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:Saddhiyama reported by User:Soosim (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [3]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on OR noticeboard: [5]

Comments:

• Comment - i was in the middle of a discussion on the talk page of the article when Saddhiyama decided to continue to edit the article in a disruptive and edit warring manner. just a day or two ago, the discussion of this article was started at the OR noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard (which was a good start) but, like on the talk page of the article itself, the discussion is still ongoing. and yet, s/he felt she has the right to edit the page before an outcome has been decided upon. but my main concern is the total disregard for the process, courtesy, and discussions on the talk page and the OR noticeboard. i think some sort of discipline is in order. Soosim (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - GeorgeLouis and Soosim have been told told several times now that 1RR means "1 revert rule", not "1 revision rule". As the diffs clearly show there is no reversion going on by either me or CarolMooreDC. This and the above reports are frivoulous. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• More Comment - Saddhiyama, i didn't say anything to you about 1RR. please speak about what i said. (if it wasn't clear, i will try again: you are making disruptive edits while a discussion about said edits is taking place, instead of waiting for a resolution. it is poor ettiquette, disruptive, not helpful, etc.) Soosim (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you posted this at the wrong noticeboard. But for what it's worth here is a summing up of what occurred: You objected to CarolMooreDCs original proposal of cleaning up of the article. As your discussion with her on the talk page went in circles she posted on the No original research noticeboard which is where I and a couple of other editors was made aware of the issue. CarolMooreDCs position was clearly supported on the NORN. And several editors including me posted on the talk page of the article as well (1, 2, 3) supporting CarolMooreDCs revision, as her edits was perfectly in line with WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. Instead of adressing these points, by either making an effort to find sources or suggesting rewording of problematic sections your reply was "... i think it would be good (as i have suggested already) to get some neutral editors involved", despite this issue had already been brought up at NORN with a landslide consensus against you. As it was clear that your objection at this point was nothing but stalling, I, following the lead of editors GeorgeLouis and TippyGoomba (I'm curious as to why you haven't reported those as well), made some cleaning up edits in line with the clear consensus on the NORN and on the talk page. There is still multiple issues that needs to be fixed on the article, but at least it is a start. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

why is this the wrong board? this is for edit warring. says so at the top. if you have a better place for this, then please let me know (instead of being what i perceive to be 'self-righteous' and know the answer but not share). thanks, Soosim (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence at all of edit warring, so there isn't any better place for this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Soosim finds he cannot make a policy-based argument for keeping a mass of unreferenced and even unreferenceable material so he is resorting to frivolous attacks on editors who are complying with policy. I think this needs to be the subject of his Separation barrier related complaints with proper action taken. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

really? this is not frivolous. trying to make article useful. but you have never responded to my suggestions, and instead, just move forward with editing despite a discussion taking place. all of my suggestions were policy based.Soosim (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. Soosim, stop with these reports, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

bbb23 - really? i never said there was 1RR but edit warring, which is the title of this page. why is it ok to edit an article when in the midst of an edit war and a discussion on the talk page? it appears that there is no relation, so a green light is in order, yes? Soosim (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Naturalhomes reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: No violation)

Page: John C. Maxwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Naturalhomes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Bringing attention and asking for help before 4th revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Naturalhomes#WP:3RR Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:John C. Maxwell#Too much hyping up of this person

Comments:
Editor appears to have some kind of dislike or hatred toward the subject, at least based on the editors comments on the talk page and when making changes. Multiple sources have been found to support the claim of 5 million people trained and the editor continues to delete them. When I followed the instructions through Wikipedia:Third opinion, the editor reverted the edits once again and the 3O editor backed out.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Response:
Paul McDonald has some kind of like or fondness towards the subject. This is substantiated by declaring one of the subject's books as a favourite of the editor's. The Wikipedia:Third opinion intervention made it clear that there were strict guidelines for citation which the editor has not followed. I have clearly stated that if the editor finds a citation that complies with the standard I will agree to let the statement stand. It is a rediculous notion to suggest I have a dislike or hatred for the subject. May I point out the editor is discourteous towards me but despite his rudeness I hope this matter can be successfully resolved. --Natural Homes (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

