Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Rokarudi reported by User:Iadrian yu (Result: )

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

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

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

Note that some edits are made with an IP address 81.182.209.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that according to behavioral evidence, is User:Rokarudi. Per SPI report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[10], Rokarudi ignored all this except on this talk page (on his 3rd round of edits) [11] where he called on a consensus that states the usage of alternative names in the infobox (which has nothing to do here because we are not removing this names) and some personal attacks. Even now, this user avoids to talk about this problem and makes massive changes for the sole reason to change font size of the Hungarian names(to overemphasize them), even if that is against the rules(native_name usage [12]) and any other example of alternative name (Dunajská Streda, Subotica, Komárno, and many more examples).

Comments:

Sorry, but I do not have a computer with me for another 10 days, so I have to brief for the time being. There are two points here 1.) how to represent alternative names in the infobox 2.) who broke the consensus at the form of infoboxes at Transylvanian settlements having a large or majority Hungarian population? The issue 1.) may not be solved here, as there are different practices on this issue with respect to different countries of Europe, also depending on the type of Infobox and level of tolerance of the editors belonging to majority ethnic groups. The 2.) issue is simpler:

It was Iadrian yu who changed the stable version of the articles of Transylvanian settlements which was a move against the consensustreached many years ago by a great number of Romanian and Hungarian editors. See the naming discussion at the talk page of Odorheiu secuiesc at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc/Archive_1. Indeed, I made 19 changes, mostly at articles that practically I had edited myself alone (especially smaller settlements) during my active editor period. Now, I had the time to simply restore some of these articles to the consensual form Which had prevailed for a long time until to the date when Iadrian yu decided that he would change systematically the infoboxes of Transylvanian settlements. I kindly ask the revising adminisrator to pay a visit to Iadrian yu's contribution list and have a brief look at his contribution to the idea of consensus seeking on 17 DECEMBER 2011. Iadrian yu himself changed the infoboxes of not 19 but that of 150 settlements on the very same day ( in other words, the infobox of each and every settlement in the ethnically sensitive, Harghita, Covasna ans Mures, the so-called Székely or Szekler counties ). The only reason this was not reverted by anyone seems to be that there are no remaining active editors at the relevent articles. How can Iadrian yu report someone in such a hypocritical way for making 19 ediits when he himself upturned consensus by making 150 changes on the same day pushing his POV that Roumanian place names must be indicated with bigger fonts than alternative names. Kind regards (Rokarudi)Rokarudi (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t want to repeat anything I already said in the report already(about the consensus Rokarudi calls upon - which only states the usage of Hungarian names in the infobox where this population makes 20%+) but I want to address Rokarudi`s latest edits, moving Hungarian names from "other_name" to "native_name" for the sole reason to increase this names in font size with no support from any consensus, wiki examples or wiki rule. Even when the "native_name" is reserved for other usage than Rokarudi uses it template native name. As I called 4 times Rokarudi to discuss this 1, 2, 3, and on his talk page 4 without success except this edit warring (You had the time to make 29 edits - including edits you did as this IP user 81.182.209.133 but not to stop and talk?). Adrian (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be a standard 3RR report. Given that this page requires the reporter to provide 4 reverts that took place on a single page within a 24 hour period. However, there are 9 reverts here that took place on 4 different articles, and neither the reported party ,nor any of the articles that was subject of an edit war falls under 1RR restriction. Furthermore, the reporter also participated in edit wars, and the reported party is also willing to discuss edits.--Nmate (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you conclusion. Technically, I did participated in an edit war since I reverted his edits, but if you analyze it, from the beginning I was ready to talk (and prevent any edit warring) which can be noticed by the time stamps of my comment while the other party simply engaged in continuant edit warring. Also you can notice that I was acting based on wiki rule and other examples while the reported party acted based on what? I don`t believe that is the same edit warring on my behalf. After all, this is why I have written this report, because the other party engages in edit wars without a hint of discussion. I also disagree with your conclusion that the reported party is willing to talk. Why did`t he so far? As I called 4 times Rokarudi to discuss this 1, 2, 3, and on his talk page 4 without success. He had the time to make 29 edits - including edits he did as this IP user 81.182.209.133 but not to stop and talk? I can imagine that Rokarudi followed the WP:BRD, but where is the most important part? Discussion? Adrian (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He also continued his edits despite this report and calls for discussion [13]. Adrian (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this does not seem to be a standard 3RR report that requires more than 3 reverts on a single article within a 24 hour period and hence I suggest to the reviewer administrator closing it with a summary of "no violation". The maximum that can be achieved with this report is that that Rokarudi be reminded of being more active in talk- page discussions to resolve the problem with Iadrian yu.--Nmate (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t think this is a good idea what you are suggesting (and if in 10 days this continues). There was more than a few opportunity to discuss all this. Let`s see if the administrators agree with your reasoning. Adrian (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one, Rokarudi does appear to have edit-warred on Târgu Mureș, at least in slow-moving fashion. For another, what is troubling here is not so much the technical details of what he did, but the pattern of mass reverts (BRD, I suppose) coupled with refusal to engage in discussion or see the other side. I truly hope for his own sake that he adopts a more conciliatory attitude when he comes back.
As to the substantive matter at hand. "Native name" is for localities that have one name in English, and one in the country's national language: Bucharest, Belgrade, Rome, Vienna, etc. It is not for localities that have one name in the official language and one in a recognized minority language, which is what we are discussing here. Even if, hypothetically, Hungarian speakers are native to, say, Vlăhița and Romanian is in practice a second language there, we are dealing with a situation where Vlăhița is the official, internationally recognized name, and Szentegyháza a locally official name in a minority language, an "other name" if you prefer. Yes, the font is smaller in this case, but I trust we're all mature individuals with bigger concerns than font size.
I urge that at the very least, the closing administrator admonish Rokarudi for willful misinterpretation and disinclination to dialogue. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tasketz Kayo reported by User:Chubbles (Result: )

