Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Gouncbeatduke (Result: No violation)

Page: Criticism of Human Rights Watch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Plot Spoiler continues to POV push and violate the 1rr rule in the Israeli Palestinian conflict area. Given his repeated violations, more significant administrative action is clearly needed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch&diff=655229544&oldid=655146089
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch&diff=655115916&oldid=654956242

Comments:

• The 1RR rule doesn't apply to IPs. Gouncbeatduke hasn't presented any case. He doesn't leave proper edit summaries citing any policy. Just an attempt to game the system by a single-issue editor. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Without looking into the edits, Plot Spoiler is wrong with regarding to reverting IPs don´t count towards WP:1RR, read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction: ARBIA was amended back in 2012 especially for this, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read that link - PlotSpoiler is EXACTLY right - the 2012 amendment reads "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR" All Rows4 (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No violation, per the wording of the ARBPIA 1RR as noted by Plot Spoiler and User:All Rows4. But both Plot Spoiler and Gouncbeatduke are risking sanctions for the long-term warring on this paragraph which has been going on since mid-March. Use the talk page or WP:DRN to try to get agreement. In any case another admin has protected the article for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Last time Plot Spoiler made this edit you supported the topic ban that was placed on him. You stated "It's hard to see why a signed article by the journalist Jonathan Cook, even when published in Electronic Intifada, should not be accepted as evidence for the views of Jonathan Cook."[[1]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.122.38 (talk • contribs)

Duly noted, but Plot Spoiler is not currently banned from ARBPIA. I would say that both Plot Spoiler and Gouncbeatduke are tempting fate if they try to continue this war. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I fully protected this article following a request at RfPP. I wasn't aware of this discussion, but I'm not sure it would have altered my action. This is a slow moving edit war (mainly because of the 1RR I suspect) that involved several editors and IPs, hence the protection. GedUK  11:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)

Page: Texas Southern University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Broadmoor (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. [2]
2. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4] (among others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:

This editor was previously blocked for edit warring and has returned to doing so with an edit summary that explicitly announces ownership of the article and an unwillingness to collaborate ("I'll let the external links slide by not this one. This is biased and irresponsible editing. I will always delete it"). I'm not necessarily asking for this editor to be blocked again but if that's what it takes to get him or her to stop edit warring and actually try to work with others then so be it. ElKevbo (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there ElKevbo. Although the user has a history of editing warring, I think it is worth attempting to contact the party first. The attempts to do so you provided are from 23 days ago, and you didn't leave a message on the user's talk page yet. Suggesting he's going to be blocked ([6]) doesn't count as attempting to engage in resolution. I'll leave a message on his/her talk page and let's try to resolve this without more blocking (which to be fair, in your posting, you said you're not necessarily advocating). Best wishes, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I left a message seconds after opening this report so that's a completely ridiculous charge to levy. I also left yet another reply in the thread in the article's Talk page on the very subject about which he or she is edit warring, a conversation in which he or she hasn't recently participated. And I also left a reply to his or her message on my own Talk page in response to a message he or she left yesterday. So I'm not at all sure what additional outreach you want me to engage in...! ElKevbo (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