When have I ever been rude toward you? Granted, I've been somewhat apprehensive as you have been looking up personal information about me on the internet and posting it on the talk page of the article. I admit that makes me nervous.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – I recommend that neither of you revert the article again until a conclusion is reached on the talk page. User:TransporterMan has been helping on talk with the sourcing issue. User:Naturalhomes should not make any more comments about Paul McDonald's off-wiki activities and should observe the spirit of the WP:OUTING policy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MrsKrishan reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

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

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:62.150.13.66 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 hours for vandalism)

Page: Ezhavathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.150.13.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. Reporting per EW, not 3RR - they are unlikely to talk about this issue

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk because this is straight removal of sourced content. I did add a comment to the EW template on the IP's talk.

Comments:
Appears to be a static IP, so blocking may be preferable to WP:RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for vandalism. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki reported by User:Renetus (Result: GhiathArodaki blocked 72 hours; User:Alhanuty blocked 24 hours)

Page: Flag of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GhiathArodaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Flag_of_Syria#Naming_of_the_current_red-white-green_flag
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page: User_talk:GhiathArodaki#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
Although GhiathArodaki's edit war has been going on for a lot longer then the stated "previous version reverted to" and this is the second time GhiathArodaki is being reported for it in one week (previous time by User:Alhanuty) he has now clearly violated the the three-revert rule. GhiathArodaki was warned and asked to stop multiple times. He continues to change the title of the first paragraph and remove the independence flag from the gallery. He argues that he "is telling the truth" and although being right or wrong plays no role in an edit war or the 3RR it is clear that GhiathArodaki is not trying to reach a compromise and he is not trying to reflect a neutral point of view. Although GhiathArodaki is probably not intentionally vandalizing the article, his edits and english languages skills are not contributing to the quality of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renetus (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove the mandate flag from gallery, And i'm writing the truth, that what i always say, I Returned what did you suggest to me , Yiu know Allhanuty is the one who should be reported , because he is biased to the oppostion and i'm the one who making natural view, I See , terrorist in Syria and Here.GhiathArodaki (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. I blocked GhiathArodaki for 72 hours for persistent edit-warring and non-neutral, disruptive editing. I also blocked User:Alhanuty for 24 hours because, although their editing was significantly less disruptive, they violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

why didn't i got notified about this before i got blocked Alhanuty (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC) CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY DID THESE EDITERS DIDN'tGOT BLOCK FOR REVERTING, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DIREKTOR_reported_by_User:Futuretrillionaire_.28Result:_Article_Protected.29 I NEED AN EXPLAINATION FOR THIS Bbb23,right now Alhanuty (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Iloverussia reported by User:GenQuest (Result: Blocked)

Page: Park Geun-hye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iloverussia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: March 21, 2013 version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. old 1
2. old 2
3. old 3
4. and the disruption continues today...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page request for discussion before further content removal and name change. See also this from the Talk Page.

Comments: User continues to remove a cited (by The Korea Times), reliable statements (re: religious beliefs) as well as changing her Korean-style name away from western convention in the infobox only. Page is also being disrupted regularly by IPs.

GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I see a reasonable case for block, will support if WP:BLP problem is repeated. I am WP:INVOLVED. Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Note. The account has very few edits. They have not done anything since the edit warring warning, although their last edit is still in place, so it's hard to say whether they get it. There's been no breach of 3RR, although the BLP issues are troubling. I'm not taking any action at this point, although another admin may feel differently. (I see no IP issue; the article has been subject to pending changes since January 1.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

i just prevented vandaliam. that source is false report. the article was misleading.--Iloverussia (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:188.223.226.180 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

Page: Steam engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.223.226.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Steam engine is an obvious vital article for engineering. It has one article's space to give an overview of 300 years' history. Space and relevance is at a premium.

This issue is about the Quasiturbine, a recent invention. Should it have a section within the Steam engine article?