Loathe as I am to have to resort to seeking administrator attention for anything, and as petty and minimally important as the subject matter really is, I'm at my wit's end with User:Tasketz Kayo. We are currently bickering over the status of discography sections of may Anticon musical artists. I am not reporting a 3RR violation, but rather a persistent matter of edit warring, tendentious editing, and lackluster attempt to seek consensus.

This began at Bracken (band), where Kayo added some information to the prose of the article and removed some info from the discography. I followed this by simply restoring the removed info to the discography. Kayo reverted me, stating that it wasn't necessary to do what I did. He cited a guideline in doing so, which states the information in question is optional to include. I responded by restoring the edit and noting that it is neither prohibited nor discouraged, citing another discographical guideline (which I had advocated for last year) which states that the information may be included when germane. Kayo reverted again, saying the pages should look like other Anticon artist discographies.

As it turns out, many Anticon artists have minimally informational discographies, and so I left a note on the Bracken talk page that I did not wish to continue with an edit war and that I didn't see any good reason to exclude this information, and good reasons to include it. I stated that I would be happy to fix up other Anticon discographies, and then did so for about a dozen pages, including artists who had released material on several different labels (e.g., [14].) Kayo reverted them all the next time he logged in, stating again that it wasn't necessary. He responded on the Bracken talk page, and I waited four days while we discussed the matter on Bracken's talk page before taking further action. That discussion proved minimally useful. Kayo said since it wasn't required, there was no need to include it, and he seemed to think it was aesthetically somewhat unpleasing; I offered to add tables to clean up the presentation. I also went to the talk page of the guideline he cited and asked for input on wording; it hasn't attracted any notice yet.

During the discussion on the Bracken page, I tried to be even-handed and helpful, though perhaps I got a little WP:BITEy at times (at the time this started, his account was only a week old), and he may not even understand the whole discussion/consensus idea, or edit-warring. I'll own up to being a little peevish at points in this discussion. Still, I felt my hackles raise a little bit when he ordered me around, saying things like "I want you to create more articles for the albums" ([15]) and "You had better not be persistent to add label and release date." ([16]) In the end, I told him I would be persistent, as I had consistently been making improvements to the articles and he was blocking me from doing so. As I said I would, I made tables for several artist discographies, which I think vastly improved presentation of the information, and included new material at times, such as dates of release ([17], [18], [19]). Kayo again reverted them all.

