Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

---

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

Additional notes

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

---

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User:71.226.23.207 reported by Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)]] (Result: Semi-protected for 1 month)

Page: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.226.23.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

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

Comments:

For several months, this anonymous and single-purpose editor (who fails to sign his posts) has been operating under several IP addresses (71.203.85.14 and possibly 99.103.174.55 for example)while taking the position that he is the sole person who will determine what is appropriate to this article and what is not. He threatens and attempts to intimidate this editor to promote his POV. He stated, "In short, I'll just bury the criticism with the opposite effect to bring balance....and we can make the article ridiculously long.", and "....unless you can drum up a consensus for keeping the material I will be deleting all entries- sourced or otherwise- that deal with mere individual acts that do not affect the agency as a whole." In my opinion, making these statements have no place on Wikipedia.

This editor has refused to register and sign his posts. Further, he seems unable to properly post citations and simply embeds links.

Certainly, ATF as an agency is under severe criticism at the current time (see Fast and Furious). Inappropriate actions of individual agents and the agency reaction to these incidents directly reflect on the agency as a whole.

I've attempted to compromise with this editor, but to no avail. Reverting postings not backed up by the citation is met with immediate reverts.

If I'm editing inappropriately, then please let me know and I'll back off. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement for a user to register to edit. There is, however, a requirement for all editors to abide by Wikipedia policies when editing. Looking at the edit history for the article, the IP editor appears to be keeping just outside the strict limits of WP:3RR, but to me, that's WP:GAMING the system. And the commentaries are certainly not consistent with collaboration or collegial editing. So while possibly not violating the letter of 3RR, there's definitely a violation in its spirit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, where do we go from here? Computer Guy 2 (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems the edit war is continuing - this time with some other editor (possible sock puppet?). The undersigned revised the paragraph to reflect a more NPOV, since it was being turned into a cluttered narrative about the shooting and trial. It has now been reverted multiple times by User:AceD. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've issued 3RR warnings to AceD & Computer Guy 2 as both are involved. I have reverted the page back to the state it was in before the edit war broke out. Computer Guy, you should make sure to give warnings on the user's talk pages before posting here. As AceD appears to be a new user, he must be warned of our policies.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems a most unusual coincidence that User:AceD, who previously posted only once back on 5 February 2006, decided to post today after being silent for over 5 years, to continue an edit war begun by User:71.203.85.14 and earlier by User:99.103.174.55. Most unusual - but we should assume Good Faith. However, "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:208.127.239.5 reported by User:Andros 1337 (Result: 31h)

Page: Delta Air Lines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.127.239.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]
• 3rd revert: [8]
• 4th revert: [9]
• 5th revert: [10] (added 01:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC) by ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

User keeps on defending his/her edits using random Wikipedia policies to circumvent consensus, a clear violation of WP:GAME and WP:POINT. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 02:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a purely petty and patently obvious retaliation motivated attempt because User:Andros 1337 was reported by me at the No original research/Noticeboard. The policy is question there is WP:V, which this editor simply refuses to abide by [13], [14]. Not a "random Wikipedia policy" but a "core content" policy. The editor fails to adher to it and when challenged for that failure, resorts to retaliatory and meritless claims here on ANI. If that isn't an obvious WP:GAME violation, and an enormous abuse and time-waster of the resources and people on this forum, then I don't know what is. But definitely the wrong editor is being reviewed here. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you are clearly trying to circumvent consensus, which is on my side. You are overtagging the article with {{citation needed}} tags on statements that are common knowledge and cited in other parts of the same paragraph. You should also read WP:CK and WP:BLUE. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, admins, please read all of the IP's comments at WP:NORN. He/she is obviously disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 01:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 31 hours for disruptive editing. The IP has engaged in long-term edit warring on the tags at Delta Air Lines in a campaign which has no support from others. The editor was also involved in a revert war on a BLP article, Doug Lamborn, which led to its being fully protected on August 5. This is an IP who arrived on August 1 and immediately plunged into controversy, knowing many acronyms. I am not clear on whether he is here to help the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:75.10.108.94 reported by User:Robotam (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.10.108.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] [21]

