm consistently on-policy to the best of my ability and knowledge (see even old discussion conclusion). There was, and is, no declared intention of any kind to edit war.
• Intentions: I look forward to the opinions of several additional editors about the cheese paragraph. Of course, as the number of editors in discussion increases, it gets easier for me to both participate in and agree with ultimate consensus. I will abide by the larger consensus of an RfC. If an accommodation can be reached before the RfC, so much the better.

--Lexein (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:WalkerHerbertBush reported by User:Cptnono (Result: 24h)

Page: Tourism in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WalkerHerbertBush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]

There is a 1/rr in the topic area. There is a warning at the top of the page when editing so the editor has no excuse. I ignored the 1/rr violation and gave him a heads up but he decided to revert again.

I am requesting notification of ARBPIA and an admin giving him suggestions that are friendlier than I am willing to give. I will be reverting with a talk page discussion being opened but it is really not necessary since the edit looks to only be to make a point and he has already been willing to remove sourced info from another article.[51] Just to be clear: I am not assuming good faith with this new editor.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 03:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Blusts reported by Jac16888 ^Talk (Result: 1 week)

Page: Glücksgas Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 05:44, 29 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 436750737 by Jac16888 (talk)")
2. 09:39, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup */ update")
3. 09:50, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "File:Womens' World Cup Dresden 2011 USA vs North Korea Stadium 3.jpg")
4. 23:16, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "update")
5. 23:18, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437957335 by Jac16888 (talk)")
6. 23:19, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup */ ;")
7. 00:06, 6 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437960507 by Jac16888 (talk)")

• Diffs of warning: here and here

User is repeatedly adding unhelpful and unwanted information to Glücksgas Stadium, has been asked several times to stop and never responded in any way, and has been blocked once already for this just a couple of days ago —Jac16888 ^Talk 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:OpenFuture (Result: 72 hours)

Page: UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Continuation of old edit war:

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

This user was recently blocked for 24h for edit warring [57], doing the exact same revert 5 times in 24h (and several times before that). He has now done the same revert twice today already, continues to claim that his position is correct because the votes are 4-3 in his favor, even though being told about WP:POLL, and even though the discussion ended up with nobody but him defending his position. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture and two other editors are in the minority on this issue. There was a long discussion about making the change they requested and they failed to get a consensus. I have asked for their explanation for violating consensus policies and they continue to claim they have a consensus. In fact, four editors have taken the contrary position to theirs, so they are violating policy on proceeding according to consensus. I have requested protection for the page and I hope that will prevent any further vandalism from this group. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema was blocked by SarekOfVulcan for 72 hours. Kuru (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor on Tin Pei Ling, reported by La goutte de pluie (Result:Page Protected)

Page: Tin Pei Ling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 202.156.13.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 202.156.13.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 218.186.16.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]
• 5th revert: [63]

I am unable to warn the user explicitly because of the use of IP-hopping, but I have repeatedly pleaded with the user to merge in his or her desired changes; however the user insists on reverting everything, including constructive bot fixes. I have invited the user to use different forms of consensus-building, and I have offered to voluntarily revert myself on certain sections if the editor would identify the disputed sections. However, the editor rejects everything even though I have tried different ways of phrasing, and different sources, and tried making concessions and compromises.

I am an involved administrator seeking advice from another administrator on an appropriate course of action. In the past, previous people have advised to rangeblock the editor, but the editor merely skips to a different IP. I have decided to further refrain from using the tools and thus need help. I am frustrated from the lack of attention on this matter.

The user is an IP-jumper and has a past history on various noticeboards. The most recent is talk:Tin Pei Ling, also see discussion on a 3rd party User talk:Strange Passerby. In the past, this user has strong evidence of being an astroturfing editor; but the evidence is more complex.