HI there ElKevbo. I see you posted something on the talk page after you filed the report and just as I was writing. I checked the user's talk page but didn't check yours as you didn't mention it previously. It does seem that the contributor is unwilling to discussion, but even so I think we should still try to resolve this without resorting to blocking as the user hasn't been given a chance yet to repond to the now-new messages on the article talk page. After all, at the time you were linking to a very old discussion indeed. Moreover he/she hasn't yet crossed into the realms of 3RR (perhaps partly because of your own good editing practices!). I understand your frustration, but not convinced blocking is the only recourse here. All the best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The first message I saw from Elkevbo left was a threat. He told me to cut it out or he'll block me (look at the revision history for the page in dispute), does that sound like he's trying to reason to you or willing to collaborate? Him adding that sanction is redundant and unnecessary. As I told him weeks ago, it's already in their sports wiki page and why isn't he on a campaign to add NCAA sanctions to other universities which plenty are guilty of (check his editing history). He's committed to being biased and bullying anyone who dare oppose him (me included). He's using intimidation tactics (i.e. again look at the his revision history message on the Texas Southern University page). And based on past wiki practices, the only time NCAA sanctions are placed on a university's page is if a sports program was terminated or suspended as a result (e.g. Southern Methodist University football) which isn't the case with TSU. He needs to be reprimanded not me. I have proof to validate my claims. I just need help from administrators and other editors to be fair and balanced and get him together and stop him from making that add. The only issues I've had in my 6 years are with ElKevbo, so I've proved I'm a collaborative editor. I'm not the first person ElKevbo tried to permanently block. Broadmoor (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Broadmoor, you need to focus your arguments on the content, not on the person themselves. Similarly, please be aware that continuing to refer to the possible inaccuracies of other articles does not constitute a valid argument; it is quite possible that said articles are also lacking and need updating and does not follow that the article in question is therefore erroneous. Again, focus on the given article content and certainly not on the contributor. I would imagine any valid argument would centre around whether you believe the sources to be reliable and whether you believe what is being presented is being presented in a neutral way. Please take this (amended) debate now to the talk page, as this isn't the place for it. All the best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 01:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've tried to reason with him but it's been to no avail which is why we here yet again. My argument has always been on the content ... most of my rebuttal above was on the content and why I stand where I stand with the edit. But of course I need to partially address my direct conflict with ElKevbo because he's part of the content argument. Again, please explain how am I suppose to seriously reason with someone who first response to something he doesn't like is "stop it or I'll block you again" ..... come on. And so I'm more clear, the main issues (to be more specific) is the biased editing and redundancy like I mentioned above ... it's a valid argument for reasons already stated. It's unfair ElKevbo is constantly allowed to keep changing the narrative to make it seem as if I'm this arbitrary disruptive editor who's totally averse to sensible and fair collaboration ... it's simply untrue and he's the one who used intimidation tactics without any real reasoning. Broadmoor (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. The content dispute, IMO, is not particularly illegitimate on either side. I can see how one could argue that the section in question may be undue weight for the university's main page. Regardless though, there has not been an appropriate level of discussion or attempt at dispute resolution on the part of either party, and I hope during this next week you'll take the step of discussing the issue further and maybe seeking some outside input. Best regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've explained several times to ElKevbo on his personal talk page and other platforms on his biased editing practices, unfamiliarity with the situation, and the redundancy of the "sanctions" add. Opposed to presenting credible evidence/references validating his stance like I have, he has simply threatened to block me and then plays the victim. 1) The sanctions are already added to the athletics wiki page, why does it need to be on the university's main page when the infractions are under the athletic department. That's redundant and irresponsible editing. 2) The editor in question continues to attempt to over-exaggerate and over-expose the sanctions opposed on TSU. And when I've cited several incidents that were more serious and larger in scope at other universities (i.e Arkansas football that are not pronounced on their pages whatsoever ... he didn't start a editing campaign to properly rectify that which validates his biased editing on the matter. 3) There's not a practice to place NCAA sanctions on university's pages unless a sports program is terminated or temporarily suspended (i.e. SMU football) ... again for example I cite Arkansas football and Baylor athletics department. Both were convicted of violating NCAA sanctions but yet there's no section mentioning it on their pages (no team was terminated nor suspended from play). NCAA sanctions are quite common (I'm a sports fanatic), they don't deserve a section on the main page nor to be mentioned twice if a sports program has not been terminated or suspended.Broadmoor (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SMWIA reported by User:BerlinKid22 (Result: 24h)

• SMWIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Volksfront (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been vandalising the article Volksfront. He has been in several arguments with other users, and removing sourced content, and adding unsourced content. There is currently a huge edit war on that article. He claimed that all sources were bias at first, but now claims that only the sources from Jewish websites are bias. He seems to be associated with group. BerlinKid22 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Best to take this to WP:AIV Amortias (T)(C) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This should probably be left for an admin to close. We occasionally take malformed reports. User:SMWIA seems to be on a mission, and at a minimum he should get an admin warning. He was already warned about 3RR back in March. He has reverted about 8 times since April 3. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and another user warned. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:72.211.196.11 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: 1 week)

Page

Cause marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 07:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 05:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cause marketing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Exceeded 3RR with this edit after receiving a warning for edit warring. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for spamming. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:24.15.88.9 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: 36h)

Page

Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Jeff Buckley */ See discussion page: Jeff Buckley over-emphasis?"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC) to 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Jeff Buckley */ removed sidebar for Buckley; see discussion for an explanation"
   2. 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Espen Lind featuring Kurt Nilsen, Alejandro Fuentes and Askil Holm */ removed sidebar"
   3. 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Alexandra Burke */ removed sidebar"
3. 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655614271 by Loriendrew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). (TW)"
2. 01:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). (TW)"
3. 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "move added section to end, reply"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dential and User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Prisonermonkeys blocked; Dential warned)

Page

2014 Russian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dential (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the users' reverts

Prisonermonkeys:

1. 01:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC) "No specific attendance figures have been provided since this was added"
2. 01:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "As per discussion at the WikiProject, attendance figures should not be included if they are an estimate"
3. 03:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "The full details of the consensus may not be finalised, but this part is clear: estimates of attendance figures should not be used, and this is an estimate"

Dential:

1. 22:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655119170 by Prisonermonkeys (talk) to keep the peace!"
2. 17:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655432988 by Prisonermonkeys (talk) no clear consensus
3. 06:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655624583 by Prisonermonkeys (talk) wait until the discussion is closed and the consensus declared, or you risk a warring block"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Prisonermonkeys:

1. 15:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Dential:

1. 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on project talk page

1. 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Guidelines for attendance figures

Comments:

Slow edit war that has been going on for a few days. Prisonermonkeys has been evolved in a serious edit war over this exact same content during last october&november and eventually received a block for it. Dential is a new party to the disagremeent and in fact has only registered a few days ago. Tvx1 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe Dential to be a sock of a subversive editor who has appeared of late. Despite having just a handful of edits, he has displayed knowledge of the WikiProject and the editors involved, which I found suspicious, as it is very similar to the actions of two recent socks, Tvx11 and Darrandarra, both of whom joined for the purposes of inciting conflict between editors and disrupting articles. As soon as Dential, a "new" editor displayed knowledge of events from three months ago, I immediately tried to gather evidence that he is a sock. However, he clearly reads user and article talk pages, and as it appears that the account was created solely to edit that one article, I was at a loss as to how to prove it without alerting him. My plan was to wait and see what happened with the most-recent edit, and to go to SPI in the morning with whatever evidence of sock puppetry I had. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The admin who closes this should take a look at Prisonermonkeys' block log. He was reported in fall 2014 for warring on the same article. Of course, User:Dential gets credit for being a brand-new account who immediately engages in edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That issue was resolved with the understanding that it would be revisited within a few months and a better source provided. If no new source was provided, then removing that content was considered a reasonable edit.

And like I said, I believe Dential to be a sock of a recurring disruptive editor given his knowledge of the editors in question and the events of the past few months. SPI makes it pretty clear that investigations can only be opened if clear evidence is provided. How am I supposed to get that evidence when his edits have been confined to disrupting a single article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've Blocked Prisonermonkeys for three months for edit warring. I see no evidence supporting his accusations that Dential is related to either of the users mentioned above. My only conclusion is that PM is, as he has done in the past, using sock puppetry as an excuse to justify his reverts. Because Dential is a new user and has not breached WP:3RR, I am not blocking them. Nonetheless, Dential is Warned that if they persist in their reverts, including now, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:121.219.116.30 reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: Semi)

