Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS oder 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:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Both 48h)

Page: Prospect Hill (New Haven) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 22:41, 6 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv to 381105443")
2. 04:42, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "give the other districts the appropriate emphasis")
3. 12:39, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "no, the other districts are of less importance because they are not directly related to the residential neighborhood")
4. 16:31, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "whitney avenue is not in prospect hill as is commonly known")
5. 16:37, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "refocus article")

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] No warning needed.

Past discussion:

• Talk:Prospect Hill (New Haven)#Merge discussion
• User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list#New Haven City HDs (mediated long discussion)

Comments:
Experienced edit warrior Polaron continues to combat to support his quest to merge many or all NRHP historic district articles into town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles that include any portion of them. Here, he is battling to minimize mention of three of the four historic districts in one neighborhood, and to maximize coverage of the fourth, towards arguing for merger of separate article about the fourth HD. Anyhow, he is over 3RR. His edit summaries are just dismissive. I count 4 reversions on his part; the last 2 diffs make up one, with some other small variation. —doncram (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Stale The editor being reported hasn't edited since 1704 UTC. This report was filed at 2053 UTC and the reported editor notified a minute later, over four hours since the last revert and over three since the editor's last edit. To block now would seem purely punitive, but I will leave a warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the point then. The editor is very experienced in this and pushes all limits. Usually he goes up to 3 reverts; now he is actually over 3, and you're suggesting no consequences. Why not just outright reward him, give him a medal.... --doncram (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor was subject to a six month edit restriction on not redirecting NRHP historic district articles to town/village/hamlet/neighborhood articles, but the six months is now up. And, the behavior seems to be returning. Here's another diff, Polaron simply moving/renaming, with no discussion, one of the historic district articles he dislikes. I reversed that and opened discussion at its Talk page, where another editor agrees with me, Polaron does not even bother to comment.

At Wauregan Historic District article, the exact behavior resumes: a redirect and a repeat of that redirect. We are talking, sort of, at Wauregan, Connecticut. But, the edit warring first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., and only if other editors beg and cajole will he bother to give a cryptic comment type of behavior is the main thing going on. --doncram (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I have re-opened this thread so another admin can look at it. I've also warned Polaron. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the dispute between these two gentlemen has been going on for more than a year it will probably take more than a few hours for it to be rightly judged as stale. I find the whole topic depressing, and my own past efforts to broker a solution went nowhere. The admin Acroterion has valiantly tried to serve as a mediator, but the reverts continue anyway. It is hard to think of giving escalating blocks to long-term contributors, but something like that could be the only thing that would work. Since the dispute at Prospect Hill (New Haven) is a 2-person war, blocks for both parties are deserved. (There have been even more reverts since the last one listed above). 48 hours to each might be the right thing in the present case. Doncram was blocked 24 hours on 9 August for a similar issue. If admins can't bring themselves to do anything about this, should we be recommending Arbcom? EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours to both parties. The last revert I observed was by Doncram at 01:26 on 8 September. Though the reverts do not always go back to the same version, each one removes text added by the other person. This is the sixth time a dispute between these two editors has been reported at the 3RR board. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, i did replace the material lost by P's edits again, i believe without violating 3RR myself, after the above mild reaction to my report of P's actually being over 3RR.

EdJohnston, your involvement back then, arranging for a 6 month edit restriction for Polaron, together with Acroterion's continued involvement as a mutually agreed upon, invited mediator, did help for a long time. And, there was further good development now with other editors at WikiProject Connecticut. There was a lot of progress and I was hoping not to involve Acroterion or other good editors again. But, yes, the situation is now going bad upon P resuming the same patterns of editing, ignoring hardwon consensus and/or simply removing merger tags or implementing mergers or moves, and i don't see what to do currently to manage the situation. I suppose i could just walk away too, and let P unravel all the previous agreements, but i don't like that idea. --doncram (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no argument with the blocks, as obviously the change and revert cycle does no good to anyone. But, I would like to know what people would recommend be done by Doncram instead, when Polaron wanders around changing things at his whim and to his preference which is no more and (IMO) often much less valid a view. He doesn't like stubs, but stubs ARE allowable in Wikipedia, so why is it OK for him to change them to redirects whenever he chooses, and how IS one supposed to battle an unrelenting pattern of such edits without edit warring? I seriously would like to know. I have been much less active of late in Wikipedia, in part because of such things as this. If there is a productive way to deal with the stupidity other than to watch things you and others have painstakingly built be torn to shreds by one persons whim and preference, then maybe it could be someplace to enjoy again. OK, so in some cases both viewpoints are equally valid, so isn't the procedure then for Polaron to take it to some venue and get some consensus before changing it? Or to otherwise leave it alone? He KNOWS there's going to be disagreement. And, what about cases like this first one Doncram noted, where Polaron simply moved/renamed, with no discussion, one of the historic district articles he dislikes. This particular article was one where, per the painstakingly, tediously, almost completely non-understandable to outsiders agreement they worked out that recently "expired", Doncram, in order to support separate articles, developed both to DYK eligible length, which rendered all Polaron's complaints about too-short stubs, etc. invalid. The truth seems to me to be that Polaron just doesn't want separate articles about the historic districts, for whatever reasons, while Doncram and I and I think other NRHPers (though I hesitate to speak for others), do see the value of them. I see a world of difference between the historic district (more than the history of the general area, to me, I enjoy the very specific info about EXACTLY what buildings are included, etc.) and the modern hamlet/village/CDP whatever you call them in CT. I dislike the combined articles as much as Polaron likes them. But, I don't go around looking for his work to change/redirect/rename/whatever, often seemingly just to irritate/goad some other editor. So, IS there some other way, other than to let someone like Polaron do as he pleases and shrug it off, to deal with what I see as his destructive edits? They often disrupt networks of lists and disambiguation pages and such, that mean nothing to Polaron, but are things that I and certainly Doncram have spent quite a bit of time working on in order to facilitate the growth of NRHP articles (so there won't be the many bare bones stubs and "underdeveloped" articles that some editors so enjoy criticizing). It's very disheartening to see that structure torn apart, just when you thought it might be time to actually start working on adding some of the backlog of pictures in your laptop and developing some new articles. Instead you spend your time either composing posts like these or being so annoyed and fed up with it all that when you do get some free time for the computer you play spades or solitaire or your niece's Cake Mania instead! How sad is that! Lvklock (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i am back after block expired. Thanks, actually, for the 48 hour break. It's been a relief, as Polaron was also blocked and my watchlist has not been lighting up with random attacks on CT or other NRHP historic district articles to be dealt with. I hear the message that my editing in the Prospect Hill article, in contending with Polaron's editing there, gives the impression that I was edit warring equally. I thought I was dealing reasonably with unreasonable edits pushing a certain POV, but it is not obvious enough in every one of the articles where i have been dealing with Polaron, for others called in to judge. Yes, what Lvklock said. What on earth is an editor supposed to do? I can't really get a ton of other editors interested in considering P's latest moves, in every one of the long-contended articles. Simply reverting seems appropriate in many cases, and often does attract other supporting edits which settle things down. I think i was effectively outfoxed by a master of edit-warring who works in a huge battleground, and seldom/never gets caught out. Me, as a reporter of an outright 3RR violation, and a patient Talk page user (maybe not enough in this one article's case), i get seen as not playing properly and i get blocked myself.

