Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:Torugames12 reported by User:ThomasO1989 (Result: Stale)

Page: Brain Age: Concentration Training (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Torugames12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5] Comments: User is repeatedly aadding unsourced information to the article. The IP in the first diff is the same user.

• Stale —Darkwind (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ostalocutanje reported by User:Firstlensman (Result: Stale)

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

[6]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

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

[11] [12]

Comments:

This page is for strictly Symphonic Prog artists. This user has been pushing a Space Rock (Tako) act, who've only had 2 albums, and a Crossover Prog act (Galija), who have NO recognition outside Yugoslavia. Before I rewrote this page it had entries for bands like KISS that happened to use a symphony orchestra on one album. Firstlensman (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been adding these two bands, but with reliable sources which say that these bands were symphonic rock acts. The source for Tako is Petar Janjatović's Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija 1960-2006, the most extensive work about Yugoslav rock music, I could have found more sources but I believed Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija was enough. The sources for Galija include an interview with Galija member Predrag Milosavljević, a 1980 review of their second studio album Druga plovida, and a text from Popboks magazine. Galija is not more or less recognized abroad than any other band mentioned in the "Yugoslavia" section; besides Yugoslavia, Galija saw some popularity in Eastern Europe and some attention by progressive music fans around the world. The band Tako did release only two albums, but so did The Stone Roses or Joy Division (of course, I'm not comparing the impact of Tako to these bands). Besides, the band Opus, also mentioned in the "Yugoslavia" section has released only one album, but Firstlensman doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Ostalocutanje (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you post an excerpt from your source translated into English? If it says things like "This band SOUNDS symphonic" doesn't automatically make it acceptable on this page. As I posted on the Talk page:

• Sounding symphonic is not an automatic include. We are covering a subset of Progressive Rock called Symphonic Prog. For instance, Queen and Styx are not represented here because they are considered Crossover Prog bands at best. Some of their output definitely sounds symphonic. The Neo-Progressive bands are just mentioned in passing because the Neo-Progressive movement was basically a bridge between the classic era and the new era of Symphonic Prog. But no write-ups for Neo-Progressive bands appear here. A lot of the Neo-Progressive bands definitely sounded symphonic. In both cases, the bands did not achieve the other requirements for being a Symphonic Prog band. I would recommend that Crossover Prog and Space Rock pages be developed for the bands listed above. Firstlensman (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not want to completely wipe out the Yugoslavia section of this page. Opus is a Symphonic Prog band despite only putting out one album. I did an entry for Harmonium that had only one album because it is a highly regarded Symphonic Prog work. Tako was formed from the ashes when Opus broke up. But, between the two, it's like comparing Transatlantic to Flying Colors. The only other Symphonic Prog bands that I can verify are Laza I Ipe and Zeljko Bebek (and Podium). The rest belong on other sub-genre pages. Firstlensman (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are the excerpts:

For Tako: "Symphonic rock-oriented band Tako was formed in 1975" (EX YU Rock Enciklopedija 1960-2006, page 223); "In long, mostly instrumental tracks they offered their vision of symphonic rock with jazz elements." (EX YU Rock Enciklopedija 1960-2006, about their debut album Tako, page 223)

For Galija: "In the beginning, Galija was symphonic rock, and later sailed to pop rock waters." (Predrag Milosavljević in an interview, http://aleksandararezina.blogspot.com/2010/10/galija-nasljednici-kneza-mihaila.html#more); "Symphonic rock which insists on technical virtuosity, which was reduced here to a level of naive interlude of the instruments...", "...the band's failure to lyrically fit into symphonic rock concept, which, by deafult, says nothing - because it doesn't have anything to say." (Petar Luković's review originally published in Džuboks in 1980, http://www.e-novine.com/mobile/entertainment/entertainment-tema/32314-Srebrna-galija-bez-krila.html, one should probably bare in mind that the review was unfavorable, published in, at the time, mostly New Wave-oriented magazine); "Galija not only decided to play that symphonic rock at the time when in the West it was already a subject of jokes..." (Uroš Smiljanić, "Dabogda crko rokenrol!", http://www.e-novine.com/index.php?news=21784)

• Stale - however, I'd like to remind both of you that edit warring is not acceptable even if sources are being provided. If your contributions are reverted, start a discussion - don't re-add the material. —Darkwind (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Simple bright-line breach of 3RR, against two other editors.

Note that this is not a copyvio (or BLP) or some other such clear-cut excuse that might justify ignoring 3RR. It is a removal of images of a living artist's artwork from their bio. This is a matter of opinion between editors acting in assumed good faith. We discuss such matters through talk: and there is also WP:NFCR. We do not edit war to bully one opinion over others.

The justification for removing these appears to be, "The article is about the artist not the works" Yet our clear practice is that we consider images of artworks to be of relevance when discussing a visual artist and their works.

Werieth is an account who removes NFCC-labelled media from articles. He also makes meta-edits defending such removals. He makes a great many such removals. He does not appear to make any other types of edit, other than these NFC removals. An editing rate for a relatively new account (34k since 2012) with such a narrow focus that has led to suggestions that he is the infamously banned Betacommand (talk · contribs).

