Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR 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. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Merle Allin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 16:18, 16 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586234803 by Dialectric (talk)")
2. 04:43, 17 December 2013 (edit summary: "vandalism thwarted")
3. 18:36, 17 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586446370 by CCS81 (talk)")
4. 15:52, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586681744 by CCS81 (talk)")
5. 02:08, 24 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587398393 by Dialectric (talk) refe")
6. 16:29, 24 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587480495 by CCS81 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of talk page comment: here

Comments:
User Wissingwm has been inserting the same block of unreferenced content into the BLP article Merle Allin since October, at least 11 times by my count, and did not respond to a warning message on his talk page or to several suggestions to discuss the changes on the article talk page before reverting. As IPs were reverting this same content until I requested semi-protection, there may also be an issue of socking. —Dialectric (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

CryptoLocker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "You don't put them in an article unless they're serving some purpose. Only one mentions Dunklin and he is the sentence. They're not and two are already used."
2. 04:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "4 of those IC have nothing to do with the sentence."
3. 01:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Only 1 of the 5 IC mentions Ducklin, the main focus of this sentence. That one is kept, the rest are gone."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Removal of citations */ new section"
2. 04:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on CryptoLocker. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Is outright removing valid citations from an article because they don't cite the sentence they are positioned directly after, despite repeated explanations that they cite the entire paragraph. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor insists on using 5 IC for one sentence when 4 of them have nothing at all to do with it. See my edit summaries and my comment at his talk page.(If they support something in the paragraph, move them to the correct sentence. BTW this is the first time Viper mentions that. ) In fact his history at this article shows a clear history of WP:OWN.. I haven't violated 3RR. Viper on the other hand comes here when his edits are pointless except as an action to keep exerting his control this page....William 05:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that was an entire paragraph, not just one sentence. However, I just repositioned the refs so they're not all at the end, implying they're only citing that one statement. Additionally, I am not showing ownership of the article; one who shows ownership usually doesn't work with others on the talk page, ensuring that this article doesn't violate WP:HOWTO. But still, you violated WP:3RR. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. William is correct in that he did not violate 3RR as he reverted only three times. Technically, ViperSnake violated 3RR, even though his first revert, a series of consecutive edits between 23:20 and 23:26, was not about the dispute. Apparently, ViperSnake has at least partly complied with William's request in his last edit to the article. If that doesn't satisfy William, I suggest that he or ViperSnake move the citations to the "correct" locations. This was a needless dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

AR Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bobby.jennings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 17:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 17:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
5. 01:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on AR Fox. (TW)"
2. 17:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 18:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one month I blocked him more for the BLP violation than the edit warring. only (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Katia Elizarova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "the links are listed as official. And regularly sourced online to boot. also. you removed images again. bad editing."
2. 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587650445 by Thomas.W (talk) you removed images and links. the links are akin to all other bio pages for living people also. relevant to wiki and valid content"
3. 17:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "please stop removing images. investigate then delete dont do it the other way round. 3RR rule and I shall report for this violation again."
4. 17:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587642381 by Lady Lotus i sent them to that fan page following taking them. i own them and have released to commons. there is no dispute as to ownership, please leave alone."
5. 15:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587634652 by Lady Lotus (talk) the images are owned by me."
6. 13:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587381578 by Lady Lotus (talk) I own the images and added them. They are legit. You have been banned for edited before."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Katia Elizarova"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

As the user in dispute here I would like to hold that the other party is attempting to remove images I own and have supplied to commons for free use. These have been fully offered by me as owner and the other party is attempting continuously to unfoundedLy remove them from the Katia Elizarova page. Also, they are attempting to remove external links to official pages. It is destructive editing and has resulted in an edit war for which U am protecting the undue removal of content. I appreciate your investigation. Carpefemme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owning the images, as you claim, neither guarantees you a right to add them, nor exludes you from the 3RR-rules. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months for the edit warring and general disruption. only (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley
User being reported: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is NOT a 3RR report but a report about an editor who seems determined to editwar in that editor's preferred version and has made comments on the talk page that can be taken to imply an intent to continue to editwar in the changes that the editor has made.

Version before edit warring to: as edited by AnomieBOT II at 18:28, 17 November 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:05, 14 December 2013 "Hide it all. Will improve documentation."
2. 23:42, 14 December 2013 "Undid revision 586112298 by PBS (talk) there are examples. Do not start to revert all my edits"
3. 08:51, 25 December 2013 "Undid revision 586514315 by PBS (talk) Remove error category by adding includeonly tags as usual method. Do not revert, your reasons are not good enough."
4. 15:45, 25 December 2013 "Undid revision 587618288 by PBS (talk) Revert inferior edit in violation of WP:OWN."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The editor claims to be an experienced editor "I have a lot of experience with templates" [1] and has been made aware of WP:BRD on the talk page of the template (see below).