It happens that I have devoted a lot of time, as have other WikiProject NRHP editors, in developing up a great system of NRHP list-articles indexing, currently, 84,998 places, about 1/4 or 1/3 now having articles, the rest being redlinks. In Connecticut i eventually encountered, back in May and June 2009, Polaron having systematically replacing good redlinks by redirects to town/village/hamlet articles (actually he did much of that back in 2008, but resumed when i started bumping into these in 2009, when i was doing disambiguation work that led me to create some stub articles in Connecticut). I tried to undo some of those redirects or to create articles about the NRHP places. I encountered extreme ownership behavior from him, repeatedly redirecting rather than discussing, and generally providing no sources. I properly raised the issue and centralized discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. I opened an RFC. The majority of views, and virtually unanimous views from editors with experience writing historic district articles, is that separate NRHP hd articles are almost always appropriate as separate topics and should not be forced into town-type articles. P repeatedly escalated, doing widespread edit warring to create new redirects or new town/village/hamlet articles using just the NRHP information, throughout CT and then in other states. This was not well enough recognized as edit warring, because he would be opening new battle grounds everywhere and not just battling in old fixed articles. It was certainly gaming and battling, on a grand scale. After more conflict, I asked him to abide by a third party mediation, and he agreed, and we mutually picked Acroterion, who agreed, mostly, to do that. In a huge, long discussion at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list, we went through all of the Connecticut places and determined a treatment. Polaron was warned and given a six month edit restriction to stop redirecting NRHP places some time during that discussion. Things settled down; i worked nicely with WikiProject Connecticut editors and Polaron helped sometimes too, in developing more NRHP articles in Connecticut. Now, Polaron has resumed contentious behavior, generally going against the big long discussion agreement, and seemingly just focussing on places where he can disagree and fight for a different article structure (and never or hardly ever just building articles where his preferred article structure is in place). I believe the contention-seeking, edit-war-type behavior of his is clear to any long watcher. P has been making end-runs, moving/renaming articles, removing merger tags when there is no consensus, implementing one side of mergers, and otherwise been contending sneakily or overtly.

In the recent cases, too, I have engaged in opening Talk page discussions, in involving CT editors, and so on again constructively. Sometimes i am more abbreviated, as in my reverts of his edits at the Prospect Hill page. But, it has all been well-discussed, many times over, and his edits are generally against consensus, and mine are generally returning to consensus positions. So, to a brief observer, you might think he and i are equals, but that is not the case. Instead, he has essentially been acting again as a longterm vandal bent on destruction, and I have been essentially reverting vandalism. I would be happy to get out of this role of watching P's edits and enforcing the previous agreements. But, I don't want to simply yield the field either, for P to ride over the hard-won consensus. What can be done, in terms of more advanced administrative review, or what? I wonder if I should open an RFC/U on Polaron's behavior (in which my own behavior in attempting to control his would also be under review, i understand fully). But, a number of editors already went through thousands of edits of reviewing the behavior and working out a big compromise. I think just administrative action to punish any new provocations, in order to prevent the expansion / continuation of the same old stuff, would be more efficient. What is required for that. Honest advice wanted. --doncram (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked for "honest advice". I realize that you were not looking for advice from me. Regardless, here are a few quick bits of advice:

• Try not to view differences of opinion in terms of personalities. Try to think of differences of opinion on content as nothing more than differences of opinion, and discuss content issues on their merits.
• Try not to think of your disagreements with others as battles. Try not to think of talk-page discussions and other interactions in terms of "winning" and "losing".
• Recognize that you can't gain consensus by drowning people in words (example: the comment above).
• Try to "listen" -- to pay attention to what other people say. --Orlady (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

None of which "advice" answers the question we're asking about how to deal with Polaron. Specifically. When P makes an edit he KNOWS will be contentious and that he KNOWS there will be disagreement about without discussion and without gaining consensus how should one respond other than reverting and beginning an edit war? Lvklock (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There you go again: Assuming a priori that every time Polaron does something that Doncram disagrees with, he's doing it for the purpose of starting an edit war with Doncram. Mightn't things go better if Doncram were to consider the possibility that Polaron believes he has valid reasons for his edits? --Orlady (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:130.194.170.146 reported by User:RDBury (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Plimpton 322 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 130.194.170.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor persisted in restoring material when it was deleted as apparent OR by two experienced editors (this does not include myself). The editor seems unwilling abide by the community consensus and has attempted to carry the argument over to my user talk page.RDBury (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Plimpton 322 for three day, and started a discussion on the talk page. --Salix (talk): 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply by the IP editor

Thanks very much indeed for entering into this matter so promptly. I am very grateful to User:RDBury for reporting it.

As I have been pressing User:RDBury, I should like to learn the precise reason for the excision of this particular material. Various reasons have been given, and I have tried to address them carefully, point by point, as the reasons have changed. For example, David Eppstein first had concerns that the material might lead to conclusions about the use of Plimpton 322, then there was worry about inferences that might be drawn about the skills of the Babylonians, although such implications are already present in setting out the interpretations in the article itself. I have tried both to counter these concerns and to make the material quite explicit on this score.