Comments:
Possible sockpuppet of User:Brilliantstring, used to circumvent 3RR -RoBoTam^ice 04:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This wasn't a 3RR violation, but the editor was clearly edit warring after being asked to stop doing so. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Mirwais Hotak (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Faisal Shahzad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

Mar4d is POV pushing and distorting information. He's been here for a long time it seems but is disregarding the 3RR rule. I'm not into edit-warring but this issue about Faisal Shahzad made me very frustrated because the Government of Pakistan explained that he is Kashmiri based on official government records but Mar4d comes and says no that's not true, and asserts that Faisal Shazad should be labelled a Pashtun. It's very frustrating when you are confronted by such an editor, especially during Ramadan.

In his blind and aggresive reverts he did the following:

• Changed Melik Kaylan reported in Forbes magazine --to--> Forbes reported that he is of Pashtun extraction. - I say that this article should mention "Melik Kaylan" instead of Forbes because that's how true investigative reports are written and Forbes is not making the claim but Melik Kaylan is. Mar4d write "Fores" instead of M. Kaylan, because it makes the claim more trustworthy.
• He added "Kifayat Ali, a man who said he is a cousin of Shahzad's father, insisted that Shahzad's family had no political affiliations, adding that the arrest appeared as a "conspiracy so that the [Americans] can bomb more Pashtuns." ... he used this dead link as proof. - I say this is not even relevant for the article because that guy will say anything in order to defend his relative.
• He removed this valid and useful sourced information "She and her parents have roots in the Pakistani city of Mardan [29]"
• He added "Pashtun" after Huma Asif Mian, but there is no source provided. - I say what if she is not really a Pashtun by ethnicity but just happens to speak Pashto as one of her languages and lived in a Pashtun territory? It is established however that she speaks Urdu, Pashto, English and I think other languages.

I think you can see that he has some kind of agenda going on.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The user above is engaged in a consistent WP:POV-pushing agenda on Pashtun related topics. He has been removing the reference of Mir Aimal Kansi being a Pashtun from his article despite sources to back the subject's ethnicity. Now, he has been consistently removing, changing and modifying sourced information in the Faisal Shahzad article - information that is not only covered in reliable sources, but has also been in the article for over a year. No one has challenged Faisal Shahzad's Pashtun ethnicity, and it is rather clear and well substantiated based on various references. Please see my reply on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts where I have shown some links. This user does not seem to understand the concept of WP:RS - that if there are reliable sources verifying a claim, then the content stays in the article. Yet, Mirwais Hotak keeps removing referenced content based on a weak and not even well-covered argument (according to most internet sources) of Shahzad being a Kashmiri. Mar4d (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The one engaged in POV-pushing is you because you want readers to follow your ideas and thoughts, and you blindly and aggressively revert all my edits. Stop labelling terrorists as ethnic Pashtuns with non-existing or fake sources[30]. Labelling terrorists as Pashtuns alone is provocation and that usually leads to edit-warring as you have done so here. This here is not the place to argue over the content in articles, but you have clearly and intentionally violated the 3RR. I know about the W:RS, you need to go here from there, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and try to understand what source is more acceptable and what is not.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Asteckley reported by User:Steven J. Anderson (Result: 31h)

Page: Signature in the Cell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asteckley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here are all of the user's edits to the article in the last 24 hours in reverse chronological order:

• 1. [31]
• 2. [32]
• 3. [33]
• 4. [34]
• 5. [35]
• 6. [36]
• 7. [37]
• 8. [38]
• 9. [39]
• 10. [40]

Edits 1, 2 and 3 are all reverts of the same material. 4 and 5, taken together, constitute a single revert identical to 1, 2 and 3 (1, 2, 3 and 4+5 are four identical reverts in less than 24 hours.) 6 and 7 are identical reverts to different material. 8 and 9 are harmless edits. 10 is an identical revert to the 6 and 7 reverts, continuing a separate edit war initiated yesterday.

While I was preparing this, the editor continued his edit warring with this revert (for his fifth revert of the same material):

• [41]

Diff of edit warring notice placed on user's talk page:

• [42]

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Black Kite (t) (c) 10:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:99.181.144.107, User:99.181.132.122, User:99.35.14.74 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Page protected)

Page: Inside Job (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. 99.181.144.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (perhaps not, but it's the same editor)
2. 99.181.132.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 99.35.14.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All edits (except possibly the first) revert to add WP:OVERLINKs. Reverts 2, 3, and 4 are explicit.