He spoke once again on the Bracken talk page ([20]), saying the information was better included in prose than in a discography. I couldn't agree less, and was incensed that my good-faith improvements to the article have been so casually dismissed; I responded, restored my edits, and came here.

I don't believe I'm being trolled here; Kayo may be new (or he may be not), but he is doing at least some good work, creating album articles and linking them between artists. I have done nothing to prevent him from that work, and I hope he continues it. But he has persistently, over the past week, unilaterally prevented me from improving the articles as well, and I would like this to stop. So, here I am. This is a pathetically trivial thing to have a lame edit war over, and I understand if this ends up seeming de minimis to most others, but it's become so frustrating that I can't see any other way to resolve it. Chubbles (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: immediately after I posted this, Kayo has gone through and summarily reverted everything I've just done, again. For example, [21], and in this case the claim he makes in the edit summary is false, as the discographical info is not available in the article's prose summary or anywhere else on the page. Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also previous discussion on Template talk:Anticon - I kinda find that Kayo's edits start immediately upon the semi-protection of the template a little suspicious, and he's resumed doing the same thing that the anon revolving IP editor was doing to that navbox - adding artists with only the most ephemeral connection to Anticon against consensus. Kaini (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a long revert war on the Clouddead page between a series of IPs, pretty clearly one person (and a very angry one at that), and several editors who'd come to a consensus on the use of the Anticon template. Soon after it "ended", Kayo picked up the baton exactly where the IPs left off; see this series of edits: [22], [23], [24]. I'm not the only one Kayo's "My way or the highway" style has irritated, I guess. Also, if he is the same as the anon IPs who went on a revert spree on the Anticon pages last/earlier-this month, he's already been blocked for it after a previous complaint here. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Genghis Tron for more of the same, too. Kaini (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped that getting the Genghis Tron article and Template:Anticon semi-protected would encourage the anonymous IP to register an account, from which they might edit in a more collaborative way. Unfortunately, Tasketz Kayo's wholesale reverting on three occasions of a dozen or so of User:Chubbles article edits shows that their conduct towards other users has not improved one bit. memphisto 17:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Kahastok (Result: 168h )

Previous version reverted to: [25]

1st revert: [26]
2nd revert: [27]
3rd revert: [28]
4th revert: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Comments:

Edits have been identified as vandalism by some.

Editor has also recently been warned for edit warring at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (where s/he has broken 3RR in the last few days) and at Sophie, Princess of Prussia (highest recent rate was 3 reverts in 30 hours). Page links:

Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sophie, Princess of Prussia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Kahastok talk 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"identified as vandalism by some". Deliberately falsely marked as vandalism. By the same editor who warned me for edit warring because I added a source to the article. A source I added because he complained about an edit being unsourced. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has a history of repeated aggressive editing, which they invariably refuse to discuss on the relevant Talk pages, often going straight to spurious RFCs or other administrative measures. Either that, or they leave offensive messages (e.g. [31] [32]). A check of the IP's Talk page history shows a pattern of vandalism warnings, which they immediately delete and issue counter-warnings. So much smoke, but no fire? About time their wings were clipped. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:128.83.244.249 reported by User:Cassianto (Result: 168h)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

1st revert: [34]
2nd revert: [35]
3rd revert: [36]
4th revert: [37]
5th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39] [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:

A clear breach of WP:ELNO, this user has ignored all attempts to resolve the matter on the talk page of both the article and there own. The page was protected for a few days as per a request by Lobo512 but the persistance in adding a fan site to Joan Crawford is continuing. The site in question The Best of Everything: A Joan Crawford Encyclopedia is an obvious fansite and it's inclusion is a breach of WP:FANSITE and might even be considred as spam. The site appears to be written by a fan. WP:ELNO is clear on it's rules that unless it's written by an authorized authority, such links should be avoided. As far as I can see, and other editors including Lobo512 and Pinkadelica, the site is not written or maintained by an authorised authority. User:128.83.244.249 and to some extent User:Missou2 (which may or may not be the same person) have repeatedly stated that the said link is referenced by biographers thus justifying its inclusion. Every attempt has been made to invite them to discuss thier rational and to form a discussion on the articles talk page and on there own but these attempts have been ignored. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 168 hours. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:SummerPhD reported by User:Medeis (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