Werieth's editing style is highly aggressive. He issues stern warnings "Do not re-add" [17], he templates widely and inaccurately (reverting Werieth is not "uploading an image", no matter how much it obviously offends him) and he also threatens other editors with topic bans. Past warnings for edit warring on just this issue are here: [18] There's a lot of WP:BITE at User_talk:Chriscs26, where a new editor and creator has been slapped with final warning templates on this article and an article they'd just created at Ian Scott (artist) to such a point that we're almost free of this pesky new editor already.

Werieth does not attempt to ever fix anything, no matter how trivial. Nor does he see a trivial paperwork glitch as being a reason to stop his removals. Here [19] we have " one does not have a rationale" – it does, but not formatted with a template. A constructive editor would simply do the formatting work, but Werieth instead favours deleting the image. I first encountered this editoor recently at Tweenies (see Wikipedia:Non-free_content review/Archive 38#Tweenies ) where they removed a set of character images because only a composite image would be acceptable. Again, a constructive editor would see this as a need to provide just such a composite image – but not Werieth, he just does deletions.

Other relevant talks:

• User_talk:Werieth#Images_at_Jeff_Wall
• User_talk:Werieth#Ian_Scott_.28artist.29

This (in the scope of ANEW) is just bright-line 3RR, something to which Werieth is still subject.

• I will note that Werieth has been warned about editing warning over subjective application of NFCC, which this is (I do believe his removals are correct but that's a subjective call and not an exception under 3RR). It is very difficult to support Werieth if he does not bring these to WP:NFCR where better discussion can be made (and he's done this with other pages). --MASEM (t) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has already been blocked for edit warring (a remarkable 18RR at Arts_on_the_Line), and I don't know how many other warnings there have been before or since. From his attitude towards other editors though, clearly such rules only apply to the little people and he's here to right some greater wrong instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That block was immediately removed (about 15 min later) because the remove was objective - no non-free images in tables is policy. This is far different because it is subjective, and if you go through the logs here as well as at ANI, there's plenty of times Werieth has been cautioned about unilaterally applying NFC and edit warring on the subjective criteria. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously? these personal attacks need to stop. I am not the user you accuse me of being (With zero evidence and in fact quite a bit of counter evidence, Ive uploaded 200 non-free files) Andy is just attacking me because he doesnt like the fact that I removed files from his pet article a few weeks back. Please see WP:NFCC#10c and WP:3RRNO#5 File:Jeff Wall Mimic.jpg doesnt have a rationale for that article. Werieth (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  PS the warning that I use is a standard warning ({{Uw-nonfree}}) which states However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy (my bolding) which is 100% accurate, If andy fails to actually read the notice its not my fault. Werieth (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• As a new user, who is merely attempting to contribute some articles of quality (and has begun to & intends to improve many of the articles on New Zealand artists which are sorely lacking) I found Werieth's attitude extremely rude and offputting, to the point I am considering withdrawing work and quitting wikipedia. Whether or not English is his first language I do not know, but all I have to go by is WP:NFCC, and I honestly, as a professional writer, cannot for the life of me see how the images I used do not meet those guidelines.
• That he makes comments here User_talk:Werieth#Images_at_Jeff_Wall such as "The article is about the artist not the works" & (the images)"can and is fairly easily replaced with plain text" makes me wonder, what possible interest he could have in editing articles about art, if he is so uninterested/clueless about art, and oblivious to the fact that when talking about art, visual examples (at least a few) are always be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscs26 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Andy's evaluation of Werieth is spot on. Werieth is fairly much a uni-dimensional editor: he doesn't create, write or improve articles, all he really does is delete images, and when he's challenged he gets upset, since his sole Wiki-shtick is under apparent attack, so he responds in ways such as this: edit-warring. The problem is that removal of images is a simple thing when the violation of NFCC policy is straight-forward and objectively obvious, but when it comes to a subjective evaluation of the purpose and function of images within an article, Werieth is, as pointed out in several noticeboard discussions, rather a disaster. He should really keep away from those instances, or, better yet, find some other, more productive, function to fill here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with both Andy and Ken; Werieth's behavior toward art appears to be clueless - images need to be seen and accompanied by text and context as well as fair use rationale's they need to be left alone. The other day he removed all the sculptural imagery from the Alberto Giacometti article; one of the most important sculptors of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Modernist, We didnt need all 8 non-free files in that article. It was a clear case of over use. Just because the art section of wikipedia is heavy in non-free material doesnt mean that they are correct. A limited example set is sufficient in most cases. I have not been targeting articles with just a few examples, I have been focusing on those articles with 5+ non-free files, in a lot of cases they just are not needed, or can be link to the article about the work. Werieth (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why not discuss that on the talk page - rather then just deleting the imagery. In several cases I agree with you that the imagery can be pared down and those used accompanied by relevant text...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• In a lot of cases I do, I take it to NFCR, where both sides can discuss it. Werieth (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "a clear case of over use"

So what about Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, a GA bio on a cinematographer and film director where in one undiscussed edit you removed all of the images? This is an article that has reached GA, and by implication a review of it by a large number of eyeballs. Yet again though, Werieth's single-purpose editing overrides all other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to break down every file I can, however this isnt the place to do it. GA process doesnt fully review NFCC issues. Werieth (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And you're already edit-warring [20] on that article too. No attempt at discussion, just steamroller editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Given your incompetent understanding of NFCC, and blind reverting my removal it was warranted. If you want to discuss the removals I will, but this isnt the place to do so. 16:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's "incompetent", I think you will find.