• 1st revert: 02:14, August 7, 2011 as IP#1 (added deregulation; partial revert of http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Inside_Job_%28film%29&action=historysubmit&diff=440221614&oldid=440219079 )
• 2nd revert: 00:40, August 8, 2011 as IP#2 (explicitly reverted my edit reverting #1)
• 3rd revert: 00:54, August 8, 2011 as IP#2 (explicitly reverted my edit reverting #2)
• 4th revert: 00:57, August 8, 2011 as IP#2 (explicitly reverted my edit reverting #3)
• 5th revert: 01:10, August 8, 2011 as IP#3 (restoring conflict of interest, removed, among other times here)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:59, August 8, 2011 as IP#2, about a different page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page edits of July 21-23; Bbb23 (talk · contribs) removed most of the links and gave most of the arguments; I actually supported one of the links by this IP-jumping editor, and Bbb23 rewrote the sentence to avoid the need for the link.

Comments:
Note that IP#2 stopped and IP#3 started just after the warning. Other pages with edit warring, without attempting to justify the edits, include Talk:Climate Audit and Climate change mitigation scenarios ‎. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected The IPs are too dynamic for blocking to be much use, it's probably best to report issues at other articles to WP:RFPP. I suppose a rangeblock could be considered if the issue gets worse. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rawalpindi Express and User:Alamsherkhan reported by User:Palltrast (Result: Page protected)

Page: Awan (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Rawalpindi Express (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alamsherkhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_(Pakistan)&oldid=442977802

• 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=442993682&oldid=442977802
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443166705&oldid=443099762
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443171701&oldid=443171361
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443281803&oldid=443265508

etc.

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443099762&oldid=443095868
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443290007&oldid=443281803
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443406150&oldid=443324964
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Awan_%28Pakistan%29&action=historysubmit&diff=443633152&oldid=443503802

etc.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlamsherkhan&action=historysubmit&diff=443634480&oldid=443632373
• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rawalpindi_Express&diff=prev&oldid=443634423

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

Comments:

I am an uninvolved editor. I came across this page at Recent Changes. These two editors have been carrying on a simmering revert war for the last four days, persistently altering the article back and forth to their preferred version. This morning it has escalated into a full out edit war. Please see the article's history for the full picture. I don't have the expertise in the subject to know which version is "correct" but the edit war they are pursuing is not doing the article any good and I believe admin intervention is required. Palltrast (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Whilst I am tempted to block both editors as well, at least they're actually discussing it on the talkpage now, where I have left a warning. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bokan995 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h )

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

User being reported: Bokan995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 23:15, 7 August 2011 (edit summary: "Removing POV by Tabande by giving the article a two sided viewpoint about the Kurds and Medes")
2. 00:03, 8 August 2011 (edit summary: "Cleaned the article")
3. 12:01, 8 August 2011 (edit summary: "Tabande, you are giving it a negative view about the Kurds being the ancient Medes in article. Stop it!")
4. 16:58, 8 August 2011 (edit summary: "Removing vandalism by Tabande")
5. 17:02, 8 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 443708022 by Tabande (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

This editor was blocked for 31 hours on the 4th for editwarring. Note the 'vandalism' comment also. —Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I missed his redaction of other editors' comments on the talk page. [43]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Black Kite (t) (c) 21:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bge20 reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: No Violation)

Page: Left–right politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bge20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [44] 10:26, 8 August 2011
• 2nd revert: [45] 14:15, 8 August 2011
• 3rd revert: [46] 17:02, 8 August 2011
• 4th revert: [47] 21:33, 8 August 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48] 18:24, 8 August 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

The first revert included removing an entire section (Political parties in the political spectrum). The first three reverts were reversed by three different editors. TFD (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The "first revert" was of older material in the article - not properly counted as a "revert." The "third revert" (actually second) etc. appear if anything to properly seek to reach a compromise from what I can see. Hits 2RR for sure. The 3RR is a maybe. The 4RR claimed is not there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I also note the editor in question did, in fact, use the article talk page each time. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.