Comments:

Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Malformed – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, the situation is kind of complex, I can't use the traditional format. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected For future reference, this kind of report belongs at WP:ANI. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Aaron Brenneman (Result:No Vio )

Page: List of Jiggy McCue books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs)

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

• [64] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 00:49, 5 July 2011
• [65] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 17:44, 5 July 2011
• [66] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 14:58, 6 July 2011
• [67] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 15:05, 6 July 2011
  • In particular, not that this was a reversion of Rcsprinter123's edit of 15:04, 6 July 2011 that had edit summary "it needs the book covers - the policy doesn't cover that." He reverts twice more without communicating with this editor, I beleive that this constitutes a violation of his editting restrictions as well as violating the policy.
• [68] (remove non-free content overuse) Latest revision as of 15:50, 6 July 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] No diffs, linking to restrictions instead: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions

Wikipedia:Fair use overuse, linked from the edit sumaries, is an essay. Wikipedia:3RR#3RR_exemptions is quite clear in that "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)," [emphasis original]. Per Wikipedia:NFLISTS#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section," [emphasis mine].

Had I seen this last week I would have blocked myself without hesitation, but I;ve unfortunately become involved enough in this that I can no longer do so. I'll be cross-posting this to ANI and request for enforcement. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The first diff provided is not a reversion. User:Rcsprinter123 also reverted the removals by Delta three times, and another user, User:MayhemMario, reverted without an edit summary. Both users made no attempts to communicate before/after their reversions unless Delta warned them on their talk pages. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Ahhh, and? Five - one = four, four > three? One /= three? How is that helpful at all, User:Eagles247? I'll not comment further on this, but I don't understand what it is you're trying to say. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I was just correcting you, since it appears you cannot use the preview button efficiently or use edit summaries civilly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that is related. Prodego ^talk 01:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Or even valid; Complaining about civility violations where a user cursed themselves out seems a little besides the point... Everyone's getting grumpy right now, it's a good time to not point grumpy at anyone (including yourself), but especially not at others. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Actually a number of them.

• At this point NFCC has obliquely referred to, at best. I don't see the common "NFCC enforcement is immune to 3RR/EW coming into play.
• Yes, this is an edit war and in all honesty should have stopped and gone to discussion at the second reversal of the bold removal. But then those reverting the bold removals should have pointed to taking the dispute to the talk page.
• WP:OVERUSE is a nice primer, but as an essay it does not provide an end if edits based on it are challenged as is the case here.
• WP:NFLISTS leaves room for inclusion of infobox images in articles like this. As a guideline a discussion on the article's talk page would be warranted.
• WP:NFCC#3a and 8 are clear about in and of themselves. And each image as used does not breach them. The sticking point is does the over all use step beyond a guideline derived from policy. Again, something to hash out on the article's talk page.
• Even stepping past that, the FURs for the images need to be updated as it seems they were moved due to a merge.

- J Greb (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment This looks like a violation to me. Reading through the WP:NFLISTS guideline, I'm not easily able to pick out the basis for this removal at all. Guidelines are guidelines for a reason, they must be interpreted with common sense. The covers are only being used once on-wiki, and they directly relate to the subject of the article. At the very least this is a topic for discussion on the article talk page and no harm is done leaving the images present while that discussion unfolds. Targetting a list of articles with high numbers of non-free images is not a substitute for per-article assessment, and insisting on one's own version while discussion is ongoing, except in cases of imminent harm, is unacceptable. That is called edit warring. Franamax (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This seems to be an extension of an ongoing conflict between Messrs Delta and Brenneman. Brenneman has been a source of criticism against Delta across several bulletin boards for several days. Since Delta has not been blocked or otherwise sanctioned at any other board, this seems like a WP:FORUMSHOP-type fishing expedition by Mr. Brenneman to get some sort of sanction to "stick" where it has not in other venues. I would highly recommend that Mr. Brenneman disengage, lest this devolve into a sort of WP:BOOMERANG sort of result, with situations such as stalking and harassment arising. You will all note that I am hardly a defender or supporter of Delta, I am a frequent critic of his, but digging out things like this, in the midst of a huge dramafest surrounding Delta at other message boards, just stinks. I would say it would be best to let the issues at the other boards work themselves out, and not try to "sneak one by" in this manner. --Jayron32 01:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

One would think that an editor so currently mired in controversy as Beta might try to avoid actions which land them onto every noticeboard available. But no, here we have a concrete case where edit-warring seems apparent. Do you feel the reversions were justified by written (or unwritten) policy? Or put another way, if I can get myself discussed at WP:ANI, does that leave me free to edit war elsewhere? I've got a whole list of updates, let me dig that out... Franamax (talk)