This has been discussed at length at Talk:Steam_engine#Rotary_Steam_Alternative_versus_BRASH. It was raised innocently two years ago by KVDP (talk · contribs), but rejected by a number of other editors on the grounds that there are any number of new inventions to any long-established field, but that a new invention has to demonstrate some worthwhile importance or adoption before it becomes worthy of a field's top-level article. This Quasiturbine has neither – although at WP it does have a rather spammy past.

This issue has re-appeared in the last couple of days:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29] (188.223.226.181 (talk · contribs))
2. [30] (94.193.163.197 (talk · contribs), from the same obscure ISP)
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]
6. [34]
7. [35]

These have been reverted by threefour independent editors, on much the same grounds as last time (see article talk:). There is no change to this – although the new IP has added a range of attacks on these editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Now here on my talk: too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked both IPs, which are supposedly static and coming from same provider, for 72 hours. If more pop up, we'll have to consider semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Harnad reported by User:Biruitorul (Result: Locked)

Page: Constitution of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

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

• Page protected. I've locked the article for 3 days because of the edit warring. I've reverted Harnad's changes because they are too close to the cited opinion piece and therefore violate copyright.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:70.83.160.23 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Aircraft engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.83.160.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yet another bunch of edit-warring in relation to Coandă-1910 (read the substantial talk page archives, should you care). This is an early experimental aircraft that may (but probably didn't) have had a jet engine and may (but probably didn't) make the first jet-powered flight in 1910.

Specifically, re the edit-warring here, it's about changing Aircraft engine away from a version that is supported by a fairly broad consensus. Be careful though, the details here are subtle and require some understanding of the technical details to judge them. Swapping minor terms like "jet engine" and "jet-propelled" is a highly contentious change in this scope, even if it looks trivial to the layman.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]
6. [48]

Rounded off with a series of increasingly ludicrous accusations that any editor who reverts is one of a multiple sockpuppet farm. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Sonicyouth86 reported by User:memills (Result: Protected)

Page: Evolutionary Psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]

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

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

Comments:
Sonicyouth86 added a new section to the article, which I edited for accuracy and clarity. These edits were then repeatedly reverted despite my efforts on the Talk page here to discuss the content issues related to the new material.

I added a reliably sourced new section to the article Evolutionary psychology yesterday. Memills (talk · contribs) rewrote parts of the sourced content so that the sources were misrepresented. I explained this in detail (using quotes from the relevant two sources) on the article talk page (see Talk:Evolutionary psychology#Section "Ethical implication") before partially reverting per WP:OR. It was patently obvious that the sources did not support Memills desired version but he continued to revert three times [55][56][57]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 2 days. You're both at 3 reverts, but there is an edit war happening. I've protected the page for 2 days; please use that time to discuss the issue on the talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I count 2 reverts on my part. However, I will continue efforts on the Talk page. Memills (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:FRANKDK2 reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Warned)

Page: PPL Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FRANKDK2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:FRANKDK2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:PPL_Center

Comments:
On PPL Center: repeatedly violated 3rr rule, even after warnings. does not place edit summaries, and refuses to discuss reverts. repeatedly warned on his user talk page. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I have warned the user that if they persist, they will be blocked. I almost blocked them now based on the first edit report, which was closed about 5 days ago by another admin, but in view of their editing history, it would take a fairly long block to do any good, and I didn't like the idea of imposing such a long block as a first block without a warning. As an aside, the editor has never breached WP:3RR, at least not this year (they edited the article in early 2012).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you. I realized after I had posted that he hadn't violated 3rr, but I think this was completely fair. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Futuretrillionaire (Result: Article Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of User:DIREKTOR removing my warning to him. [69] Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Comments:

This user is adding controversial material despite the ongoing discussion at the talk page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The WP:CABAL of users that WP:OWNS that article has been abusing 3RR and gaming the system for months now to WP:STONEWALL sourced changes in accordance with listed references and relevant template guidelines - most likely out of political preference and POV. Reams of text have been written in an attempt to discuss this matter, including three RfCs and a WP:DRN thread - none garnered a response. The highly-biased status quo is being enforced through bullying and organized edit-warring by the said cabal, and apparently may remain in place indefinitely.