So, I removed a lot of un-sourced and poorly sourced POV, riddled with basic factual errors (like mis-dating a party's foundation by a century) on an article with no discussion since 2009, accompanied by a detailed talk post.

I got reverted without comment or engagement. That's, well, rude, and I've not seen that in in 5 or so years on wiki. So I reverted back. Frankly, it looked as much like vandalism as editing.

OK, maybe I was hasty. No talk since 2009, but some recent edit activity. Sorry. But very odd to see no discussion at all.

Then I made some largely new, small, specific, annotated changes with discussion, and they were bulk reverted without comment or discussion - just an assertion for needing sources on edits that are either sourced or unsourcable. At that point I start to lose respect for this.

Next, I fixed some blatant factual errors (with sourcing) and frankly bizarre unsourced POV, with comment and source, and got reported here.

At no point has anyone actually tried to claim that there's anything wrong with the stuff I added, or defend the junk I removed.

I've talked on the article page, my talk page and the talk page of the guy who's decided that saying the Whigs were founded in the 18th century and linking to the Whig article is unacceptable. The discussion is entirely one way - I make points about the article and i get bot-like quoting of the wiki rule book - which my edits are complying with - and bot-like deletion by editors who refuse to discuss the issues that need fixing in the article or even, it would seem, actually read my edits.

Or, do you think the line "The main factor dividing left and right in Western Europe is class" is non-POV, uncontroversial and doesn't require a source?

I love discussion. Can we have some?

Frankly, this article would get a fail in an exam - it is riddled with childish errors. And I was probably a little hasty in wading in to zap some really egregious nonsense. But my interest in fixing it is less than my desire to learn the secret rule book. I've had zero edit problems on wiki - I just seem to have run into a few ... difficult editors. Bge20 (talk)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. If User:Bge20 makes another revert, leave a message on my talk and I'll block them. --FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Beatthecyberhate reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]
• 5th revert: [55]
• 6th revert: [56]
• 7th revert: [57]
• 8th revert: [58]
• 9th revert: [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Comments:
Article appears to be under siege by a COI editor intent on scrubbing bad press. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Srimalleswara reported by User:Jsorens (Result: No Violation)

Page: Administrative divisions of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srimalleswara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Courcelles 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:92.28.244.21/User:92.28.254.151 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.28.244.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(latest), 92.28.254.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(previous)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]
• 5th revert: [74]
• 6th revert: [75]

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

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

Comments:

User above mischaracterized criticism as personal attacks. They have been told by no less than 7 other people that the edits were not personal attacks, including people who reverted him, and people who commented at WT:RD over the matter. --Jayron32 20:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, could we have some diffs, instead of 6 links to the full article history?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I will fix this. I must've miscopied the link I wanted into my clipboard each time...  Done. Sorry about that. --Jayron32 20:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my diff of putting the comment back in after the IP removed it the sixth time. He probably removed it again by now. -- kainaw™ 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ohnoitsjamie did the honors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo reported by   — Jess· Δ♥ (Result: )

Page: Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Warring on Objections to evolution

1. 15:45, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 16:14, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 16:29, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 443890501 by Apokryltaros (talk)user failing to explain his undo")

Warring on User_talk:Apokryltaros

1. 16:09, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 16:23, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 443894370 by Apokryltaros (talk) Because it is not talk page that did undo but you")
3. 16:27, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 443895123 by Apokryltaros (talk)")
4. 16:45, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

• Comments: No violation of 3rr. However, the user was blocked July 18th for edit warring on this same page, and since then he's done nothing but add inappropriate content to the article, and edit war when it gets reverted. Looking at the talk page, he's worn out the patience of the community with his warring and aggressive, battleground behavior. I believe the crux of this problem is a violation of WP:EW, so I'm taking it here instead of ANI. (Note, I'm not actually involved in the dispute, except to the extent that I've posted the EW warnings and brought the issue here.)

—  — Jess· Δ♥ 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:ConcernedVancouverite reported by User:Nemonoman (Result: )

Can someone please have a look at at several dozen article revisions made today by this editor? Here's the [Contributions Page].