You haven't discussed this on either article talk page (you're already edit-warring similarly on the related article 10 on Ten), or where it's raised at NFCR. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You just opened the NFCR seconds before posting here, to which I have posted a fairly detailed rationale for removal. Werieth (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet there was plenty of time for you to revert me first. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:ANEW, not WP:NFCR. We shouldn't digress into whether you think Giacometti is an important artist or not, or whether bio articles on visual artists warrant illustrations of their artworks. This is about your edit warring and your bright-line breach of 3RR, nothing more.

Your edit history is single-issue and you are prepared to use bullying and edit-warring until you get your way, no matter what other editors think. OK, so at Giacometti you only had to go to 2RR before you won, but that's still edit-warring. Edit-warring is toxic: it is a powerful tool for the use of editors who don't give a damn about policy or other editors, which is exactly how you keep using it. Other editors aren't being won over to your position by the strength of your logical argument, they're merely less prepared to breach WP:EW than you are.

The more you do this (and the chronology of when you started doing it), the more I think that you really are Betacommand returned. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop with the baseless personal attacks, I am not Betacommmand, from what I have read they wouldnt ever upload non-free media because they where so pro-free content. I have and will continue to upload non-free media. I have already uploaded 200 or so files, and will continue to do so. This is your final warning if you continue to make personal attacks I will request an interaction ban. Werieth (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"baseless personal attacks"? 3RR: [21][22][23][24] - Why do you think it doesn't apply to you? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

False accusations of socking and ban evasion are personal attacks. Please actually read what I type. Werieth (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Procedural comment: concerns about socking should be raised at WP:SPI. This is the wrong forum for that kind of thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no hard evidence for any socking, but the 3RR is clear-cut and should be addressed. There are behavioural issues here that belong at AN or RFC/U too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I know I've said this about Werieth before but it is critical: you get one free (via BRD) removal of images from an article on an NFCC#3/#8 claim, both which are subjective. If as such that edit is reverted, the only appropriate next step is to open discussion, either on the talk page of the article in question or at NFCR (set up explicitly to invite broader discussion). 3RR does not excempt the enforcement of the subjective measures of NFCC, only the objective ones (like where clear free replacement is possible, #10c, or NFLISTS). Any other time, you're edit warring to enforce your opinion about NFCC. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Werieth has been the subject of edit wars, as well as reports to other noticeboards, regarding images over and over again. They have been warned on this board at least twice: [25] and [26]. If another administrator wants to unblock Werieth, they may do so without consulting with me, but from my perspective, enough is enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to address something that may be beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm going to go ahead anyway. I think it would be damn shame if User:Chriscs26 leaves Wikipedia because of this. He seems a very promising (and bold) editor, and Chris, if you're reading this, it's just bad luck that you ran into an editor like Werieth so early in your Wikipedia career. I've been here 7 years, and a good 90% of the editors I've worked with are pleasant, genial people willing to discuss matters and simply work to improve Wikipedia. Even users with whom I've had disagreements, I've become friends with after the fact. I don't doubt for one second that Werieth thinks he's doing good, but as everyone has pointed out above, it's the way he goes about it. Threatening you with a block was absurd behavior. I'm sure Andy and the others involved with this discussion would agree with me that you've been unfortunate to get such harsh treatment, and advise you to chalk it down to experience and continue editing. Bertaut (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ruby Murray reported by 98.200.208.230 (Result: Stale)

Page: Brian Souter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ruby Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Forgive me, I am using an iPad and it is.very difficult for me. This page has glitches on me several times so now I will explain Myself as fast as I can. Click the history on the Souter page and you'll see Ruby Murray has been engaging in some edit warring for months! And seriously frivolous editing. He is abusing his target. Forgive me for not sharing the links proper, I've already lost this page several times trying to do just That.

This is not retaliation or anything like that. I am just trying to report on a misguided editor who frequently engages in this kind of Misguided behavior. Sir Brian Souter page. Check recent history, the edits are legion with some pretty flimsy erroneous edits.

Again my apologies for the technical difficulties of not filling out this form as intended.

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]

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

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

• Stale. And please log in when you edit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nubia123 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked elsewhere)

Page

Kingdom of Kush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nubia123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Name */"
2. 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
3. 14:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
4. 16:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 25th Dynasty of Egypt */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

warned by another editor at [27] - before their last revert Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note, Nubia123's last diff above is not an actual revert or edit warring, and he/she has not edit warred the revert again since I warned them, so there is still some room for benefit of the doubt, unless they revert again... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it the least of his pov changes in other people's text. Technically a revert but perhaps there is still some room for doubt. His edits appeared to be aimed at removing almost every mention of Egypt from the article. I'm going to restore a bit more of his deletions. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: A brand new account, VanMills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just surfaced making the identical edits, which looks like 3RR evasion to me... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't close my own report, but this can be closed now as Nubia123 is now blocked for 72 hours for sock puppetry. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked —Darkwind (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:119.67.234.78 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