I understand that Wikipedia has a policy on original research. To point this up, I have now edited the material to provide a first source, in the form of an internal link to the Wikipedia article on Difference of squares - it is this age-old trick that appositely enough provides the mathematical reconciliation between the the theses of Neugebauer and of Robson, which would seem innocent enough. But here is the rub for Wikipedia's policy. The article on Difference of squares is itself flagged and open to challenge, although somehow it survives. Could it be that when it comes to mathematics, the policy on original research and sourcing needs to be reviewed?

The objection to original research as synthesis is surely where synthesis is tendentious. It is very difficult for mathematics simpliciter, say, the difference of squares, to be tendentious. On the other hand, User: AnnekeBart gave some fine examples of tendentious synthesis and non-sequiters in seconding David Eppstein's objections. I am afraid these comments do rather make it seem that there is some underlying objection to the section quite other than that the mathematics is unsourced as mathematics at Wikipedia is wont to be, so that even if sourced the material would still be excised.

Surely it is melodramatic to describe discussions as warring. I do hope that none of you at Wikipedia feels at all embattled. I only started because I was amazed that there was not this section in your definitive article already. If I have persisted, that is because I prefer to be constructive and to try to learn exactly what objections are, especially when there is some appearance of being given the run around. If this discussion helps you come to grips with your policies on mathematics, perhaps actually removing an article such as Difference of squares, that will be all to the good. But naturally I hope that you will not do anything that makes you look foolish in a wider society.

It is likely that the material in the section under consideration can probably be sourced further, not just with internal links to Wikipedia articles, but to publications. There is a large body of material by Jens Hoeyrup that is actually cited very prominently in one of the principal references for the article, Robson's contribution to Historia Mathematica, as I have been mentioning for some time. Hoeyrup certainly discusses such tricks as taking sums and differences of two parameters and difference of squares, in the very context of Old Babylonian mathematics. But I am uncertain whether any of the editors recognise or care that Robson cites sources that can be drawn on in this way.

Do you see, there is a certain inconsistency there with, say, Difference of squares, which survives to be worked on further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Morris User: Salix alba has now weighed in on the talk page of Plimpton 322 with a travesty of what I wrote in the excised section, in the face of an explicit disclaimer that I was making any of the sort of claims he asserts. While I am naturally perturbed that he should voluntarily reveal himself as such an inattentive reader, it certainly does help explain otherwise bizarre behaviour; and I am grateful for this insight into the operation of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Menuet111 and User:MjMenuet111 reported by User:Attilios (Result: Full-protection, former account blocked)

• Temple of Caesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Menuet111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MjMenuet111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User user:Menuet111 (a sockpuppet of user:MjMenuet111) is keeping revertion of his poorly formatted version of Temple of Caesar after numerous corrections attempts, from me and user:Johnbod. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

_____________________

I call here an investigation about the behaviour of '''Attilios'''.

User '''Attilios''' here has been insulting, mobbing and threatening since August 31. And I am scared.

User '''Attilios''' is regularly insulting and threatening me and other people.

First of all user:Menuet111 is not a sockpuppet of user:MjMenuet111, but is the independet account of my brother. As you can see, we have always respected Wiki-Rules and tried to give help and improve the Common Knowledge through our professional expertise. But on August 31 '''Attilios''' started insulting us, and, then not satisfied, started mobbing and now even threatening us: I say, is this Encyclopedia editing? Is it? Really? So I opened a serious Talk discussion, but, as you can see, '''Attilios''' just keeps insulting, mobbing and threatening and no discussion: as you can easily see through all his messages,'''Attilios'''' behaviour is always: do what I want or I'll kill you: sorry this is not discussion, this is not editing. Now I am really terrified and afraid of '''Attilios'''' behaviour.

'''Attilios''' has already reverted Temple of Caesar, I think, tons of times only in 24 h: it seems even through an automatic device. Is it legal this behaviour? I have told him and others I had accepted their work and their advices, as you can see in the Talk page and everyone thanked me apart from this person, and I was going to further wiki-fy and fix the style of the article and wrote that I will have finished the full wikification of the article the next days. But '''Attilios''' was not satisfied: he started reverting furiously everywhere and heavily insulting me, keeping calling me with insulting words, and this everywhere and now even really threatening me! even in the talk pages!, everywhere '''Attilios''' says he is only editing: but, sorry, it is sure this (insulting and threatening people here and furious automatic reverting) is not encyclopedic editing.
Pay attention: because, as you can see, the editing of '''Attilios''' always involves the content of the article and his editing destroys de facto the content of the article!

I call here an investigation about the behaviour of '''Attilios'''. This person should moderate his own manners.

MjMenuet111 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This report is malformed. Badly. No WP:DIFFS whatsoever. Lots of bold text, though. See WP:BROTHER concerning the other account... Doc9871 (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, we'redealing with somebody unaware of any of the simplest basics of Wikipedia, insisting and insisting in his theories of his ownership of Temple of Caesae, not accepting any of the advices with which I began the discussions with him, keeping reverting the article to his version also after editing from other volunteers, and so on. Since the beginning I told him that the content he added was good, but just the style was horrendous. I invited him many times to give at least a glance to WP:Manual of Style, for example, and you can see from the previous lines that he didn't at all. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected I've done this for a period of one week, and I've also blocked User:Menuet111 for obvious sockpuppetry. This is a slow moving edit war with no technical violations of 3RR. Please hash out the discussion on the talk page and use dispute resolution if necessary; if you're able to come to an agreement before protection expires, feel free to place a note at WP:ANI asking for the page to be unprotected. However, please don't return to edit warring after the protection expires, or a block may be necessary for anyone that engages in it.Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Andy120290 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Indef)

Page: United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andy120290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments: There are multiple sections on the Talk page discussing the Criticism section and its removal. There are also similar discussions on the Talk pages of United States Supreme Court and President of the United States. Similar Criticism sections were inserted into all three articles back in 2009 after much discussion (I was not a part of that discussion). The recent 2010 removals of the sections were all done by one editor (not the editor being reported). Last I looked, the sections on the court and president pages were restored and remain restored. However, on the Congress page, the reported editor keeps removing the section, in one instance saying he doesn't want to talk about it in his edit summary ("Talk gets me nowhere"). More than one editor has undone the reported editor's reversions, but he keeps coming back (I have undone the latest, but I don't intend to undo any more). Finally, I didn't really understand the instructions on "previous version reverted to," so I put in the original version before the reversions. My apologies if that's not what you wanted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Forgive me if this comment is unnecessary. Since I reported the editor, he has continued to revert (and be reverted by others). More important, he removed the section from the President of the United States article here and has been reverted here. I'm staying out of the reversions pending a result here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment He just this edit. I reverted, but its obvious that he doesn't seem to care, or his account has been hacked. Either way, he has ignored various attempts to discuss, and continues to remove content.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Result - Blocked indef, on the assumption that his account has been hacked. He has made legitimate contributions in the past. Any admin can unblock if they are sure this editor is back in control of his account, and if a good explanation can be given. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee reported by User:Bzuk (Result:no action)