In my defense, others and myself discussed the matter ad nauseam, only to realize that no matter the state of the sources, the changes simply "cannot be allowed" to go through. The addition is entirely sourced and is in accordance with infobox template standards as described on its own page (and implemented throughout Wikipedia). -- Director (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use stonewalling or ad nauseam as a defense because there is no "clear majority", good faith negotiations are ongoing, and there is no reaction to a "minor error" involved. Sopher99 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiikipedia is not a democracy, Sopher99 - its written based on sources. The motto of you folks - "consensus is required, citations don't matter", is not how we do things here. -- Director (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Baboon is using sources to support his edit-warring, which is absurd. No matter what sources you have, you need to discuss first.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not Futuretrillionaire. The citations you used only proves that the strike occurred, not that the conflict defines the neighboring countries as a belligerent. Sopher99 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Futuretrillionaire. Yeah, clearly you did not mean to put it so obviously. And, as I said, we discussed for weeks, well beyond the point of tedium. RfCs and DRNs were posted, which garnered no response. Even if I get blocked, as is quite likely, I'm glad to clearly show that the extreme bias of the article and its infobox is being maintained merely by a bullying WP:CABAL employing organized edit war.

@Sopher99. No, I suppose we should defer to your definitions of a "belligerent" or "participant" or whatnot? Quite plainly, the guide of the relevant template defines combatants for inclusion as "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Many reliable, mainstream sources have been cited to the explicit effect that the country has entered the conflict. The rest is empty wordplay. -- Director (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It also says "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article". There are no sources which define the Syrian civil war as being a conflict which involves Israel, particularly small border clashes. Sopher99 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Sopher and FutureTrillionaire are often opposed to each other in many of the discussions on the page. They are, in no way, colluding to push a specific point of view. Jeancey (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher. Sure, it says a lot of things. None of which justify your arbitrary removal of sourced content. There are only several distinct combatants here. Desperately wikilawyering all over that template is pretty transparent.
@Jeancey. They most certainly are. I would just like to point out that you support their position on the talkpage.

Incidentally, here are the reverts of Baboon and myself by Sopher99 and Futuretrillionaire:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]
5. [74]
6. [75]
7. [76]

-- Director (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

But we didn't break the 3 revert rule. You did. In order for you to break the 3 revert rule, logically someone else has to have been reverting as well, just not to the same extent. In fact you went on to continue to revert despite this 3rv rule report. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=546783228&oldid=546782406] Sopher99 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not consider myself supporting their position. In fact, I have yet to actually add anything that was strictly my opinion. All the stuff I have posted on the talk page came directly from articles you provided, with the exception of my interpretation of your replies to me. I personally think they should all be removed from the combatant section, and just the syrian army and the rebel factions be listed, and Iran, hezbollah, and all other nations be relegated to a supported by section. I don't think anyone else supports this, so I haven't said anything. Jeancey (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Already protected. Direktor has indeed broken 3RR here, but so has FutureTrillionaire (starting with the 21:26 edit yesterday) and Sopher99 has four reverts in 31 hours, so no-one's covering themselves in glory here. There should be plenty of time to discuss this on the talkpage now. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL WHY DID I GOT BLOCKED WHEN I WAS REVERTING Alhanuty (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC) That admin Bbb23 has blocked me for reverting,that is unfair Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me .Alhanuty (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Altrico10 reported by User:Ducknish (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Red Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altrico10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]
5. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

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

Comments:
User has consistently reverted in an attempt to maintain a setlist, ignoring the comment: "So don't change anything, or you'll be reverted. We aren't a fansite. We aren't here to list every little song change during the tour. That's what the note is for, to let readers know not every show may be in this order." Ducknish (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Locked and warned)