Page

Labor rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

119.67.234.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583681885 by Loriendrew (talk)"
2. 16:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 584310140 by Loriendrew (talk)"
3. 17:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "this page contains about "Labour rights" in this planet. not only in us. so no reason to strain using us type spellings. by DavidLeighEllis (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Labor rights. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned about language changes and 3RR, continues to revert ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC) User continues to revert other editors, leaving this message: "see ILO, ITUC sites how to use the word word "labour or labor" and no matter for WP:ENGVAR guidelines. so don't strain using us type spellings. just read WP:ENGVAR"--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012 reported by User:Blue Duck T (Result: no action)

Page: Haj Amin al-Husseini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28] 12:34, 1 Dec edit summary: Undid revision 583945526
2. [29] 08:00, 2 December 2013 edit summary: Undid revision 584152522

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User has many warnings for edit warring

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

Comments:

This is a page subject to a 1-revert per day limitation, as an article that is in the scope of the Arab-Isralei conflict

Blue Duck T is likely to be a NoCal100 sockpuppet by the way. The editor repeats an edit by NoCal sock GoGoTob2[30] and targets Sepsis II and Pluto2012, editors he apparently doesn't like. Typical NoCal behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is correct that I am stalked (and pursued) by NoCal100. He is also the one who reported but last time. But it is also the 2nd time I do the same "mistake" with the 1RR rule : [31] and NoCal100 is not involved in this article.

I suggest that I am blocked in compliance with the rules.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor with integrity. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Pluto. When you slip,(I presume for thinking 'yesterday' was 24 hours ago as often happens), and note it, or have it drawn to your notice, you should just revert your second edit (I refused to once and was sanctioned for the refusal, because the revert would have meant reintroducing false reportage of sources, which is different). The second edit you fixed by removing a bad edit by Ykantor: the ongoing attempt to make Husseini worse than Hitler (compare the lead of Adolf Hitler, which has managed to be neutral) is what one has come to expect of that page, but enough serious editors are there to cope with this rhetoric (I might add that the Mel Gibson page, lead and text underplays the outrageous antisemitic statements or ignores them). In the meantime I have reverted your revert, but that kind of clogging of the lead with specifics will be dealt with in the next few days. Your judgement was correct, but your timing skewed.

The plaintiff is the usual kind of sock, which while attenuating circumstances, (Pluto is constantly under fire, has been for years) does not absolve wholly. Precisely for this reason he should learn to smile, and hold off from the provocations. That article has taken so far some 7al years for us to get it into some kind of NPOV equilibrium, and will always require close surveillance. I suggest either that you voluntarily withdraw from I/P for a week, or be suspended for 2, if you prefer to let an admin handle it, though these slips are innocuous. We expect malicious gaming in there, but we should learn to raise the rigour we impose on ourselves -esp. since the IPS, SPAs, and the usual suspects flaunt their indifference to rules, and you have admitted the error. Breaks refresh, and one has in any case more time for background research. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just discovered why Nishidani reverted Pluto, while claiming that Pluto's deletion will be repeated probably. Anyway, in my opinion this edit warring is less important than Pluto's repeating pattern of cheating / telling lies as an excuse for his systematic deletions, including this specific deletion. Wikipedia apparently promote such a behavior, since Pluto is never sanctioned / warned. Ykantor (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked - while technically an ARBPIA 1RR violation did occur, blocks are preventative and not punitive; since the editor has acknowledged their error, no block is necessary at this time. I agree that taking a break from a topic can be a useful tool to regain perspective, but I see no need to impose a sanction or topic ban of any kind in this case. —Darkwind (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Tokyo2001 reported by User:Estlandia (Result: Blocked)

Page: Anton Vaino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Andrey Batychko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Anatoly Lebed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tokyo2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]

While not formally violating the 3 RR (he has reverted 3 times within 24 hours in a number of articles), it is clearly a single purpose account created for mindless edit warring against established consensus in a number of articles. Edits consist only of reverting against a number of editors [36], [37]. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] (a request at user talk page)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Probably the same person is now continuing the edit war as 69.22.169.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There is a good chance that this user is permbanned Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). --Sander Säde 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:Sephiroth storm (Result: both blocked)