Page

Apple Watch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655691142 by EoRdE6 (talk) I am following guidelines, I am not about to let someone try to fuck like a bitch when I am in the right by making constructive edits."
2. 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655690301 by EoRdE6 (talk) I am NOT going to be "Strong Armed" into talking with some muscle-bound dickhead who is convinced I am a vandal because I have an IP address, NOT an account."
3. 15:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655689548 by EoRdE6 (talk) Why ? Because the page reads better with my edits, KAMiKAZOW keeps reverting all of my edits that have been in good faith for the readability and layout of the"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC) to 15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Replaced ALL info removed by KAMiKAZOW"
   2. 15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Replaced Infobox with non bulleted one."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Apple Watch. (TW)"
2. 15:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Apple Watch. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Bulleted List */ new section"

Comments:

I'm not going to pretend I was perfect in this, but multiple users have reverted this IP's edits and they have not engaged in talk page discussion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. IP reverting without waiting for consensus on Talk. They must think that all the bad language improves their credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:24.166.35.167 reported by User:Collegeisreallycool (Result: )

Page: College Democrats of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.166.35.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]

Unregistered user deletes section (on Israel/Palestine so technically 1RR, 2&3 are within 24 hour period).

Diff of warning: [12]

I'd recommend anyone looking into this to review the edit in question per WP:BLP policy - the sourcing looks questionable given the claims being made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:OAS Supporter reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Olympic Animal Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

OAS Supporter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Overview */Ron Smith is posted this Wikipedia article because of a vendetta he has against the owner of the sanctuary."
2. 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Overview */Added Content."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC) to 22:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Allegations of animal abuse */Added valid content."
   2. 22:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "corrected and added content"
4. 22:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 22:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The notes above */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As shown by their name, editor is here to promote a cause. Various BLP and copyright violations scattered throughout edits. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The user seems to be here on a mission and is adding information about a Facebook controversy that lacks reliable sources (what he refers to as an "online hate campaign"). The subject of this article is distasteful but well-sourced; we should stay alert to keep it neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:76.111.172.54 reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Semi, block)

Page: Shooting of Walter Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 76.111.172.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 07:51, 9 April 2015
2. Revision as of 08:08, 9 April 2015
3. Revision as of 09:02, 9 April 2015
4. Revision as of 22:36, 9 April 2015
5. Revision as of 03:21, 10 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14], [15]

Comments:
IP editor refuses to collaborate and instead keeps adding his preferred version of the content. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The user continues edit warring and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. See also [16] - Cwobeel (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am simply editing bias information from the article. Cwobeel is clearly misrepresenting cited sources. I am just rewording the line referring to the cited source in a factual light. The cited article clearly states that there was a struggle between Slager and Scott, but that information in conveniently left out. And re-edits continue to remove this information, yet the information is clearly stated within the cited source. I only edited the article to reflect all the information from the cited source for this particular line of text.Cwobeel continues to change the line without discussing it within the talk page. Cwobeel decisions are guided by emotions.76.111.172.54 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The information about a struggle was already in the article, as discussed in talk [17]. But this is not a discussion about content. It is a discussion about your editing behavior. Your edit was reverted by several editors including Nein (talk · contribs) and WWGB (talk · contribs), but you have decided to continue adding your preferred version in violation of WP:3RR. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Also note, that I have not made an edit on that line as you say. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am making the claim that you are using multiple devices and accounts to edit the page.76.111.172.54 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel continues to make false allegation of edit warring in attempt to silence me. And now he claims WP:BATTLEGROUND when I am simply trying to help maintain creditability for the article. I have not added anything to those specific lines of text that was not within the cited article. Yet Cwobeel continues to edit the wikipedia article without discussing the fact that the information I added to that particular line of the wikipedia article is in the cited article. Cwobeel is guided by emotions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: The page has been semi-protected. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: Article semiprotected for a week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. The IP was edit warring and also called Cwobeel a tyrant and a bigot so I'm blocking for 48 hours anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23 March 2015 diff
2. 2 April 2015 diff
3. 2 April 2015 diff
4. 2 April 2015 diff
5. 3 April 2015 diff