Page: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15] Edit comment: Feedback: usefull (sic) comments only please
• 2nd revert: [16] Edit comment: Undid revision 384430179 by Bzuk (talk) to keep the discussion on topic, that's how. It is a useless post, Wikipedia is not an exercise in Free Speech
• 3rd revert: [17] Edit Comment: Feedback pp
• My edit: [18]

In the discussion "string", I did not notice when the third revert had been made but did note an antagonism towards other editors who had a contrary opinion, primarily in making derisive comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

I find this a completely lame edit war on both sides. It was an off-topic comment and didn't need to be there, but it also didn't need to be edit warred off the page. I'm inclined to close this with no action for the time being, but would be ready to block for further lame edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure which is the bigger waste of time: the edit war, or the five minutes we had to spend investigating it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How about we just call it a tie and let that be good enough? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, as this is one of the few times I have resorted to this type of report but I do believe that refactoring comments is not acceptable, although I admit that the original comment was more of an aside. I did not want to engage any further in an editwar and will let it go. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jenks24 (Result: Blocked two weeks for now)

Page: 2010 AFL season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: There are other constructive, non-related edits interspersed, but basically, I think, to this diff, when he first removed the logo.

1. 07:31, 12 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384303964 by McAusten (talk) I will report this. You are not giving me a reason.")
2. 11:41, 12 September 2010 (edit summary: "That is not a proper answer.")
3. 12:21, 12 September 2010 (edit summary: "Give me a proper reason first. The AFL logo isn't the offical logo of the season.")
4. 12:32, 12 September 2010 (edit summary: "Listen to what the admin wrote and stop stalking me.")
5. 04:42, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
6. 05:20, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Even though this was changed while the discussion was on the way. The discussion started when it was like this so please leave it.")
7. 05:30, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Is there a reason why you took it down. Please do not. Thank you.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

Comments:
This user has consistantly removed an image from the article even though consensus at the talk page is clearly against him. Please note that it is my opinion that the article looks better with the logo, but if consensus were to remove it (there also seems to be some sort of copyright issue) then that would be fine. I just want the constant reverting to stop and, unfortunatley, I believe a block of GPW would probably be the best way to achieve this. Jenks24 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not convinced a temporary block would achieve anything. Guinea Pig Warrior has said himself that he doesn't intend on changing his ways. Jevansen (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - based on that diff above, I'm heavily considering an indef block. Second opinions? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit severe, apparently its an old logo and there may be minor copyright issues with it also, all needed clearing up and would have been better imo to have done that with the logo out of the article. I also notice that after Guinea Pig warrior was given the warning by Jenk24 he did not make any edits at all and then Jenk24 reported him, I don't see any value to having given him a warning and then reported him after when he did not again edit, you are supposed to warn and then if they revert again then you report them at least that is the correct method as per guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• He has been warned plenty before, and has a history of socking, edit warring, and personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he has but he wasn't warned correctly today and any previous socking has got nothing to do with this report either. Even better as regards a decent report is after you warn them on their talkpage and if they then revert you can offer them the opportunity to self revert and if they don't then you have a decent case for making a report. Off2riorob (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I'm not convinced an editor needs to be warned about 3RR more than one time before the warning is unnecessary, let alone more than multiple times. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• As had been pointed out he has previously been banned for edit warring and has 3RR warnings pasted all over his talk page so I think it's safe to say he either knows the rule or isn't interested in reading up on it. If you want something from the last 24 hours see the last paragraph from my post at Talk:2010 AFL season. He continued the discussion after my post so it's fair I think to say that he read it. Hours later he was back edit warring. Also if anything has issues with the specific edit war listed in this report he has also been warring at Port Adelaide Football Club. Jevansen (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• I issued a previous 3RR block of this editor. He has built up a record over the last few weeks, showing he is both well-intentioned and very stubborn. (He has socked twice to get around a block). Unless we want to *give* him the sports articles for him to do with as he pleases, it seems like an indef block is necessary. A permanent change of heart would be welcome, but seems highly unlikely. EdJohnston (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am frastrated with the people who are even discussion this. I want a "netual person", somebody who has never been involved with me instead of people who mock me, abuse me. Jevansen, you called me a imarture twirp and now your discussion on how to get me off wikipedia. Please get an admin who is fair and not a smart alec and serious on the issue. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just like to apologise if I didn't warn GPW correctly, as Off2riorob says above. This is the first time I've reported anyone at the Administrators' noticeboard (indeed it's actually the first time I've even come to this page) and I did try to follow the correct procedure. I just didn't think it would be beneficial to leave the 3RR warning on his talk page, then revert him on the article so that he could then revert me back and then I would have my "excuse" to report him here. Instead I thought that seeing as he has had 7 reverts in the last 24 hrs it would be ok to bring it here straight away, but again if I have done this incorrectly I truly do apologise. Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, the user clearly was stepping over the line and as someone said, he has enough template warnings on his talkpage to understand what the situation is. I have left him a note here with a couple of suggestions for him that may well be a better outcome for him if he is willing to accept one of them, but this is something he could also consider from a blocked position, just trying to help. I will leave it with you guys. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks User has a pretty long history of behavioral issues and has been blocked once before for edit warring. No warning should be necessary in this case; he should be well aware of our policy on edit warring. Any administrator may increase the length of the block if they deem it justified, but hopefully two weeks will be enough for the user to get the point. --Chris (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:88.120.128.82 reported by User:Wehwalt (Result: warned)

Page: Statue of Liberty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.120.128.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statue_of_Liberty&oldid=384321107