Page: United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:
I added an entry to the AFOSI article reguarding an event that recently came to light. NightShift has reverted 3 times, violating the policy. I have attempted to get him to converse on the subject prior to his 3rd revert but he waited until breaking 3rr before posting on the talk page. I ask that NightShift be warned and an uninvolved editor review the situation to see if my edits are in line with Wikipedia policies and procedures, and encurage NightShift to engage in dispute resolution rather than a revert war. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently the editor doesn't understand what Warning he should be talking about. There was no 3RR warning, there was a notification of this complaint. Second, there were 3 reverts. He apparently thinks that a 3rd one is a violation. Lastly, check the times. I responded on the talk page before I reverted. He may pretend otherwise, but this editor hasn't really done much talking. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, quibbling about whether or not you were warned properly is straight-up wikilawyering. You don't need an edit war warning, Nightshift36, because you've been repeatedly blocked for it in the past, so you already know it's incorrect behavior. As for 3RR, you should also know that it doesn't take 4 reverts to be an edit war anyway. —Darkwind (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nightsift is correct that he only reverted 3 times, my claim of 3rris incorrect, which I admit with no issue, however, this was still under the purview of this noticeboard, which is used to report edit warring which can occur without 3rr being broken. My request stands, that an Nightshift be warned and that he enter into mediation. While I had no intention of mentioning this, Nightshifts tone indicates he has no intent to be civil, therefore I must also report that Nightshift may also have a conflict of interest. details are on his talk page if he has not removed them (He has. Nightshift has a logo on his talk page which identifies him as a member or former member of the US Army's Criminal Investigation Division a Federal Law Enforcement Agency similar to the one in question. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your request for mediation is premature. Again you make your baseless and uncivil allegation of a COI. There were no "details" on my talk page. There was a template and some trolling. Yes, that has been removed. Army CID is "similar", so that's your whole case for a COI? Well there is a COI noticeboard. Please, feel free to take that to the board and I'll listen for the laughter. And BTW, it's fairly uncivil to repeatedly spell an editors name incorrectly. Once or a typo is one thing. Repeated is either incivility or gross inattention to details. You can pick which applies. BTW, the complainer complainant states a lack of respect for the Army CID. I wonder how much of that plays into his decision regarding his actions towards me and my edits.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Sephiroth storm, please avoid allegations of conflict-of-interest unless you have some form of direct evidence. Many editors find such allegations offensive if not true, and persistent allegations can be considered personal attacks. —Darkwind (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked - Niteshift36 for 48 hours due to prior history, Sephiroth storm for 24 hours. See comments inline above - you have both misbehaved in this encounter. —Darkwind (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:HCPUNXKID reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: blocked)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HCPUNXKID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47] (23:59, 3 December)
2. [48] (23:42, 2 December)
3. [49] (23:01, 1 December)
4. [50] (19:42, 30 November)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Comments:

While HCPUNXKID is technically not currently in violation of the 1RR restriction on the page (by a matter of less than 20 minutes), this is blatantly edit warring. He even openly stated in a self-revert (23:31, 1 December) after I warned him of the 1RR that he intended to simply circumvent the 24-hour technicality instead of finding stronger sourcing to support his change.

Given his stated intent to push a POV and his generally hostile manner of interaction, this should be seen as part of a larger pattern of problematic editing in a highly contentious topic area. It's natural that people will lose their temper at times in such an environment (I'm certainly guilty), but there is a limit of acceptability. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Reading your link to his supposed "stated intent", it reads as if he doesn't agree with your characterization of his edits or intent. 02:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, should've given relevant context. I reverted an edit of his in which he sought to prevent a town shown as government-controlled being changed to contested. My "interpretation" that he talks about is not of his actions, but of sources. He seems to have taken that as a challenge. In any case, I'm not sure how you can talk about him disagreeing with any "characterisations" that I would have made to provoke that response without showing me where I made them first. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. @HCPUNXKID: I find this behavior extremely telling. You know about the rule and simply decide to work around it, instead of understanding the point -- which is to require discussion instead of disruption. Given your previous record of edit warring, I have blocked you for 1 week, during which time you are welcome to appeal if you can convince another admin that you will refrain from further disruption. —Darkwind (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney reported by User:Roccodrift (Result:No action; user self reverted)

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

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:
User MilesMoney has been slow motion edit-warring on this article since November 22, mostly with editors other than myself.

Concerning the most recent dispute... After 24 hours of Talk discussion involving several other editors, in which he has failed to convince others of his views, he has falsely and WP:TENDENTIOUS-ly claimed consensus and logged his 4th revert in just over 30 hours, all within the same article section. I suspect he thinks he is safe from AN3, but that's only true if he is allowed to get away with this obvious WP:GAME. Roccodrift (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting in particular, the edit summary in #4 "conforming to consensus" is less than accurate. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)03:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney has self-reverted: [59]. I don't think we need to continue this noticeboard discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The situation is resolved. Roccodrift (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked Per above clarification. Wifione ^Message 04:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Nubia123 (Result: No violation)

Page

Kingdom of Kush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:07, 3 December 2013‎‎ (UTC)
2. 14:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
3. 14:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
4. 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
5. 04:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

A group of users have been consistently and collaboratively undoing user edits and contributions to the article in favor of the material they seem to have authored. These undo (or reversion) activities are conducted by the group in a spam-style manner. As soon as I make a contribution, the material gets reverted back within only a few minutes. I tried to contribute a number of times, but in vain. One user of the group placed a 3RR warning on my Talk page today, while another reported me on the Administrators' noticeboard for nothing other than attempting to contribute.

Also, the material imposed by this group, who basically have no tolerance for other user contributions, is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. Their material is concerned with Egyptian history with very little, or no connection, to the history of the Kushite kingdom.

I find the activities of this group to be strongly abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia.

This group of users include Dougweller, Flyer22, AnomieBOT, and Til Eulenspiegel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubia123 (talk • contribs)

Do explain why their edits are "abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia" and yours are not. People who add content to Wikipedia don't get any special permission over those who remove. There is a talk page for that article that I notice you have not touched for the duration of this edit war. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a single group of users collaborating to prevent individual users from contributing with any alternative material, that is why their behavior is abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia. The group uses a single set of material. And like I said, the material forced by this group is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. It appears that the group is made up of online commercial advertisers for tourism in Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubia123 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Nubia123