1st revert: [43] removes entire section claiming material in video is not transcribed in source
2nd revert: [44] removes entire section claiming sites with primary source videos are unreliable
3rd revert: [45] removes entire section claiming there has been no discussion although I began the discussion on the talk page upon my first edit [46] and before her call for talk. [47]
4th revert: [48] Removes sources and verbatim wording from sources

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] (my warning) [50] SummerPhD's acknowledgement of the warning

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

Comments:

There is a scandal in the US because an NBC reporter presented a selectively edited news clip of pres. can. Mitt Romney, making him look the fool for an incomplete statement, but got caught when a bloog publicized the full speech.

I began the talk page discussion regarding the article edits before SummerPhD reverted the new section wholesale for the second time, insisting this was justified since there was supposedly no discussion.

In good faith I changed the wording regarding the response to Mitchell from "ridicule" and "flagrantly dishonest" to "criticism" for "misrepresentation" diff: [52] while SummerPhD reverted the section wholesale three times and then deleted the mention of misrepresentation and an invented gaffe as well as the references supporting the claim. I have remained civil and article focused the entire time.

SummerPhD's entire history has been based on an obvious POV backed up with insults and sarcasm on the talk page and reverts and deletions in the article: "foist 'scandals'", "Fox news...'they'" "OHMYGOD", "My, but you do have a creative streak" (at User:Arzel), "Great!", "Yes, it's all so clear now!", "OHMYGOD! THERE IT IS! THE SMOKING GUN! SHE @#$%ING "SHOWED" THE CLIP! Really? How, um, presenter-ish of her." "Wow! Such naked aggression! The venom! She "played" it!" You have to read between the lines here... actually, you have to get loaded up on scotch"" [complains "misrepresented" and "invented" are not in source--but see [53] ] "Before gulping down the scotch, fire up a few bowls, i guess."

There is more, such as claiming that sources such as newsmax which provide the original videoclip from NBC are unreliable and deleting the entire section, claiming that we cannot report that others have criticized mitchell because (in the Atlantic, Wash Post, NY Mag, Fox, and Huff Post) that would violate BLP, challenging me to take this edit war to admin when I had invited her to suggest alternative wording, and so on. Diffs upon request. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No violation I believe that at least some of SummerPhD's edits (particularly the earlier ones, not so sure about the last one) are exempt from the three-revert rule due to the BLP policy. That you toned down the nature of the controversial material in your last revert doesn't change the fact that the article originally, and on multiple occasions, included exaggeratory wording that was difficult to neutrally substantiate. -- tariqabjotu 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, by my "last revert" you mean my second edit of the page ever. I provided the Washington Post, The Huffington Post, Fox News, The Atlantic, and New York Magazine as sources [54] and used verbatim language from the sources for the text [55]. I also note that BLP was never mentioned as a justification for any edit in any edit summary, just objections to the source of the video of Mitchell's clip, and that BLP was only mentioned justifying removing verbatim source material saying Mitchell had been criticized in the fourth edit, not the three wholesale reverts done prior to my starting the discussion. My understanding is that edit warring is based on the behavior, such as POV editting, personal attacks, and wholesale edits without discussion, not post facto rationalizations. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the "4 reverts" shown above are #1) me removing an IP's BLP violation; #2) me removing the IP's unexplained restoration of the exact same BLP violation; #3) a duplicate of the link shown under #2; #4) Medeis adding a comment to the talk page. Also for the record, the third revision is here. Incidentally, the edit summary reads, " Removing poorly sourced contentious claim regarding a living person, per WP:BLP. Please seek consensus on the talk page and/or the BLP noticeboard BEFORE restoring." Luckily, you appeared to restore the problematic material for the third time or the IP would have had to violate 3RR to restore it. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Mike18xx reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucalyptus&oldid=498599243

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucalyptus&diff=498701546&oldid=498619461
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucalyptus&diff=498789736&oldid=498715485
3rd revert: [diff]
4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike18xx#Eucalyptus

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

Comments:

This user clearly has no intention of resolving this issue. They have removed the material without asking for references to be obtained because they have, to quote, "become convinced the claim is an apocryphal". No evidence is given for this belief nor has any request for evidence for the claim been made.