1. 05:30, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "→ Criticism rv, not justified")
2. 07:03, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "→ Criticism, unjustified rv")
3. 09:27, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384550556 by Wehwalt (talk) is directly related to the statue")
4. 09:47, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384552587 by Wehwalt (talk) you have no consensus, please discuss on talk page before reverting again.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A188.120.128.82&action=historysubmit&diff=384555156&oldid=382475910

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStatue_of_Liberty&action=historysubmit&diff=384552995&oldid=383878419

Comments:Editor keeps trying to add section on "Criticism" which is actually a plug for the Statue of Responsibility, a barely notable proposed statue to be built somewhere on the West Coast, and has reverted myself and User:DCGeist four times in the last several hours. I thought i had only done 2RR, actually I had done 3, though it is by a matter of minutes. I limit myself to 2RR, so any personal fault I apologize for. The editor in question does not seem interested in discussing the matter. This is the only article the IP has more than one edit to.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Editor has not made any edits since warning. Feel free to revert the last edit the editor made. If the editor makes another edit, please Just go ahead and restore the result: portion of section header to blank and add the last diff of the edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I see no warning on the IP"s talk page, other than the one I left, which he may discount.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is quite enough. If there's more edit warring, point any administrator to this thread if you need to prove a block is necessary and warranted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Factocop reported by User:O Fenian (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Marc Wilson (Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and three others, see below)
User being reported: Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [23]
• 5th revert: [24]

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

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

Comments:

As can be seen on User talk:Factocop the editor has already been told by an administrator to discuss not edit war, but the edit warring continues. O Fenian (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

May as well add first, second, third and fourth reverts to previous version on Shane Duffy (soccer player) too, to save me making a new report. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Similarly first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version on Republic of Ireland national football team. O Fenian (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version (without the Irish name, I'm sure there's a more recent version too, but that's now academic since he's managed a fifth revert anyway) of City of Derry Airport. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Factocop reported by User:Lithistman (Result: already blocked)

Page: Republic of Ireland national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]
• 5th revert: [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]; There are warnings all over his talkpage for similar behavior.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:

He's made it very clear that he's going to keep reverting, no matter what, because he's very certain he's right. Lithistman (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Faust reported by 173.58.234.86 (talk) (Result: page protected)

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

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

Time reported: 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:42, 8 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383716972 by Zaspino (talk)")
2. 21:46, 8 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383716972 by Zaspino (talk)Don't start an edit-war. Try to reach consensus first.")
3. 06:28, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383721840 by Pfhorrest (talk)Please, stop this edit-war and cite at least ONE source for you POV.")
4. 09:14, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383799881 by Pfhorrest (talk)Sources do not support this wording. Please, do not edit-war.")

• Diff of warning: here

—173.58.234.86 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Other instances of the problem which have yet to become not 3RR violations:

1. 16:07, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384502416 by Pfhorrest (talk)All cited sources contradict this version.")
2. 16:10, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "replaced last undisputed version.")
3. 20:00, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384631138 by Zaspino (talk)Quit it Zaspino, discuss your POV and motivate it properly.")

Other instances which are not 3RR violations but show persistent general edit-warring against the consensus:

1. 22:14, 6 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 382858025 by 79.182.17.168 (talk) Kindly discuss. It is not about the standard, but about the will for universality.")
2. 07:02, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383390752 by 173.58.234.86 (talk)No consensus, nor correctness.")

In addition to 3RR, in this edit war Faust is acting against the wp:consensus. He is the only editor that has shown this viewpoint. --173.58.234.86 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What about this fellow that's just shown up and reverted it to Faust's version? I wonder if the page should just be protected until you can all work it out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the user noticed the talk page per diff comment, but I'll assume good faith here. The disucssion has been going on for quite some time (end of August/start of September). All editors other than him and Faust support the consensus as well as an RfC opinion. Faust appears the only editor opposed to it. Anyways, he still violated 3RR, but it might have been too long ago for you to take action. I'm not sure.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked User:Ohnoitsjamie (the "this fellow" mentioned above), after his revert, to read Talk:Morality and comment there. I note that he is an admin and appears to have been in the process a general sweep of vandalism/spam/etc when he reverted, so he probably just happened by, saw some reverting going on, and undid it with a comment to take it to talk, without noticing we already have. Since he hasn't replied and was actively editing for a good while after I made my comment, I doubt that he's especially interested. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Faust's edit summaries (as shown here) sound misleadingly benign, I've compiled a short annotated list of links to all relevant diffs (changes to the article and Faust's reversions thereof), viewable at Talk:Morality#History links for everyone's reference. As you can see there, the bulk of the conflict has not been Zaspino and I against Faust (as the edit summaries above suggest), but it began between Faust and several different anons, and Zaspino and I are relative latecomers. I personally make a point of not entering into disputes like this in the article space (vs talk) until there are at least three other editors struggling against one single edit-warrior like Faust. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that the above is untrue on all accounts. All of the edits I undid have been attempts of mine to revert the project page to the undisputed version and to get people to discuss their POV's at the talk page so that we could come to an agreement by menas of rationality, but so far all attempts have failed with this group. As can be seen by checking the talk page the discussion was started by me on the talk page because Zaspino undid the addition of a reference (which I then had to reference...). Later Theobald Tiger joined on zaspino's side. Since both lack any kind of knowledge and interest in the field of philosophy and as such were unable to give ANY source for their claims I patiently argued my case, even though it was a transferral of nl.wiki related problems to en.wiki. When it turned out the two were in trouble the anon's joined in to form a majority so as to block an honest explanation of the term to stand against their POV. Later Pfhorrest joined in, who apparently honestly believes his POV is objective. Since all are behaving in a similar manner I have decided they are tag teaming (apart from Phforrest, whom I think is sincere).

To prevent this edit-war from getting started I have asked Zaspino and Theobald to stop their behavior and in every edit I have asked them to argue their case on the TP. I have placed a request at the philosophy project to help me out, but this had no effect. Since Theobald told me in an email he does not care about the content of this encyclopedia, as long as my knowledge does not get public, I do not have the idea that these individuals will ever relent. That is why I previously asked to block the whole lot, which can be seen from this edit (I didn't look for the initial edit btw). Since the edit-war has subsequently taken a second life (from the linked version on), from either adding a reference or not to actually changing the undisputed version to a POV, unfounded by any source, I have continued (as I did before) to revert the page to the last undisputed version (from far before the linked edit) (which had been undisputed for a year or so, but since I started to propose edits suddenly was disputed by nl.wiki user...a big coincidence).