You think that your edit warring is OK because multiple editors disagree with you? Do you have any evidence that these editors are "commercial advertisers for Egyptian tourism" or are you pulling that out of your ass? Read Wikipedia:Edit warring and tell me if there is an exception to edit warring for "content that Nubia123 really really thinks belongs in an article". I'm going to be very blunt here (as I have been already): You have been an editor on Wikipedia for five years, you are expected to follow the same rules as everyone else, and when people disagree with you you are supposed to follow the instructions at dispute resolution. Several editors all disagreeing with you is not a conspiracy, it is a consensus. When someone reverts your edit, your first course of action should not be to revert revert revert, accuse them of bad faith, and try to get them blocked. Your first course of action should be to contact that editor and try to understand why they disagree with you. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nubia123 decided that to counter multiple editors he/she needed multiple accounts, with the usual result. Lucky to get away with a 72 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:75.157.19.124 reported by User:Kokot.kokotisko (Result: both blocked, protected)

Page: Feathercoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.157.19.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments:

The edits of user User:75.157.19.124 contain personal opinions and are worded so as to disparage Feathercoin and its creator. The edit comments contain emotional ad hominem statements.

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Also protected due to possible sockpuppetry exacerbating the dispute. You are both edit warring and (in my opinion) POV-pushing. Neither version of the article is neutral; I strongly suggest opening a talk page discussion or DRN thread. —Darkwind (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:86.154.204.73 reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: protected and blocked)

Page: Wallis Simpson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.154.204.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]
5. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73][74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wallis Simpson; User talk:DrKiernan#Wallis Simpson. Previous talk page discussion from some years ago at Talk:Wallis Simpson#Her Grace or Royal Highness?.

Comments:

• Page protected by another admin, Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Asiaten-Kenner reported by IIIraute (talk) (Result: blocked)

Page: Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Asiaten-Kenner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 17:12, 3 December 2013 (edit summary: "after discussion in de.wiki: there is no national motto; no gov page cited; and it is not a shame that Germany has no national motto")
2. 17:28, 3 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 584391302 by IIIraute (talk) no citation for that")
3. 17:35, 3 December 2013 (edit summary: "there is no national motto, hard to understand? don't spread lies to the world")
4. 17:41, 3 December 2013 (edit summary: "so you confirmed, there is no national motto")
5. 03:15, 4 December 2013 (edit summary: "non sense and no consensus")
6. 12:49, 4 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 584508697 by Horst-schlaemma (talk) simply no consensus in the discussion page")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75],[76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77],[78],[79]

Comments:The user continually reverts long-standing, sourced content without having reached consensus on the talk page.

--IIIraute (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 3RR violation followed by another revert the following day. —Darkwind (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:66.176.74.117 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: blocked)

Page: Colon cleansing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.176.74.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85]
6. [86]
7. [87]
8. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:AOnline (Result: sanctioned)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [93]

Comments:

It's not his first action. He already warned by User:Bbb23 few weeks ago. I also tried to warn him several times but seems like he doesn't have intention to stop. AOnline (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for bright-line rule violation. Furthermore, under the Syrian Civil War general sanctions, Sopher99 (t c) is officially topic banned from any pages relating to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, for two weeks effective immediately. —Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Rauzaruku reported by User:Legionarius (Result: both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96],[97]...and others.

Comments: Content dispute getting out of hand. Active RFC here

Legionarius (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This user is doing pure vandalism since I've started to edit Arena Corinthians, "his" article. He is erasing all my contributions, and all my sources, claiming, without foundation, that all sources are unreliable and that everything is speculation, when it's a lie: I've related very reliable sources, very important personal statements and documented facts, but he insists to say that nothing serves to "his" article. And now he says that "we need a consensus" but his consensus is: erase all what I've did and block me. Do a favor for Wikipedia and block this guy. Rauzaruku (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours for egregious edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Michael Reed 1975 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: blocked)

Page: Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael Reed 1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]
4. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103] and edit summary here [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Comments: User:Michael Reed 1975 continues to insert content from a book he has written despite being reverted by multiple editors and a consensus not yet being reached on the talk page. Bahooka (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 5 reverts on this page within 24 hour period. —Darkwind (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Ariskar (Result: duplicate)

Page:  
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [changed to previous version according to POV, no source provided, rude comments]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]

(1RR Article)Ariskar (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments:

The user Sopher99 was warned for edit warring and 1RR violations on: 18 September 2013 and was blocked temporarily on 11 October 2013. He provides rude and insulting comments on editing. Promotes POV over direct objective source editing. Violated 1RR on the specific article tens of times over the last 2 months. There is a WP:CONSENSUS case on the talk page that he should be banned/blocked from the article [110]Ariskar (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This report is the result of multiple repeated 1RR violations and article vandalism by the user and not only the case presented.Ariskar (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked - this was already reported above and has been resolved. —Darkwind (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiril Simeonovski reported by User:Taivo (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Serbo-Croatian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiril Simeonovski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]
5. [116]
6. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [118] previous warning which resulted in block
• [119] current warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:

Reported editor persistently edits against consensus and the principles of WP:BRD. Instead of being bold, getting reverted, and then building a consensus before editing again, he edits, gets reverted, then edits again insisting that his edit remain in place until he is proven wrong. The reported editor should be severely restricted from editing in Balkan-related subjects per existing sanctions and administrator discretion. --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You didn't show me where, when and by whom the consensus was reached. All the time you were trying to wave a non-existing consensus even though I made a thorough examination of the archived threads on the discussion page. Please provide link to that discussion and I will voluntarily agree to be blocked indefinetely. Else, it's highly inappropriate to use words of mouth and insinuations against me to illustrate your point. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia process is crystal clear, Kiril, in WP:BRD. You make an edit. Then if someone reverts your edit you go to the Talk Page and build a consensus for your edit. If you can build a consensus, then you make your edit again. If you cannot build a consensus, then you leave the article alone. You have violated that process repeatedly by continuing to make your edit even after you have been reverted by multiple editors. You have not built a consensus for your edit and simply keep insisting that we prove you wrong before you will leave the article alone. We don't have to prove you wrong. You have to build a consensus before your edit stands. It's a simple process, but you have violated the process over and over and over again. --Taivo (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. User was previously blocked in October. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Iranzamin-Iranzamin reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: Article protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122]
2. [123]
3. [124]
4. [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Madai#Madai.2C_Mitanni.2C_Medes

Comments:

• This new user has been relentlessly blanking the same referenced information from Madai and has done so four times in the last 24 hours. I admit I have been nearly as aggressive in restoring the referenced information but have carefully avoided crossing 3RR. This is all while the most surreal discussion is ongoing at Talk:Madai where he says the information is wrong because he just knows it is, despite several reliable sources being found for it, he insists he is right and they are all wrong and he absolutely refuses to provide any source for his pov or even understand why he should need one. Pointing him to our policy pages like VER, RS and OR has been fruitless. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This "old" user reverted my edit 3 times and actually 4 times. Because he do the same thing and just because avoid the 3RR he used"edit" section instead of "undo". He deleted the map that I added without any reason. I tried to reach a consensus with him for 5 hours! I've talked too much on talk page. You can see everything there. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: You do not know my sex. Therefore you cannot call me as "he". Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This user also trying to show my arguments that including the Torah is just my POV. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Note - I have full protected the article for 24 hrs. The two above have been arguing and warring back and forth on talk and edit warring the article for about 2 weeks; Til does not have clean hands here, a third opinion or uninvolved admin should have been sought earlier. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I was on the verge of doing just that, when the warring crossed into 4RR territory! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This user also trying to show my arguments that including the Torah is just my POV. Despite the sources I've shown him and even despite the Mitanni and Medes articles he continue to say that all of these are my POV. It is ridiculaous. He is doing this beause he is not objective. His last change-actually revert- on the article has one aim: To have a reason to comlain me here. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Mr Georgewilliamherbert. We need the third opinion or uninvolved admin. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Katcheic reported by User:Tco03displays (Result: Blocked for 12 hours)

Page

Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Katcheic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC) "Restore the sources after vandalise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 17:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 04:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Read the countries (copied from my talk page)--Tco03displays (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC) */"
2. 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Read the countries (copied from my talk page)--Tco03displays (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC) */"
3. 04:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources */ new section"
4. 04:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources */"
5. 04:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources */"
6. 04:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources */"

Comments:

User ignores rules on primary sources and adds information that is not supported by sources. User has been informed repeatedly why this should be avoided. User also exaggerates intentionally reactions on this event; based on unreliable sources, while s/he had vandalized Murder of Pavlos Fyssas and the information added there in regards to reactions that are based on secondary sources. The two events are interlinked politically, and I suspect that the user is trying to promote propaganda/misinformation for political purposes. Please refer to Talk:Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office and Talk:Murder of Pavlos Fyssas. I have tried to avoid reporting all these days by talking to him/her on his talkpage, on my talkpage and on the relavent articles talkpages. S/he keeps ignoring me and I cannot find a response that can form a basis for co-operation. The reason I have reported so few edits by the user is because the article has been moved repeatedly the last few days to different named pages. The problem however has been going on from the first day. Tco03displays (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Further comments: The user has again reverted my edit. I will not edit it again until a response is given here to avoid an edit war over the article. The article has also been suggested for merging with Terrorism in Greece and discussion is undergoing in the talkpage. The majority of editors has expressed a view in favor of merging and a possible consensus might be reached in the following days. Maybe it would be wise for the page to be protected until a decision on merging is reached, to avoid further edit wars and edits with political implications in them by unknown or newly created users. Please refer to the talk pages mentioned above in order to further understand the political implications of the article and the edits that have been going on. I believe this is a serious issue, because non-Greek speakers do not have up to date information on Greek politics of the far right, making Wikipedia an important source of information - this is precisely why Wikipedia can be exploited by people with political motives to affect the views of people outside Grrece on the Golden Dawn party and its international and local support. --Tco03displays (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User had been warned before the last edit as well: User_talk:Katcheic#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion--Tco03displays (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Given the failure to engage in discussion even after the talk page warnings and the second being created on the talk page. There seem to be be a few interested users on the talk page, so I hope that they will contribute to the discussion about the content in question. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F reported by User:Shudde (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Rugby union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [128]
2. [129]
3. [130]
4. [131]
5. [132]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Comments:

The anon has repeatedly removed sourced information from the article. Has been warned to resist edit warring, and two messages have been left on their talk page but has continued doing so over a 36-hour period. A discussion was started at Talk:Rugby union#Removal of referenced content regarding the edits, but the user has simply dismissed the discussion and continued removing content. A clear consensus has been reached that the material is sourced, verifiable, and uncontroversial, and therefore should remain. Despite this the removal of content and edit warring has continued. I'd prefer a block than to semi-protect the page as the user does not seem to be IP hopping. – Shudde ^talk 08:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours: clear violation of the 3 revert rule. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 reported by User:Dovid (Result: Warned)