(ec) The suggestion of "stalking and harassment" is ridiculous, and I suggest you strike it unless you can provide evidence for it. Delta is under sanctions related to his past conduct regarding the NFC issue, and is also, yes, the subject of an overly long discussion about his current conduct regarding the NFC issue. That would seem to suggest he should be more careful about not breaking 3RR on flimsy pretexts, not that he can break it with impunity. No-one went "digging" to find this latest ugbreach of 3RR, I merely mentioned the issue briefly at the ANI sub-page when I saw Delta threatening to block an editor as part of his method of getting his own way in this edit war over an NFC issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Delta is not exempt from these problems. Its just that the matter surrounding this report seems to stink to me. I'm with you guys. I want Delta to stop edit warring, I want him to stop harrassing new users over the rather impossible-to-navigate NFCC policies, I want him to be more helpful and less obnoxious in his enforcement thereof. Still, it bothers me when I see this stuff spill all over the place. I don't see that we need to have a case here where both Delta and Mr. Brenneman cannot both be at fault for being problems here. We aren't here to decide that, because Delta is eventually blocked for 3RR violations that Mr. Brenneman's forumshopping should somehow be seen as kosher. I'd rather we kept everything in one place. I want Delta to stop too. --Jayron32 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• The 3RR exemption language is "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." Which means, if there's serious debate over whether this version of the article is NFCC-compliant, then Δ violated 3RR. It looks unquestionably non-complaint to me, and apparently it did to Δ as well. But if other editors familiar with NFCC have a good faith belief that it is compliant, then it's no longer unquestionable. So: does anyone believe this version is compliant? 28bytes (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Its about as clear cut as you can get, per item NFC is not allowed in lists. The normal is 1 or 2 group images. There has never been a OK for a file per item in a list. Feel free to read up on those discussions, and take a read though WP:OVERUSE even though it is classified as a essay it is a very good summary of policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • 28bytes, the situation is that Franamax, J Greb, and myself (and perhaps other people) are indeed questioning whether that version violates the non-free content policy. So no, it doesn't unquestionably violate it. So it is not a 3RR exemption. And my other concern is that Delta seems totally happy to defend his having broken 3RR on this, which presumably implies he will be happy to do so again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • If you follow NFCC at all you will know that this is a text book violation. Take a look at WP:OVERUSE#Q: Including one image for each character on a "List of ..." type article IS minimal use; it's one image per character! this is the exact same thing. These types of crystal clear violations of NFCC are exempt from 3RR. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, the images are not a violation of the NFCC policy. Delta's link is a controversial essay on the subject, and essays do not empower edit wars. The images arguably run afoul (and arguably do not) of the guideline section WP:NFLISTS #6, an illustrative example of images to be avoided containing advisory (not mandatory) language that non-free images used "to visually identify elements in the article" should be used "sparingly", that editors should "consider" limiting them, and that issues should be "agreed to by editor consensus" (which would seem to preclude edit warring and 3RR exceptions). By the very text of the guideline, this is not a black & white issue or a 3RR exception. It may indeed be the case that there is a consensus not captured in the guideline that articles of this type should not have images of this type. Alternately it may be the case that there is a consensus that these images should be kept. Either way, edit warring past 3RR while issuing block threats is abusive and counterproductive. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Demiurge1000: It's one thing to say you're "questioning whether that version violates the non-free content policy." But if no one's willing to stand up and say, "yes, that version is compliant", and point to something in the policies, guidelines, or precedents that backs that up, then it's not realistic to expect Δ or anyone else to think that there's a serious debate about the compliance of these types of uses. 28bytes (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Citing police would moot this. The policy (NFCC) does not cover it.
          If you can point to something that is clearly contrary to strong consensus (a guideline like NFLIST) you would have a good case for an open and closed discussion for removal, but a talk page discussion is still called for. This isn't a clear case since both sides could make valid arguments for the inclusion.
          Citing an essay, something at least 2 degrees removed from the policy, does not justify point blank removal. It does not shield or justify edit warring. It is a place to start a discusion on the article's talk page with "Based on the reasons listed here (pointing to the essay), I believe the use of the images here doesn't reach the criteria to meet NFCC policy."
          Bottom line: This is not a clear NFCC violation. Your actions are not shields. Would you be willing to engage in a discussion on the articles talk page or continue edit warring? - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