Page: Glengarry Glen Ross (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]
5. [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:
The editor being reported has a long history of reverting completely back to what he calls "preferred" or "accepted" versions of articles (this indicates an issue of article ownership, in my opinion). His reversion methods appear to be an abuse of a rollback feature, but I'm not sure about that. The edits he reverted several times (at the article referred to) before he reverted my edits were from an IP user. The IP user was removing a peacock term. He even made a notation on the talk page of the editor being reported about why peacocking should be removed from article page (see here: [92]) and referencing why he had removed the peacocking from the article page. The editor being reported responded by erroneously placing a vandalism warning on the IP user's talk page (seen here:[93]). He then quickly removed the IP editor's comments on his own talk page. Nothing wrong with that since it's his page, but to me, it seemed like he was just blowing the IP editor off. The edits I then made to that article were reverted. No real reason why, no attempt to discuss on the talk page of the article, nothing. In my opinion, this type of behavior is becoming a theme with this editor. Someone else edits an article the editor being reported watchlists, I edit an article the editor being reported watchlists, and bam! It gets reverted almost immediately by Gareth Griffith-Jones (the editor being reported). Warnings of edit-warring seem to mean nothing to him: he simply removes them almost as quickly as they are placed. This has happened at several film articles I've edited over the last week or so: I edit, the editor being reported (or his friends User:TheOldJacobite and User:Ring Cinema) revert everything I edited in one sweeping revert. Evidence of Gareth's friends reverting for him can be found most recently here[94] - note that as is their usual practice, no edit summary or reasoning is given, just complete reverting; no discussion on the article talk page, just complete reverting. Winkelvi (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Warned. I've locked the article for 3 days. It was either that or hand out blocks to three of the four parties involved, Gareth, Winkelvi, and the IP. The only editor who didn't breach WP:3RR was The Old Jacobite, although the templated warning they left on the IP's talk page was unwarranted. Everyone should consider themselves warned that this is not the appropriate way to handle a content dispute (and a silly one at that). If the behavior recurs after expiration of the lock, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

When the anon. editor's original unexplained edit was reverted, he should have gone to the talk page to explain his edits. Winkelvi clearly followed Gareth to the page in order to revert his edits, simply because Winkelvi has a problem with Gareth's edits in general --- Winkelvi, as he made clear above, believes Gareth, Ring Cinema, and I are in cahoots to revert his edits and basically dominate Wikipedia, which is beyond absurd. It was irresponsible of Winkelvi to encourage the IP to continue his edits rather than to discuss the matter on the talk page. All of this drama over one word --- a word I believe was justified --- but this could have been settled easily if the IP had explained his reasoning in the first place. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on the article talk page just a moment ago, I don't want to hear Winkelvi's accusations or yours, or for that matter anyone else's. Give the IP a break. Many editors would remove the word "acclaimed" from a lead as a peacock term (I have no opinion whether it belongs or doesn't in this particlar instance). The IP even tried to explain that on Gareth's talk page, and instead of a response, the IP's post was simply removed. The article talk page would have been better, but assume some good faith in all this. If you believe that Winkelvi believes in some sort of conspiracy, then take it to WP:ANI or RFC/U, but this tiny debacle was avoidable and poorly handled.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Andreasmperu and User:97.85.168.22 aka (User:Alatari) reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: )

Page: Charlie Jade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andreasmperu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 97.85.168.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Alatari (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. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102], [103]

Comments:
I stopped at 3 reverts on my IP and named accounts and offered up a final compromise. I attempted to engage with the other user who refused to engage or discuss the article. I am operating in good faith. Alatari (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just started watching that show from 2004 on Hulu and visited the Wikipedia page to see if the show would have more than one season and if it ended in a cliffhanger to see if it was even worth while getting involved. I found the information in the article lacking and attempted to add something about the cancellation status in the first sentence. I don't sign in to Wikipedia while just viewing Hulu so it was done from the IP. It's a great show and a shame that it was cancelled. Alatari (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

After my last edit, I have requested a temporary full protection, since I had no intention of continuing any edit warring. I have also explained to the user my point and he understood it. Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Gothicfilm (Result: )