The editor has inserted the words "Cult Leader", and a set of references, preceding the name Meher Baba into the lead paragraph of numerous articles associated with Meher Baba.

It is entirely reasonable that the Meher Baba article include this information and these references, assuming they are reliable sources that identify Meher Baba as cult leader -- which apparently is NOT the case for all of them. But such an addition would be consistent with an NPOV policy, and as one of the article's more active editors, I would support it.

The insertion of "Cult Leader" virtually every time the name appears is, in my opinion, more than disruptive, but vandalism.

Attempts to discuss have been met with little success, and reverting just leads to more reverts.

Dozens of articles are being affected, and the situation is unlike any I have seen before.

I invite your help. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note I blocked Dragonbooster4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today for edit warring for removing the "cult leader" passage from the intro to the Meher Baba article. However, the warning came after that user was repeatedly advised to discuss the matter on the talk page and refused to. ConcernedVancouverite, by contrast, has participated in the discussions at the related articles' talk pages and has not, per my inspection, violated 3RR. I did not see any reason to block CV then, nor do I see a reason to now. I do think that discussion should continue at Talk:Meher Baba on whether to include the phrase in that article; it's probably best to err on the side of caution and omit the phrase for the time being.

I'm not going to close the report, because it probably wouldn't hurt for an administrator new to the situation to review it and make sure I haven't overlooked anything. However, I don't see where any action is necessary now, and if discussion proceeds at the talk pages, I don't think any further action will be needed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

CFred -- As mentioned above, I agree that a Cult-leader section could reasonably be included in Meher Baba. ConcernedVancouverite, however, has added the phrase to the lede of dozens of articles, without discussion in all but a few instances, and it is not clear that identifying Meher Baba as a cult-leader is relevant at all to the body of the dozens of articles in question. Certainly including the term, with six refernces, in the lede, suggests that it is not only relevant, but also that the article will discuss its relevance to the article's subject. This is not the case. To place an adjective as loaded as "Cult Leader" in front of anyone's name, without further discussion, is highly POV, in my opinion, and the validity of the term in relation to Meher Baba is certainly arguable. Its use in these articles in this way suggests that the matter is completely settled -- not the case -- and that the subjects of these articles are somehow misguided automatons.

My concern is not about the Meher Baba article but the dozens of others currently being, in my opinion, vandalized. If not vandalism, it is very bad editing not consistent with WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, or WP:LEDE. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've spent a good deal of time reading the reliable secondary sources on this topic prior to making the edits, and have realized that they have not been adequately represented in the dozens of articles related to Meher Baba. The additional citations I have added are to both academic articles written exclusively about the topic, as well as popular press in major newspapers. One example of the sources includes, Robbins, Thomas. 1969. "Eastern Mysticism and the Resocialization of Drug Users: The Meher Baba Cult", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 8,2:308-317. The Journal_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Religion is a peer reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell. Articles on Wikipedia need to represent a neutral point of view, and the current tone of the writings about Baba have all been ignoring the cult angle, which is well cited, and as such I believe needs to be included to balance out the coverage. A reader of Wikipedia coming to the various articles may otherwise be presented with a POV that misses one angle of the history each of the subject's activities with and related to Meher Baba. I posted the same to the talk pages, but instead it being discussed, it was reverted multiple times to the point of one of the reverting editors being blocked for 3RR. Regardless, I'm going to step away from the articles, as it is clear there are some editors who are quite passionate about defending them, and it is not a good use of energy on my part to engage if other editors are just reverting and attempting to make claims about edit warring (which I have not engaged in) without discussing the merits of bringing an alternative view. I do encourage any editors who stumble onto this conversation to read the multiple reliable sources which refer to Meher Baba as a cult, led by Meher Baba. The ones I added are just the tip of the iceberg. There are literally dozens more. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Idwal2000 reported by [[User:Renseim (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)]] (Result: )

Page: Darcus Howe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Idwal2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff=443941852]

• 1st revert: [diff=443956466]
• 2nd revert: [diff=443951077]
• 3rd revert: [diff=443947238]
• 4th revert: [diff=443943718]

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

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

Comments:
Not on talk page, but clear consensus against obvious POV wording expressed in edit summaries.