Moreover the user has become personally insulting in the discussion, accusing me of being a Nazi. Due to my family histopry I find such slander highly offensive and I feel that I can not possibly conduct a civil discourse with a user who refers to me in such a manner.

I therefore have to ask the moderators and community to resolve this. Issue.

Thank you Mark Marathon (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No violation Consider Dispute Resolution. -- tariqabjotu 15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:163.167.171.212/User:2.27.74.10 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: blocked )

Page: Monarchy of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 163.167.171.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)2.27.74.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

1st revert: [57]
2nd revert: [58]
3rd revert: [59]
4th revert: [60]
5th revert: [61]
6th revert: [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

The last two reverts are by a different IP with same geolocation as the IP for the first 4 reverts. Same edit and from the edit summaries and comments on the talk page it is clear that it is the same person. The person seems to have access to only 2 IPS so semi-protection or range block appears unnecessary for the moment. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had already semiprotected the article before seeing your post. But after looking at the history I would tend to agree with your conclusions, so have blocked both IP addresses for 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to DeCausa's comment about the number of IPs used: The individual has also edited using the IPs 2.25.186.230 (talk · contribs), 2.27.80.162 (talk · contribs), 2.27.81.7 (talk · contribs), 2.27.90.175 (talk · contribs), and possibly others. There's also evidence to suggest the person uses a known Wikipedia account. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:Collect (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

1st revert: [66] 8:03 22 June
2nd revert: [67] 10:25
3rd revert: [68] 13:00
4th revert: [69] 13:51

Similar reverts also at American Legislative Exchange Council as well

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

His response at [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Objection_to_removal_of_sourced_materialdiff

Comments:

The article falls under WP:BLP and clear statements of opinion are being reverted into the article, contrary to WP:BLP. Somedifferent stuff has reverted three times in 7 hours, which, I think, qualifies as "edit war". Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't all reverts. There appear to be ~~three~~ two reverts (multiple reverts in the same string of edits are counted as one, and, in the second string of edits, any reverts are of his previous edits), but not four, and although I agree there's has been a WP:BLP violation, it's not a clear WP:BLP violation. (Note that I'm on Collect's side as far as content is concerned; the content he wants to add is a WP:BLP violation, inadequately credited, and probably in the wrong section of the articles.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still edit warring, and he hasn't attempted to justify his edits on the talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) No violation Where do I begin? First, consecutive edits are counted as one revert, so the 08:03 and 10:25 (UTC) reverts are considered just one. I'm not sure what you think he was reverting in the edit at 13:00, and even considering the edit at 13:15 (which you didn't mention) as a revert is nitpicking. And then, on top of that, I don't see how he's gone against WP:BLP. And, clear statements of opinion are being reverted into the article? I think that's a mischaracterization. That might describe the first revert, but that doesn't seem to describe the other edits. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a clear 3rd revert, and he has gone against WP:BLP, by adding opinions about living people as if they were facts. Shall we wait for the 4th before reporting again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've stopped editing the article at this point and have posted on the article's talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:122.21.250.129 reported by User:Bazonka (Result: 31h)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

1st revert: [73]
2nd revert: [74]
3rd revert: [75]
4th revert: [76]
5th revert: [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79] (on User talk page actually)

Comments:

Today's spate of edit warring follows other attempts by the IP user (mostly on 19 June) to change the map in the article. The user never leaves an edit summary and seems unwilling to participate in discussion. Bazonka (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notified 122.21.250.129. Glrx (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* 6th revert (after filing and notice): [80]

~~Glrx (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)~~ I already added that as the 5th revert :) Bazonka (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [81]