• by this time discussion on talk was very clear that 4 editors opposed these edits and only HughD wanted them, so WP:POINTy tagging

1. 3 April 2015 diff
2. 8 April 2015 diff
3. 8 April 2015 diff

• that didn't work so HughD wrote an edit note "remove tag; integrate controversies with history WP:CRITS" and did major rearrangement

1. 9 April 2015 diff series
2. 9 April 2015 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3 April link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:GlaxoSmithKline#Donations_to_SPN

Talk:GlaxoSmithKline#Neutrality_of_grant-making

Talk:GlaxoSmithKline#re-arrangement

Comments:
Edit war has been going since 23 March, when HughD came to GSK article grinding an ax about Heartland Institute and State Policy Network. HughD appears to be fairly obsessed with this topic - see Special:Contributions/HughD. The above string is one continuous push. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment of reported editor in progress. Please stand by. Hugh (talk)

I apologize. I admit to violation of the revert rule. Not in any way an excuse, but I would like to please take a moment to make a few points for consideration in evaluating this report, how an experienced editor could find himself reported here. I will not get into counts or hours.

I missed the warning on my talk page (tho not on the article talk page) since it had a typo and the template did not expand until it was corrected minutes before this report. I apologize for missing the warning. I should have been more attentive to my talk page. I will do better in the future. Again, not an excuse for my editing behavior.

Please note in the "attempts to resolve" my ongoing continued engagement and commitment to dialog grounded in policy and guideline, and also please note some decidedly non-collaborative dialog including AGF shortfalls and name-calling such as "ax-grinding" and "you have thing" and "I will not be responding further."

None of my edits are "pointy;" I know better. All of the edits are sincere efforts to improved the encyclopedia by fairly and accurately summarizing reliable sources. The tagging of non-neutral sections and asking for collaboration in expansion were a sincere reaction to reversions of well-sourced contributions and rejection of highly noteworthy reliable sources and a unilateral end to dialog in talk space. Again, not an excuse, but perhaps not an unnatural reaction.

The edits are unfairly characterized as "one continuous push." The edits of 9 April listed above by my colleague involved no loss of content or references, but rather were purely structural, and address a "Criticism" section nonconformant with WP:CRITS. Please note, the last edit is not re-do of the next to last, but rather was modified in response to feedback provided by the reporting editor regarding chronological ordering of content, and is an example of collaborative editing. In fact, only one of the recent edits was a straight character-for-character undo; the more common pattern is one of incremental improvement in response to feedback in edit summaries and on the talk page. Again, not an excuse, but this is not a report of an mindless do/undo war.

I am (rightfully I think) proud of my contributions and article space %, maybe it makes me more prone. I need to make better use of DR. Thank you for your careful consideration. I look forward to working collaboratively with the reporting editor and all other editors to improve the encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

HughD I agree it was not at all mindless - you are relentless about those two conservative organizations and your behavior has been classic WP:Civil POV pushing. I know it is really hard to work on political stuff - I stay the heck away from it. I don't want to see you blocked and am always happy to collaborate but when you don't have consensus, you don't have it. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:HughD, has it come to your attention that nobody on the talk page supports your changes? Are you planning to continue regardless? How about agreeing not to revert any more until a talk page consensus is reached in your favor? That might allow this complaint to be closed without action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I am saddened that after what I thought was a sincere and thoughtful response to your report, you apparently unsatisfied with your original report, felt obligated to get in yet one more jab at my motives, in case anyone might miss your version of events. Hugh (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ed: I understand consensus. I'm not interested in doing anything without consensus. Hugh (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