UNTIL SO FAR, I have not seen a single source actually stating what all these users are saying. The sources used by this group actually confirm the undisputed version (among other places), which I support. Apart from that I have also added some sources of my own, explained why this is the case and why it is important to pay attention to how this is being said, added even more sources for my previous reference, shown the change that this group is trying to make to be a POV, given linguistic evidence to support my case, but nothing seems to be of interest to this group. Now, it is my understanding that until am agreement has been reached, the undisputed version should be restored. That is what I have been doing.

In my opinion the only thing I am guilty of is that I will not let a majority bully me into allowing a POV being presented as objective. If this is a reason for a ban, while this group is transferring issues from nl.wiki to en.wiki, trolling, edit-warring, placing POVs as truth, than I am having a far too idealistic view of this project as a whole. I hope the handling admin will prove my idealistic idea right.

I will be on a short trip the coming week and may not be online. Please, make sure the undisputed version is still present when I return.

--Faust (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: In an attempt to prevent this escalation from occuring I had even contacted TFOWR and Shell Kenney to mediate or lend me advice on the matter. I had also left a message at History2007's talk page for a third opinion. (All this after having seen the first edit Zaspino made on en.wiki, his account having been newly created and all his edits being about cancelling mine and his reamrks being exactly similar to the issue on the nl.wiki and these remarks being easily unmaksed as being POV's and these remarks showing clear signs of the user not being interested in the subject at all, which leaves a great question as to why this user is actually editing only the subjects that I am involved in then... --Faust (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since 3 September, when the RfC opened, Faust has reverted the lead of the article nine times. I believe that Faust should stop reverting until the RfC is closed, and that sanctions should be considered if he will not agree to do so. His comments above indicate he knows there is a majority against his view. "I will not let a majority bully me into allowing a POV being presented as objective." The majority does not always rule here, but there is no justification for him continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed is clearly confused. I am the one reverting the page to the undisputed version. In the mean time the tag-team Theobald has formed keeps trying to push their unsupported POV, while the undisputed version is backed by at least 8 mentioned sources. Why these users keep changing the lead of the article to their POV is beyond me, especially since it is a continuation of a dispute I had with Theobald_Tiger on nl.wiki and is, as such, a transferal of this issue to the en.wiki. Now, again I would like to state my silly example of somebody wishing to add a POV that Bush is an alien without a genetic research as a source. No matter how much of his friends agree with him, it should not be placed....as is the case here. --Faust (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't refer to editors as confused, it can be taken badly, also there is no such thing as an undisputed version that is disputed. Also you have already been warned not to bring your off wiki disputes here. Also you are clearly edit warring and you have had plenty of warnings. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• This user seems to refuse to accept the notion of our consensus policy. He has been warned time and time again on his talk page over the past two weeks. Perhaps it is time to turn the warning into an exclusion ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  I first became aware of it here (end of July), at which point Faust was warned not to import disputes from nl.wiki. I'm surprised, therefore, to see nl.wiki referred to above. More recently (on 6 September, after the RfC at Talk:Morality began) this issue returned to ANI. Back in July, Uncle G (talk) had this to say (to Faust and others):

  There will be no more trolling, pot stirring, tag teaming, sly provocation, playground-level taunting, or other general silliness and game playing of the sort that has occurred over the past few days, on here and on user talk pages. Warnings issued by TheDJ and TFOWR have clearly not sunk in. Therefore let me make this crystal clear. Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith.

  At the most recent ANI, Hans Adler (talk) had ths to say to Faust:

  Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game.

  Echoing Uncle G: nothing TheDJ has said to Faust appears to have sunk in; nothing I've said to Faust appears to have sunk in. It's difficult to escape Hans Adler's perception that Faust is treating en.wiki as a roleplaying game: certainly consensus appears to be an alien concept. Frankly, I'm out of options. TheDJ's "exclusion" option is the only one I feel is left, and I also feel it's long overdue. TFOWR 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A few comments in my defense:

1. My involvement on the Morality talk page has been minimal. There are two posts by me in support of comments made by Zaspino.
2. I have not "transferred problems from nl.wiki to en.wiki".
3. What Faust tells about an e-mail exchange with me is an outright lie. There has been an e-mail exchange, but I told him something quite different (see: User talk:TheDJ). I am interested in the content of en.wiki as my edit history amply testifies.

Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected I note there has been edit warring by all parties involved. All parties are admonished against edit warring, which may result in a block in the future. Faust and other parties are admonished that any violations for 3RR in the future, no matter how well intentioned, will unquestionably result in a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, fair enough, but this isn't going to solve the problem. Besides, you protected the page in Faust's version, which a majority of users doesn't agree with. Normally the parties involved in an edit conflict are urged to discuss the matter on the talk page, but we have already done that and reached a consensus that only Faust objects to. Zaspino (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Zaspino, nothing within the scope of this particular noticeboard is going to solve this particular problem on more than a temporary basis. I would advise you to try something like WP:RFC/U. If you believe a user has a long-term pattern of editing against consensus, you can demonstrate it there and longer-term sanctions can be applied. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I have to point out WP:WRONG. I've commented further on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

User:Pmanderson has now moved the page Aorist to Aorist (linguistics) as part of a content dispute three times today - twice after being told that he should achieve consensus first. It is a clear case of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. As move warring is much more disruptive than simple revert warring I believe a sanction is in order. Prior to his third move I had protected the article, but as Pmanderson suggested that I am somehow involved in the dispute (I don't think I am) I unprotected it, whereupon he promptly moved it again. The page cannot be moved back by non-admin users since the move involves deleting the dab page that he created in its original place.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually WP:POINT would be doing something I opposed as a demonstration against another action; if I had seen a marginal article kept, creating "an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making."Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For the substance, see below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of WP:POINT is wrong - we will see what other admins think about your display of diplomacy and collaborative editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Taivo (Result: No action)

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

I don't know how to mark diffs when the offending editor is moving pages. Sorry. User has moved Aorist to Aorist (linguistics) three times without getting consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35] in edit summary from admin

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] and other places in the discussion.