1st revert: [82] 15:11, June 22, 2012. Removing "Mondale... wrote" and "Nichols... wrote"
2nd revert: [83] 15:32, June 22, 2012. Changed "Mondale... wrote" and "Nichols... wrote" to "Mondale... claimed" and "Nichols... claimed"
3rd revert: [84] 16:43, June 22, 2012. Changed "Mondale... wrote" to "Mondale... claimed" and restored "Nichols... claimed"
4th revert: [85] 17:19, June 22, 2012. Changed "Mondale... saying" and "Nichols... wrote" to "Mondale... claimed" and "Nichols... claimed"
5th revert: [86] 18:19, June 22, 2012. Changed "Nichols... wrote" to "Nichols... opined"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88][

Comments:

Arthur Rubin is using the WP:BLP guideline incorrectly to shield himself from violations of 3RR. He has not indicated which living persons might be harmed by Wikipedia quoting two already-published op-ed pieces in The Nation and the Star Tribune, ones connecting the prominent Koch family to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). I have told Arthur Rubin that prominent persons are covered by the BLP section linked at WP:WELLKNOWN, allowing negative comment even though it may not be to the liking of the prominent persons. Rubin's most recent reversion was directly after being warned about 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits do not remove any sources - they simply comply with the WP:BLP absolute requirements about opinions in article. That is, we must state clearly that they are opinions. In one case, the claim in the opinion piece avers that the Koch's live in Florida - the clear inference we can draw is that zero fact-checking was done on the opinion piece. Where a source is clearly "factually inaccurate" it can not be used to establish any fact (the false claim is in the same sentence used for the claim for the article), and the sentence before Arthur's revision clearly made it a claim of "fact." In such a case, WP:BLP is a strong argument for the actual excision of the claim and source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff shows a clear removal of sources. And you stated, "Where a source is clearly "factually inaccurate" - this is utter nonsense. -- The Forbes material notes their "residence". Where they "live" (i.e. spend most of their time) could be Florida, we don't know, and it's irrelevant to the content of the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple - Charles lives in Kansas, (tons of sourcing) and David in New York (ditto). AFAICT, neither Kansas not New York are actually in Florida. Collect (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That fact makes it clear that Mondale and/or Carlson have no idea what they are talking about. The ramblings of an...well I will leave it at that. Arzel (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, just provide the sources for what you claim and I'll have a look. They appear to have a home in Palm Beach, Florida. I'll try to get a source for you. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Koch lives in Florida. Charles lives in Kansas, David lives in NY. Mondale and Carlson are confused. Arzel (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no source, no source. And their place of "residence" doesn't necessarily equate to where they "live". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Charles William I will assume that you are not being pedantic about the definition of residence for this patently stupid opinion war? Arzel (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already discussed Forbes above. Have another try. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are being pedantic. Here is an option. Why not find an actual factual reliable source that makes the claim you are trying to make. Rather than using the political scare tactic by Mondale and Carlson. Arzel (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've changed the subject. Hmmm. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, can you point to the spot in BLP where there is an absolute requirement about opinion pieces? I cannot find it; I don't think it exists. Prominently published opinion pieces are not against any part of BLP. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.[4] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below. (WP:V

Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, ...WP:NOR

Op-eds, by their nature, are opinion pieces, and if they are not fact-checked, they can quite likely make misstatements of fact which means that even if publishes in a newspaper, their errancy rate is high. In the case in point, the error is found in the exact sentence being used to make a claim, making the use quite problematic. Where they make a contentious claim, their use is clearly barred by WP:BLP ab initio. Also note the long history at WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N of finding that opinion pieces should only be used for citing opinions as being held by those writing the piece, and not for claims of "fact." Cheers - I think this is reasonably dispositive. Collect (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort, but you have proven my point, that BLP does not say anything about opinion pieces. The ab initio assertion is groundless: anything not directly stated in the BLP guideline is not part of it. Arthur Rubin was mistaken in claiming BLP as a shield for his edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Op-ed pieces are opinion pieces...I have never understood by the opinion pieces should ever be misused to add (especially negative) conjecture to any article which discusses a living person. Rubin is merely enforcing BLP...no action is needed here.MONGO 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces are not mentioned at WP:BLP—the guideline says nothing about them. Are you proposing that BLP should be modified to fit your preference? Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No...proposing our articles not be misused to attack any living person, especially using sources that are opinion pieces. He didn't even removed the sources, just made it clear these sources are opinions...MONGO 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the BLP considerations, #2 is not a revert, and #4 was modified; I reverted "wrote" to "claimed" and then immediately changed it to "opined".