HughD was warned for 3RR over a month ago, although not on this particular article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

HughD, Ed just stood by the door to give you a clean way out of this. All you had to do was answer his questions directly. ("yes i knew that no one supported me." "no, i don't plan to continue" "yes i will not revert anymore until i get consensus on the Talk page" with some kind of acknowledgement that you went too far in this particular thing) and you were out of here. instead you denied there is a problem. But your behavior shows a lack of understanding of consensus and that you are interested in doing things without it. if you had acknowledged the problem, you could have walked away clean already. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

HughD so instead of being reflective you went back to the Talk page and started hammering away again, and accused me of WP:OWN. Again four editors oppose the addition you want to make. At one point I had offered a compromise of a minimal addition but even that wasn't enough for you. Please drop the stick already. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I did not edit article space without consensus. I'm sorry for reaching out to you to re-engage on the talk page and attempt some humble perhaps crude relationship maintenance. Sorry, I thought that's what you wanted. Perhaps it was unwise, with your report unresolved, obviously I should have anticipated you would take it in the worst possible way. I understand now, you want a block, and you want me to go away. I did not accuse you of anything, I asked you a sincere question in hopes of building rapport around mutual shared values which hopefully may serve as a foundation for collaboration going forward, something you expressed an interest in above. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeking a block. This is a board for edit warring, which is what you have done. The root of that behavior is blowing off consensus and trying to get exactly what you want. It is well established on the article Talk page that you have no consensus for what you want, and piling up more references and turning the argument this way and that is just beating a dead horse. You need to accept it, that the you are not going to get what you want on the article Talk page. You have to stop beating the horse. Your options are: a) walk away; b) step back and see if the compromise I offered will work for other editors; c) actually use DR (as you said you would above), like an RfC. The latter is a waste of the community's time, in my view, but you will do what you want. At this point it is clear to me that you neither understand nor respect WP:CONSENSUS nor how we reach it. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"piling up more references" Wait, is not bringing additional reliable source references to the attention of your colleagues on the talk page a legitimate, measured, collaborative response to a content dispute over a due weight issue? And what is this compromise b) you now claim you offered? Hugh (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. While assuring us of his benign intentions, User:HughD won't actually promise to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: No action)

Page: State of Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hadraa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 17:58, 8 April 2015
2. Revision as of 19:34, 8 April 2015
3. Revision as of 18:22, 9 April 2015
4. Revision as of 19:54, 9 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

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

Comments:

Just the day after his second blocked (a one week block), Hadraas goes and violation of WP:EDITWAR for the third time. He reverted middayexpress four times just a bit shy of 24 hours. He is also still unable to grasp the concept of "3RR": "but where did i breached 3RR i am sure that did it twice today and twice yestarday by reverting my self". There is a self revert but it's on content unrelated to the reverts shown above. He has also made baselessly accused Middayexpress: and i accused you of being the founder of Northern Somali Unionist Movement". AcidSnow (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I'd block Hadraa for his conduct based on their history. However, after a tortured discussion between Hadraa and Middayexpress on the article Talk page, it looks like Hadraa has apologized for edit-warring and will hopefully not continue. If they do revert again, this report should be updated to reflect that. At that point, I would recommend a lengthy block (based on the block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and can you please close this? I had thought they were talking about something else in those last few replying as he was treating edit waring as a "game". AcidSnow (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action, per the suggestion of User:Bbb23. Hadraa has made no further reverts after the ones listed above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Religious Burp reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

Page

The Prayer Chain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Religious Burp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "Re-formatting the page so the band's entire history isn't included in the initial synopsis"
2. 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655522417 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Lots of wikipedia articles use short sections for easy reference, and these will be expanded."
3. 10:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverting to previous edit. Control freak had changed it without merit. Having sections helps easy use of article."
4. 01:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655713245 by 208.81.212.222 (talk)"
5. 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655775792 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Prayer Chain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Religious Burp's recent edits */ new section"
2. 04:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) on User talk:Religious Burp "/* Prayer Chain edits and general knowledge */"