Page: Planet of the Apes (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]
5. [109]
6. [110]
7. [111]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]

Comments:

Note I didn't open the Talk page discussion because the external link Nikkimaria deleted without any discussion had been there since June 4, 2010, and being an administrator I assumed she already knew the 3RR rule. I'm here primarily because Nikkimaria has no business being an administrator - she took out the same link seven times - the first four in less than four hours, despite being reverted by two editors. You should look at the article's history page [114]. I haven't had to deal with an WP:edit warring administrator before, so I'm not sure how best to handle it. She acts just like other confirmed edit warriors I've dealt with. She does what ever she wants repeatedly, apparently because she believes she is right, and has no inhibition against rolling in on a page she's never been on before and taking out material other editors have worked on and maintained for years. She comes back two days later and does exactly the same thing, only saying in her edit summary WP:ELNO, WP:ELBURDEN - the same thing she said before, after I've already pointed out to her they don't apply. That's what edit warriors do - the same thing repeatedly. This would be bad behavior from any editor. From an admin, it is appalling. It needs to be blocked.

Nikkimaria finally went to the Talk page after the seventh deletion. I said in my response there:

You are the one WP:edit warring as anyone looking at this article's history since March 22 can see. You deleted an external link that had been there since June 4, 2010 without any discussion. You then edit warred, deleting it again three more times in three hours despite being reverted by two editors, a clear violation of WP:3RR, as well as WP:Consensus and WP:DISENGAGE. As I said in my edit summary WP:External links allows for excellent resources like The Sacred Scrolls. The book cover images are obviously accurate and very useful to people interested in the Planet of the Apes novel's history. When I first saw The Sacred Scrolls page it answered questions I had about the book's different title Monkey Planet in the UK, for example. WP:ELNO says one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if this EL meets one of those types, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case, as I said in my edit summary. You had no business taking it out again after that instaed of going to this Talk page. WP:ELBURDEN says Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. As I pointed out in my next edit summary I've been here many months - you for 4 hrs in which time you've done the same thing 4 times - WP:3RR violation. You then did the same thing again four more times two days later, repeating the same thing about WP:ELNO, WP:ELBURDEN which had already been answered. That's what edit warriors do - the same thing repeatedly. Only now after all that have you come to this Talk page, and you accuse us of edit warring. One who violates WP:3RR repeatedly as you have here is a confirmed edit warrior. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Iwachiw2001 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: )

Page: New York City mayoral election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 13:52, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
2. 14:14, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
3. 14:26, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
4. 14:27, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
5. 14:31, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
6. 14:34, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
7. 14:41, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
8. 14:42, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
9. 15:11, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ spelling grammar")
10. 15:48, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ more ref")
11. 15:50, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Candidates */")
12. 15:57, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ spelling")
13. 16:02, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
14. 16:22, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ more ref")
15. 16:24, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alignment")
16. 16:46, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alphabetic listing adjustment")
17. 16:47, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alphabet move")
18. 17:48, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ ref added")
19. 17:53, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Nominee */ ref")
20. 17:58, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored partisan erased listing")
21. 18:00, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */ restored partisan removal of Walter Iwachiw candidacy")
22. 18:21, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
23. 18:38, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
24. 18:49, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored vandalism of tiller54")
25. 18:57, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */ restored link removed by partisan poltical censor")
26. 19:03, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored partisan erasure")
27. 19:05, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
28. 19:16, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ please check the http://www.nyccfb.info and look uo walter n iwachiw as candidate for Mayor of NYC 2013..do not delete {{help me}}")

—– Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC) both tiller54 and Moboshgu have engaged in erasure of the entry for my candidacy for NYC Mayor since 20 March 2013. The effect of the erasures is loss of contributions and confusion in the campaign, effectively censorship that is apparently partisan since no-one has bohered to check the nyc campaign finance board list of candidates. http://www.nyccfb.info/candidates/ look up walter n iwachiw, that should resolve the issue... I suggest thatsomeone in administation lock the page to edis and make sure that all the listed candidates for mayor are listed on wiki iwachiw2001