Comments:

User:Pmanderson has proven to be a disruptive and non-contributing editor on this article. The consensus was to move the discussion of Greek aorist to Aorist (Greek), but to leave the general discussion at Aorist. PMAnderson proposed on several occasions to move Aorist to Aorist (linguistics), but the consensus was against this. PMAnderson today then proceeded to move the article anyway. He was reverted twice by an admin. When the admin lifted protection on the article, PMAnderson again moved the article without a word of consensus. In the discussion on the Talk page, PMAnderson has objected to nearly everything that the other editors have agreed to and refuses to recognize consensus. --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo's "consensus" consists of the opinion of two editors, himself and Kwamikagami, that the article on "aorist", a Greek term, must use the terminology of one school of modern theoretical linguistics, and must include erroneous statements on the Greek, Sanskrit, and Slavonic aorists, because he has found something like them as generalizations in books talking about something else.

His contributions have consisted almost entirely of revert warring; indeed the article was protected on August 31 because of his and Kwami's activities.

There was actual consensus on having two articles; so the material on the Greek aorist (inaccurate though it was) was moved to Aorist (Ancient Greek) as a BOLD way to deal with the problem. His complaint is that I have moved the remainder to Aorist (linguistics), since this obscure and recent jargon is not the primary meaning of the term - if there is one.

If he had consensus, as opposed to a revert button, his remedy would lie at WP:RM. But he comes here instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous - there are several other editors commenting on the talk page, none of whom thought the move was a good idea. Secondly you didn't even post on the talk page before moving and thirdly you repeated the move after being instructed (by me not Taivo or Kwami) to seek consensus and discuss on the talk page before moving. There really is no excuse for your behaviour which is simply disruptive and leads to escalation of conflicts instead of improvement of article content. It also betrays a fundamental lack of understanding on you part of how collaborative wikipedia editing works.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)PMAnderson has understated the consensus. There are approximately five editors who have participated recently in the discussions in one way or another. Myself and Kwami, as well as Erutuon and Maunus (the latter to a limited extent). There have been a couple of others who have not posted recently. PMAnderson stands alone and has gained absolutely none of the other editors to his POV. He opposed the split of the article to "Aorist" and "Aorist (Greek)". He moved the article to "Aorist (linguistics)" by edit warring. His previous attempts to get the "Aorist" article to "Aorist (linguistics)" were opposed and no one agreed with his proposed move. He has promulgated an edit war on the matter and has been reported twice here, by an admin and by myself. That should be evidence of his edit warrior mentality. --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And WP:RM is not the appropriate place when the mover has moved against consensus, ignored the warnings of an admin, and edit warred to get his way. This is the appropriate place to report edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Maunus - although he clearly disagrees with the move - has objected at length to Taivo's obscurantism; he has done something at last to clear it up. Akhilleus, Cynwolfe, Radagast, Wareh, and myself have objected more or less firmly to all or part of Taivo's dogmatic program; Erutonon has expressed doubts. That this intransigent revert-warring vandal has driven most of them away is not the recommended way to produce consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo's last claim is equally false. The consensus was to split; there was no consensus on where to split. If Taivo's bafflegab about consensus were true, he would be able to prove it by a move request; but he makes none, because it isn't true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Kommentar - Listing instructions, top of the page, "Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution." Is there a 3RR violation to report here? Doc9871 (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No. I have not moved the page four times. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is not just for 3RR violations but also for editwarring which you have - a very disruptive kind.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct - but this is "continuing a dispute" that is escalating, and not a properly formed report for this board. There's personal attacks and everything. Calm down, everyone: it's just a wiki... Doc9871 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No violation I think not. As Doc9871 said, take the dispute where it belongs. There is move warring for sure, but it takes two to tango. There appears to be at least some reasoned discussion going on, which will be ground to a halt if participants are blocked. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:PraxisConsensus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: User blocked for 72 hours. [37])

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

Previous version reverted to: [38]

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]
• 4th revert: [42]
• 5th revert: [43]
• 6th revert: [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45] (he has since blanked this talk page section, removing the warning without response) and [46] (he has blanked this notice without response as well)

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

Comments:
Five editors (User:BigK HeX, User:N6n, User:Ravensfire, User:Lawrencekhoo, and User:Cretog8) have attempted to get the editor to discuss the edit on the talk page. He has disregarded these editors. BigK HeX (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had also reported the same user, but it seems they were already reported. Anyways, to add my comment that I was about to add to mine before I saw this one, it appears that attempts to take the problem to the talk page have been ignored by Praxis. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

None of my edits violated the three revert rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraxisConsensus (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, you are edit warring to keep in an unreliable source. You explicitly reverted the removal of that source 5 times, without discussion on the talk page. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

With 6 clear reverts, your assertion may need further elaboration, please. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User has been blocked. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthFighterX reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result:24 hours )

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

Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ValenShephard reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: blocked 1 week)

Page: Villa del Cine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The current issue, at Villa del Cine (I did not report the edit war at Hugo Chavez)

Last version before reverts: 22:57, September 13, 2010

• 1st revert: 22:57, September 13, 2010 (removes reliably sourced text because he doesn't like it, says based on talk, but there was no discussion on talk at that point)
• 2nd revert: 00:06, September 14, 2010 After discussion on talk, I reinstate the text, which ValenShephard deletes a second time.
• 3rd revert: 15:35, September 14, 2010 Then he installs his favored text, in spite of unanimous consensus on talk for different text: [54]
• 4th revert: 15:39, September 14, 2010 Then fully reverts another reliably sourced text addition I made.
• 5th revert: 16:19, September 14, 2010 Continues cleansing reliably sourced text in spite of weeks-old discussion on talk that article needs balance, and without discussing this particular text removal. (Also refers to reliable sources as "editorials", a recurring problem at these articles of casting aspersions upon my use of reliable sources, by classifying them as "opeds"-- something that has been repeatedly called to ValenShephard's attention on his talk and article talk.) An indication of the POV-pushing behind his edit warring is that, after these three instances where he deletes text unfavorable to Chavez, he immediately adds text favorable. His editing goes only one-way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not necessary-- there are enormous discussions of the problems with his edit warring on his talk, and he has been warned many times and blocked twice. These diffs do not indicate four reverts to the same version; they indicate ongoing disruption, POV and edit warring from someone who has been blocked twice and with whom there has been significant discussion on his talk of his disruptive editing at numerous other articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see his entire talk page-- it's huge.