Comments:

Editor doesn't edit much. Fewer than 200 edits ago, December 2010, editor was blocked for edit warring. No discussion here. Not sure what to do about this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the process of formatting an article on The Prayer Chain so it is more user-friendly and contains more information for people researching the band. I'm styling this on the U2 article which has a very easy to follow format and is rather interesting. Walter Gorlitz doesn't like this. He wants all the various information about different eras of the band to be in one bulky lot. He keeps reverting these changes. The entire history was originally formatted in the initial synopsis under his preferred format. This is sloppy. Religious Burp (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

First, The Prayer Chain are not U2.

I have tried to explain how we don't need multiple short sections, you didn't take kindly to that. Your other formatting and heavy reliance on direct quotes are a problem. As an editor of the u2 article, I can tell you that there are not many quotes, and none that are as long as those you provided. There is duplication of material in your edits and a lot of WP:OR. Instead of thinking that your prose are straight from the hand of god, assume that other editors know how to edit too and are trying to create an encyclopedia just like you. You're wholesale reverts are counter-productive. The total number is troubling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=655661192

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:

• The page are currently subject to active community sanctions (1RR restriction).
• After being blocked for this behavior several times, the user continue to say he don't understand what the problem is. diff WP:DONTGETIT

Erlbaeko (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• See also this recently archived discussion about the behaviour of this user[24]. It is a POV-warrior only account, who continues edit warring as soon as he is unblocked. He never seems to learn from his mistakes/blocks. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

this is insane. I edited the article and did not edit war. I removed an obsolete bit of text - how is that an 'edit war', (diff 1)and consolidated some of the over-used Seymour hersh stuff.(diff 2) ( and consensus on talk page was that hersh is over cited and needs consolidating). Diff 3 is not anything other than a few words changing round , and is called editing erlbeako. diff 4 was removing repetition I had introduced. These are politically motivated editors who are hostile personally to me. - any look at my edit history over five years or so will see I edit over a wide range - to say I am a pov driven account is ridiculous. this is a personal animus dragging me here for no reason, aiming to get an editor they don't like blocked and banned. I find it all very upsetting but not surprising I suppose - (the recently archived discussion you link to funkmonk, a discussion you started because you hated my user page having quotes from garry kasparov and such - I changed my user page, all I left is a couple of userboxes and a photo of simone weil .) Sayerslle (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, if you only learned from your past blocks, you wouldn't be blocked again. is it really that hard not to revert more than three times? How long are you going to continue the same disruptive behaviour? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

one edit was a revert of redundant material over a year old, the couple others were just edits. Sayerslle (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle: this is indeed a WP:1RR violation and you have an impressive block log. If you are blocked again for edit warring it has to be for a long time, since the last one was two months. I suggest you accept a permanent restriction from editing Ghouta chemical attack and a permanent 1RR restriction on all your Wikipedia editing. Otherwise the admin who closes this report is likely to issue a proportionate block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

have you looked at the diffs? on the talkpage not everyone agreed with erlbaekos interpretation of my edits. would you at least look at the discussion there?I dont accept if I am blocked it will be for edit -warring because that is not an accurate representation of what happened. I don't mind a1RR on all my Wikipedia edits if that means 1 edit on a page, per 24 hours only. I cant agree to a total ban on ghouta chemical attacks because that implies I accept I was disruptive at that page or out of control somehow and I regard that as absurd. Can't you ask for a bit more input from other editors or something. if the general feeling is that I am a menace at that page I'll agree , but the two editors above are political enemies who want to get me banned.Sayerslle (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle, when judging a 1RR violation there is no need to check the talk page. If the edits are both reverts and both by you, it's a violation. So please go ahead and accept the restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope User: Kudzu1 won't mind if I paste here what he/she wrote - 'I don't agree with your interpretation, User:Erlbaeko. The sanctions are meant to prevent disruptive edit-warring, not to constrain users from being bold. If the Del Ponte section had been added recently or User:Sayerslle had good reason to believe there was no consensus for removing the content, I would say yes, it counts as a revert and WP:1RR applies. But he was making BOLD changes, following a Talk page discussion with broad agreement, to material that was inserted into the article (during the bad old days, I might add) more than a year ago. It doesn't make any sense to count that as edit-war behavior, which is what 1RR is designed to curb ' - so, you know, I removed an old piece of SYNTH-y material and consolidated a bit of other material for which there was consensus to do - Sayerslle (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle, your block log suggests that your judgment of when you have consensus is faulty. If you hadn't transgressed so many times in the past we could afford to be more generous here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