Page: Ovadia Yosef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [135]

Here is a straight list of Avaya1's revert difs form the last month, followed by mine. A detailed explanation follows showing the sequence of events and what I have tried to do to end the warring:

1. 21 Nov 15:28 - deleted an introduction to a section
2. 21 Nov 15:32 - deleted an introductory comment to a quote, not justified by # 1 Dec 15:24
3. 1 Dec 15:25
4. 2 Dec 13:47

Mine:

1. 10 Nov Not related to Avaya1; Arabic name was spelled inconsistently
2. Nov 15 Not related to Avaya1; removed a non-RS (source is a WP article)
3. Nov 18 Not realted to Avaya1; mistaken reversion, corrected by another editor
4. Nov 20 Not related to Avaya1; undid vandalism
5. Nov 20 Not related to Avaya1. Formatting only, no content.
6. Nov 22 Many small copyedits, I don't think any constituted reversion, but can't be sure
7. Nov 22 Reverted Avaya1 #1 and #2
8. Dec 1 Reverted Avaya1 #3 and #4

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ovadia_Yosef&oldid=581730140

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Avaya1#Ovadia Yosef

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: added a section on the talk page to discuss this

Comments:
Article Ovadia Yosef is currently under WP:1RR, per Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement, which is posted on its talk page. On two occasions in the last couple of weeks, Avaya1 has removed existing material twice or more in one day. Since one of the those sequences included 3 reverts within 24 hours, it also calls for a WP:3RR warning, aside from the 1RR issue.

I am not pristine, as I have also done reverts of his changes ("unreverting") in that article. I do not think they were in violation of 1RR, but they do constitute early edit warring. After two rounds of mutual reversions, and a third by revert solely by Avaya1, I elected to stop, and attempt discussion, but have been ignored. I feel the only way at this point that I can get this resolved is via outside intervention.

The first violation (1RR only):

• 21 Nov 15:28 - deleted an introduction to a section
• 21 Nov 15:32 - deleted an introductory comment to a quote, not justified by his edit summary (compare introduction to quote)

The above constitutes a violation of 1RR. I subsequently restored some of the material put some of the reverted material, and also made an unrelated edit, which did some minor copyediting throughout the article. However, it is possible that while doing the unrelated edit, I may have also changed text that Avaya had worked on. I'm uncertain about this, since Avaya made many other edits around the same time as the above 1RR, and I have not checked everyone of my changes against his. If I did, it may be an unintentional violation of 1RR by me.

Approximately 10 days after the above, Avaya1 deliberately reverted my change in two edits. This is the second violation of 1RR, and in this case, also became 3RR-eligible shortly thereafter:

• 1 Dec 15:24
• 1 Dec 15:25

Based on his edit summary, there is a legitimate copyediting question, but nonetheless, this is a revert and a violation. Even considering the copyediting issue, the revert does not seem to show good faith, but rather an attempt to protect Avaya1's previous edits. The third revert appears below, about 22.5 hours after the above two (see next bullet) constitutes "brink of 3RR."

When I saw Avaya1's two new reverts, I should have immediately turned to the talk page. Instead , I did revert the changes again. This was stupid on my part, as it should have been clear, if I had been thinking about it, that this was already considered an edit war.

Avaya1 then reverted it back again:

• 2 Dec 13:47

This was within 24 hours of both his previous two reverts, is also a 1RR violation. Further, since it is the third revert within 24 hours, it raises a 3RR warning flag.

When I saw this, I finally did the right thing, and added a section on the talk page to discuss this, {{ping}}ing Avaya1 in the entry. When Avaya1 did not respond for a few days, I went to his/her user talk page to ask him/her to discuss it. There has been no response for several days. I have deliberately avoided making further changes, so as not to perpetuate the edit war. I did not immediately report the violations, because I preferred to work them out rather than escalate this. But if Avaya1 won't respond, I either have to bow out of any editing of that article, or risk continuation of the edit war. I did not mention the 3RR issue to him, though I did mention that the article was in 1RR.

I don't think the 1RR needs to be enforced against Avaya1, unless s/he remains unresponsive, especially since the main article does not have a clear 1RR notice, though it probably should. I recommend that an admin add {{Editnotice IP 1RR}} to the main article. Currently, only the talk page has a notice.

As far as the legitimacy of my material removed by Avaya1, please see the talk page entry linked above, as well as the edit summaries for the diffs of my edits linked above. They show a clear rationale for keeping the material. You can also see his rationale in his edit summaries sometimes, though I don't think they hold up. I don't know who is more likely to consensus built, but the main point of 1RR and 3RR is to force editors to prefer discussion and consensus building over just ignoring the potential legitimacy of the other editor. Avaya1 seems uninterested in that.

Dovid (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I don't think taking action in this case would be helpful. Avaya1 hasn't edited the article for a couple of days so a block won't prevent any disruption. Protection is a possibility but given the other useful edits I'm not so sure. Maybe an article ban (for the article only) under discretionary sanctions for a relatively short period of time. But again I don't see what it's going to achieve. As a side note I've officially notified Dovid of the sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • On second thought I've warned Avaya1 to avoid this behaviour in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)