Comments:

For background, ValenShephard was blocked a few weeks ago for edit warring, and then unblocked on August 31 following lengthy discussion indicating he understood the problems with edit warring. Only a few days after, he engaged in another edit war at Hugo Chavez, which I did not report to this board, as I was still hoping to mentor him (see User_talk:ValenShephard/Archive_1#Blocked and User_talk:ValenShephard/Archive_1#Resumed_edit_warring in addition to the numerous complaints on his talk page about his edit warring, some now archived.) ValenShephard continues to edit war and edit by revert, even after two blocks and long discussions involving multiple editors. He made repeated promises on his talk that he would stop editing via revert and engaging in edit wars, but said continues (along with other disruption that is not the scope of this board, and will be addressed elsewhere). He has been amply warned about edit warning, and should understand by now that three reverts are not necessary for a definition of edit warring. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kommentar - this report doesn't surprise me at all, and in fact I find it rather sad. I'm borderline involved, only because I've been tracking this user's poor conduct for a while now. This user clearly didn't get the point after the last block; if I were the blocking admin, I would throw down a week-long block, and I think that's lenient. You'll notice that this user's conduct on pretty much every page he/she's on is to revert war and POV push. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See here for the long history of disruption, only at Venezuela articles, not including the last two weeks, and not including on other articles. He has the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever encountered, and I've been expending hours daily trying to help mentor him, to no avail. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Only a couple of these could count as reverts, while the rest, as you can see by the diffs, are changes and tweaks. There was no clear consensus on talk, where sandy thought I was agreeing with her while I was agreeing with another editor (which I later explained). ValenShephard (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week John (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Polaron and User:Doncram reported by The Thing // Talk // Contribs (Result: Polaron blocked 72h)

Page: National Register of Historic Places listings in Stamford, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram:

1. 16:06, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "remove unsupported neighborhood assertions, per Talk")
2. 16:36, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384811843 by Polaron (talk). reinstate edit explained at Talk. Talk page edit hit a second or two later than P's reversion.")

Polaron:

1. 16:10, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 384322082 by Polaron; can you point out which ones are wrong?. (TW)")
2. 16:39, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 384811843 by Polaron; using boundaries in http://www.city-data.com/city/Stamford-Connecticut.html. (TW)")

Comments:
Users are continuing to edit war after both recently receiving 48-hours blocks. --The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents notified [55] [56]. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring seems to have stopped with just 2 reverts, however since they were recently blocked, and there still happens to be a previous report at the very top of this page, it seems this isn't an isolated incident. It might be prudent to keep watching and make sure things don't get out of hand. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) Oh, yes, the previous discussion is above, currently at #User:Polaron reported by doncram (talk) (Result: Both 48h) Okay, well, please consider this carefully and look for differences in behavior. This article and similar National Register of Historic Places listings in Greenwich, Connecticut are new list-articles which i just split out from National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which I have been developing in detail over many months, in fact as part of a WP:CONN and WP:NRHP co-sponsored article development drive. At each of their Talk pages, I posted about a problem of unsourced info. Polaron declined explicitly at the Stamford talk page to address. I removed the unsourced info in both, which is justified by wikipedia policy: unsourced information can and should be challenged and removed. Considering that P had not seen my last Talk page edit, in which i explained the removal, i chose to call attention to that and remove it once more in an edit. I don't think you have to judge that as edit warring by me. P simply re-adds. Also, not yet noted above, P never commented at the Talk but re-added similar in this edit using Twinkle at the Greenwich article.
• This is a regular pattern: often butting in on an article where I am doing active, productive development, P takes a position and uses Twinkle and minimal edit summary statements to enforce his view. The way it could go forward normally with P is that i or other frustrated editors post more and more at a Talk page, and P may or may not deign to come out with little bits of explanations. But the problem is basic, that unsourced info should not be added, and the behavior is entrenched. P has been cautioned about this many times by many other editors. Also, I had already requested that editor EdJohnston who imposed the 48 hour blocks, take a look. In my comment there i characterized P's patterns too, as either not responding (as applies in the Greenwich case where he also restored unsourced info) or as responding minimally and unsatisfactorily (as applies in the Stamford case).
• I would like to develop these two list-articles as i have been doing with the Fairfield one, and now i am frustrated again with dealing with the appearance of edit warring. I consider it a lot more like removal of vandalism. I think the right thing to do is to delete the unsourced assertions, and I would like to have the support of other editors in doing that. EdJohnston, Acroterion, Orlady are some administrator editors who are familiar with much of the history. In the last ANI discussion, another editor asked: what am I or other editors supposed to do, given P's behavior? --doncram (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Polaron for 72h. I do not buy the suggestion that Doncram is equally to blame here. In this reported article as well as the Greenwich example, Polaron is violating the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Additionally, WP:V states that the burden of evidence is on the person trying to add or restore information. Suggest a possible voluntary 1RR restriction for one or all parties if the behavior patterns continue. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Thezob reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: )

Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. June 1
2. June 2
3. June 7
4. June 15
5. June 17
6. July 7
7. July 15
8. 14:16, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Life descending over time is still a theory, it was theorized not established.")
9. 03:32, 10 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383839621 by Snowded (talk) yes really.")
10. 17:45, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Discussion is irrelevant, there is too much bias there. It is still a theory, no matter how widely accepted it is.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: Slow moving edit war. Appears to be only current interest in editing since June. He's been repeatedly asked to take his objections to the talk page in edit summaries on user talk discussions, which he's clearly seen but never done.

—Jess_talk|_edits 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cinéma_C reported by User:lontech (Result: )

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

has violated 1RR per week on kosovo

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

1. (cur | prev) 19:49, 13 September 2010 Cinéma C (talk | contribs) (113,250 bytes) (where was the sentence about the Albanian national awakening attributed? reverting + adding ref) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 11:04, 13 September 2010 Dejvid (talk | contribs) (112,928 bytes) (revert -a claim like "Kosovo became the crux of Serbia's historical culture, religion and national identity" needs to be attributed) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 02:28, 13 September 2010 Cinéma C (talk | contribs) (113,090 bytes) (If you're mentioning the Albanian national awakening, it's extremely biased not to mention what Kosovo means to Serbs.) (undo)

Diffs

1. [57]
2. [58]

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see [1]-- LONTECH  Talk  23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)