          • These fail WP:NFCC#3 minimal use, and WP:NFCC#8 they are not required to understand the topic. Both of those are grounds for removal. Ive been down this road countless times, this is a clear violation. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I would argue the opposite, that use of visual icons to identify and designate things is a requirement for understanding them. There are entire industries and schools of thought devoted to that premise, and that is what signs, logos, and cover art are all about. The guideline page has a section devoted to identification images, and the guideline is presumptively policy compliant. It says that use in lists is okay but ought to be minimized and discussed... 3RR violation is not discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You have been proven wrong time and again. just take a look the comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand_2011#3RR_violation ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
                • I hardly think a misreading of the text of the guideline page by you and a couple long-term supporters counts as being "proven wrong". If you don't think images serve to identify subjects, best take that up with the appropriate scientific and scholarly sources, that's not something that can be proven on Wikipedia talk pages. The guideline says this is a consensus matter and that multiple image use for identification purposes on lists is okay but needs to be discussed. What part of that permits edit warring? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) @28bytes: Bluntly: No one was given the chance since it devolved into an edit war. Policy is mute on exact numbers for images used in a single article. The most relevant guideline allows latitude and also lack exact number. The closes parallel - discographies IIUC - assumes sub-articles using the images to make use in the core list redundant. Unfortunately I've yet to see a similar consensus pointed to re: book series list especially one that is the resut of mass merging. What is being used is a singular, codified interpretation of how the guideline should be applied.
            Uless the essay has been upgraded to be part of NFCC (don't see that ATM), there is no shield from edit warring here and all parties involved on the article should have moved over to the talk page after the second revert of Δ's bold removals. It would have been good to see where that ended as a precedent or start for a guideline for like book lists. - J Greb (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict)With all due respect, Delta... - you've been arguing repeatedly that they're wrong due to WP:OVERUSE, an essay. That essay is an interpretation of the NFCC criteria, but NOT official policy or guideline. If it was a universally agreed to interpretation it would have been moved up to guideline or policy. That there are numerous people here disputing your interpretation of NFCC3 and 8 and pointing out that OVERUSE is merely an essay is ipso facto proof that this is not an indisputable NFCC violation. The problem here is, has been, and remains that you are substituting your own judgement and interpretation for community consensus policy, and violating both actual policy (3RR, and to the degree you overinterpret it beyond consensus, NFCC) and your particular edit restrictions. Those restrictions were carefully crafted to impress upon you, again, after you had been previously blocked dozens of times, multiply indefinitely blocked, that you need to operate within community consensus policy. And yet are back here doing it again. An essay is not an exemption criterion for 3RR. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Responding most specifically to the assertion about the other noticeboard - there is only a 50:50 support for your interpretation of the NFCC and essay on the subpage. That is, again, not unambiguous consensus that it's a NFCC policy supported reversion, and therefore fails as a 3RR exception. You keep asserting that everyone agrees with your interpretations and that the complaints all don't count, but it's almost by definition self-contradictory to assert that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use is a good read, the conclusion was one or two group files. Per item images are not acceptable. Using the existing policy the standards havent changed. This was a crystal clear violation of WP:NFLISTS and by extension WP:NFCC. Stop forum shopping and drop it, Ive had this same discussion countless time and I have been proven correct each time. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Obviously this isn't leading to a block and there is defence against 3RR for NFC disputes, I just wish beta would just use a script to list the disputed images at FFD and let a consensus take its best shot at it rather then revert warring over specific images. It would reduce the drama level considerably. Closing this now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Libstar reported by User:Shades2 (Result: No violation )

Page: Adam Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: {{userlinks|Libstar}

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

• 1st revert: [diff=438144939]
• 2nd revert: [diff=438151031]
• 3rd revert: [diff=438150111]
• 4th revert: [diff=438151031]

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

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

Comments: Attempted to resolve. No response from user. Two additional sock-puppet accounts showed up, and also reverted the same changes in an effort to avoid an edit war block.

I did not make 4 reversions as required by WP:3RR. + Shades2 resulted to attacks to warn me [69]. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Mtking (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Shades2 reported by User:LibStar (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Adam Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shades2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Despite attempt to warn for potential violation of 3RR and a separate warning for attacking me, user continued to revert to 4th revision. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and POV-pushing. CIreland (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)