so what happened doesn't matter - its pre-judged. I pasted a comment from the talk page that I didn't write, so its not my judgment in question there. I edited the page in a responsible and reasonable manner- if this leads to a block then it will be another victory for those that game the system imo but what can I do - its tiring and it just wastes time. I am not a disruptive editor, my block log considering its six or seven years , editing in sometimes very contentious and pov driven areas, seems nothing excessive really. the last ban for 59 days was because I was stupid enough to insist on reliable sources arguing with a spa, - in the end the article got deleted it was so problematic . so it goes - believe me I am learning how it works here and if I am blocked again, or not blocked, I will learn from this exchange also. The only thing I don't like in what you suggest is the total ban from ghouta chemical attacks, otherwise I agree to all the restrictions and understand them fully now. Sayerslle (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 months. There was an edit war at Ghouta chemical attack, the editor's last block was for two months, and no agreement could be reached here that would ensure different behavior in the future. The last two 3RR complaints were here, on 8 February and here, on 18 November 2014. The reverts listed above in this report are from April 8, which is the very day that Sayerslle's two-month block expired. It didn't take long for him to get into trouble again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:122.171.95.11 reported by User:Ctg4Rahat (Result: )

Page

Satyendra Nath Bose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "He should be introduced by his nationality, not language"
2. 17:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Even if it was his ethnicity, a person should be first introduced by nationality. U can mention ethnicity anywhere else. See his Britannica page-http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74633/Satyendra-Nath-Bose"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC) to 18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655865168 by Ctg4Rahat (talk) See this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OPENPARA No doubt on nationality of SN Bose. Don't make it an ego issue"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Jagadish Chandra Bose.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments: I am giving references. It is User:Ctg4Rahat, who is not giving references. I gave this reference- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74631/Sir-Jagadish-Chandra-Bose Here, he is introduced as Indian, not Bengali. Then this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OPENPARA. But, he is constantly making changes, without any proof User:122.171.95.11 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:86.24.128.230 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: Blocked 31 Hours for 3rr)

Page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.24.128.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [31]

Comments:

User has not yet hit 3RR, but clearly is edit warring, and shows no desire to stop disruption. Multiple users have attempted to intervene, and attempts to get the user to rephrase their question or alter it so it was not objectionable have been ignored, and the user refuses to discuss or accept this advice. By forcing the issue, they make it clear their intent is not to get information or help from others, rather they clearly just want to troll. Multiple people have reverted them, and requested that they alter their approach. I even offered ways the user could ask the question in ways that didn't make it look like trolling. I was ignored, showing the user is simply interested in edit warring and "winning" some sort of battle. Request a block to deal with the disruption. Thanks! --Jayron32 22:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Edit: User has hit bright-line 3RR. More evidence that a block is needed. --Jayron32 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IP behaves identically to a long time IP-hopping troll that gets off on asking stupid and pointless questions. Page protection already requested. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Parallel discussion at WP:ANI#Trolling and edit-warring IP. Abecedare (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've blocked the IP on the 3-rr violation, if you want to pursue it further for a longer block on the other grounds, it was cross posted to WP:AN/I. Monty₈₄₅ 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)