As for "opinion pieces", WP:NOR says opinion pieces are primary sources, and WP:BLPPRIMARY says that primary sources may rarely be used, unless discussed by secondary sources. There has been no evidence yet that it is "discussed" in secondary sources, it has been noted that another source has copied the quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, just FYI I mentioned this discussion in Talk:Political activities of the Koch family. Arthur Rubin, I would agree with you except it isn't this cut and dried. I would agree that WP:NOR could be read in the way you state but I don't think that it says so. Can you please quote the passage? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR note 3 quoted above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:House1090 reported by User:Inhakito (Result: no vio/stale)

Previous version reverted to: [498740101]

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

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

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

Comments:

(Non-administrator comment) Neither of you have gone over WP:3RR on the page you cited, but it's always good to use the talk page (and not call other peoples' good-faith edits vandalism).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gone over WP:3RR, I am just adding information and references that Inhakito keeps reverting. I have contacted him at his talk page but he ignores and removes it. Thank, House1090 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No violation, also

Stale and per Jasper. T. Canens (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magyarcsaba reported by User:208.113.229.78 (Result: no vio)

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

1st revert: [89]
2nd revert: [90]
3rd revert: [91]
4th revert: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

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. T. Canens (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crocodile2009 reported by User:Youreallycan (Result: warned/no 3RR vio)

The user added some content in this diff - the contents Neutrality was disputed and the content has been removed by three different editors with requests to move to discussion - the user has reverted all three users in an edit warring manner. He has been warned on his talkpage twice but then after those two warning he reverted again.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:
I have notified the user of this report and asked him to self revert and move to discussion of the disputed content - The user has refused my request to self revert. diff - Youreallycan 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - but I was too late. User is a "new user" who quite likely, isn;t. Collect (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the User now has has a warning note from an admin - User:EdJohnston on his talkpage and I have linked him to a few WP:Policy and guidelines/WP:BRD etc - and he appears to have backed off. I am satisfied under the circumstances with this response. - Youreallycan 16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warned by EdJohnston (talk · contribs). With respect to 3RR,

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. Drop me a note if he reverts again, and we can worry about a block - either for 3RR or for BLP. T. Canens (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in Cardinal number (Result: no vio/malformed)

Three editions on the article Cardinal number were reverted. I'm not re-reverting these.

For example, the elimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardinal_number&diff=498956670&oldid=498927213 deleted a bibliographical note:

but Deiser affirms that Cantor did not provide a precise definition of the notion of cardinal number

<

ref

>

Deiser, Oliver (2010). "On the Development of the Notion of a Cardinal Number". History and Philosophy of Logic. 31 (2): 123–143. doi:10.1080/01445340903545904. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), p. 123.

<

/ref

>

.

Deiser is considered an international authority in this topic. He write:

Although Georg Cantor had built his set theory on ordinal and cardinal numbers, he did not provide a precise definition of these notions.

This omission induces the reader to believe that definition by Cantor is satisfactory, but it is not in the opinion of all the main researchers in the area.

The same elimination deletes my warning:

This section has some inaccuracies that must be corrected

In this way the reader is induced, without any warning, to misunderstand main concepts. The justification of the elimination is silly:

First sentence should only be on talk page; second change may be accurate, but may also by synth, and IS ungrammatical.

If it is ungrammatical, because my poor English, this do not justify to induce the reader to error. I believe that the grammatical correction is trivial and it can be make by any native English speaker and do not justify to yield mistakes.

The whole historical section of the article must be rewritten. But each correction by me is reverted, and it is a useless wast of time.

And the reader must be warned that the section induces to mistakes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalcg (talk • contribs)

Your comments were removed twice by two different editors (including me). It's possible that you may have a point; however, since you are apparently unable to write coherent English, and your source is in English, it may be that you're misunderstanding the source. Is the part you're interested in available online? Also, you should try to write your comments at Talk:Cardinal number, where they might get more traction than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No violation, Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. This looks like it can be sorted out by discussion at the article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magyarcsaba reported by User:PANONIAN (Result: 48h)

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

1st revert: [94]
2nd revert: [95]
3rd revert: [96]
4th revert: [97]
5th revert: [98]
6th revert: [99]
7th revert: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]
Comments:
Note that User:Magyarcsaba has been subject to a request for sockpuppet investigation here as a user expressed a concern that Magyarcsaba might be a sockpuppet of user Rokarudi. Also, Rokarudi has already been subject to a 3RR report here on this very board as well[102]. However, In my opinion they are two different users with a somewhat similar interesting field on the grounds that Rokarudi is an established user with no blocks and hence Rokarudi has no reason for sockpuppeting.--Nmate (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael2127 reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 1 week)

Previous edit warring report is still listed further up on this very AN3 page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Michael2127_reported_by_User:Dreadstar_.28Result:_24_hours.29

Continued reverting immediately after block expired: [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104][105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:

Immediately after his block expired, User:Michael2127 has continued reverting the exact same material he was blocked for. See the original report higher on this same page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Michael2127_reported_by_User:Dreadstar_.28Result:_24_hours.29 Dreadstar ☥ 22:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. by User:Ched Davis 23:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Dreadstar ☥ 23:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Majilis reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: a 1 week hiatus )

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

1st revert: diff
2nd revert: diff
3rd revert: diff
4th revert: diff
5th revert: diff
6th refert: diff added after report posted Jim1138 (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7th revert: diff added after report posted Jim1138 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8th revert: diff added after report posted Jim1138 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has been through this before C.Fred 3RR warning Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] User talk 1 User talk 2 Al-Farabi talk

Comments:
Previously blocked. Argues that everyone else is ignoring the facts. Started edit warring soon after block lifted. argues about talk on my page Jim1138 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At best this editor has a complete lack of clue. Asks me to explain my reverts despite the fact I explain each revert in my edit summary. Never uses article talk pages except at Talk:Islam on something unrelated to Turkic people, just edit wars. I may ask for a ban. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crzyclarks reported by User:Knowz (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: -

1st revert: [107]
2nd revert: [108]
3rd revert: [109]
4th revert: [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111];also see warnings from many editors (including several administrators, it would seem) on the user's talk page: User talk:Crzyclarks

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - (See below; I haven't been involved in this)

Comments:
User:Crzyclarks is showing clear edit warrior behavior. Having been warned by many editors (including several administrators) and blocked several times for edit-warring, he returns to do the same each time, as soon as the previous block runs out, across a number of articles, countless times, edit-warring with many editors. This user has been amply warned but simply ignores each warning. In addition to edit-warring on the article given above as shown, looking at Crzyclark's contributions show that this user is edit-warring on some other articles as well simultaneously. I have encountered this user before and warned them myself a few times, yet despite this, and the warnings of others, this user continues to edit-war. This time I log in from a small wikibreak to see the multitude of edit-wars starting all over again. None of the blocks given so far (24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week) seems to have led him to rethink things and end the edit warrior behavior. Serious consideration should be given to the multiple aggravating factors as mentioned if/when an administrator takes action on this report - I make no suggestion as to what the action should be, but not even a block of 1 week seems to be enough with user. This is the most clear-cut case of an edit warrior I've ever seen. --~Knowz ^(Talk) 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second revert listed there is not a revert. I just added another sourced statistic in. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh* - not this again. As I've said before: You can't just game the system like that. Leaving aside any technical violations of 3RR (indeed I see that two administrators have told you to refrain from editing these articles preferably or at least keep to 1RR), there is still no doubt that your behavior is that of an edit warrior. --~Knowz ^(Talk) 15:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to the 3RR is not gaming the system. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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