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

• I (PBS) reverted the first version with an edit history comment of "Please do not hide it. It is better to display what it looks like here and helps with maintaince" and simply left it at that.
• After the second revert by Debresser at 23:51, 14 December 2013, I added a new section to the talk page and deliberately included "@user:Debresser at the start of the text so that Debresser would be flagged that I had left a comment on the talk page. I pointed out WP:BRD and the reasons why I did not think the edit appropriate. However I did not revert and waited for Debresser to comment. At 17:01, 17 December 2013‎ as Debresser had not replied, I reverted the edit Debresser had made.
• Today Debresser reverted the edit at 08:51, 25 December 2013‎ and then commented on the talk page "You are right about WP:BRD. And I just now reverted you again, before I checked the talk page. I apologize, but I still think that I am evidently right and that there is not much to discuss." (08:58, 25 December 2013). However having made that comment about BRD, after I made a long comment on the talk page about what there was to discuss, I reverted (on the understanding of what I have just quoted) so that we could discuss the change per BRD, to my surprise Debresser posted to the talk page at 15:44, 25 December 2013 stated in the talk edit history "Ezplain why I will revert." and on the talk page "Sorry, but I will revert. Note that WP:BRD says clearly that it should not be used as an excuse to revert". It seems to me that this comment implies that this editor intends to edit war in their preferred version ignoring BRD which he previously acknowledged as the way forward.

An editor with this much experience should not be revert warring in changes to templates, which can affect 100 of articles, before a consensus for the change has been reached on the talk page or the template. Instead they should follow WP:BRD and [assume good faith in those who disagree with them.

Desired outcome: that the template and its document page are reverted to the last stable version and change does not take place until a consensus for a change is reached through the usual dispute resolution process. -- PBS (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Debresser:
I agree I am edit warring about this a little: but no more than PBS. But there is discussion on the talk page of this template, in which he and I are the only participants so far. Frankly speaking, in view of the history of this template, I have no reason to assume that anybody else will join that discussion. And all reason to assume that PBS has a WP:OWN issue here! He has no other argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT! I am trying to remove an error category (more about this here and here, and see also my userpage What I do on Wikipedia). I have shown that another even more experienced template editor than I implicitly agrees with my approach. None of the functionality of the template is impaired, so no need to stress that this template affects 100s of articles. By the way, I regularly edit templates that affect 1000s or 10s of 1000s of articles, that is the way it works with templates. And the examples are now where they are supposed to be: on the documentation page! If not his WP:OWN/WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, he should have welcomed my edit! See my talk page posts [2] and [3]. I have made the same edit to many other templates (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]), and nobody else has seen reason to revert. So when PBS says I am edit warring, I must by logical comparison come to the conclusion that the problem is in him, rather than in me. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I'm not exactly sure what the request is here. Both parties have reverted 3 times in the last 10 days (the first edit by Debresser is of course not a revert AFAICS), though no-one has technically broken 3RR. The normal way of dealing with this is to protect the template. But given that both parties are, after all, very experienced Wikipedians, is that really necessary here? You've both been through the BR part of WP:BRD three times, now do the D part. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I just locked it anyway. You guys discuss away Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above "Desired outcome: that the template and its document page are reverted to the last stable version and change does not take place until a consensus for a change is reached through the usual dispute resolution process." -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not very content with this outcome. 1. I think there is not much to discuss here. 2. It is unlikely anybody will come to the discussion unless invited especially, since this template was PBS's private project, so to say. And yes, this is an allusion to WP:OWN. 3. I see no further reverts since the opening of this complaint. And not that many to begin with. And Black Kite suggested no protection of the template is necessary. I am therefore surprised that Casliber decided to fully protect the template.

As a way out of the impasse, perhaps these two editors would care to solve this issue by visiting the talk page of the template and leaving their opinions as to the issue itself? Debresser (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: you really should attempt to assume good faith. That no revert took place is due to my restraint from automatically reverting a revert (an ambush tactic I have seen used many times by editors who post to this page in an attempt to get the page locked on their preferred version). Does this statement of yours mean that you are willing to revert your revert and leave the template at the version it would be if you were to follow the WP:BRD cycle and wait for a consensus to develop? Or does you statement mean that you are only willing to refrain from reverting providing your preferred version is in place? -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2013 South Sudanese political crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Lihaas seems to be aggressively edit warring with several users on the page at once. His recent talk page comments are confrontational and uncooperative. I tried my best to approach this in a calm manner and WP:AGF, but his response was so far beyond reason that a resolution without administrative action seems hopeless.

The dispute involves claims that the entirety of the "international news media" is framing the South Sudanese conflict in the wrong way. I deleted this comment and he has been restoring it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. His second or third revert, but the first within this 24 hour period
2. Here he reverts another user with whom he's edit warring about a seperate issue. And you can see that user's changes being made here and here
3. Here is another revert, simply telling me "it's on the page"
4. This is a revert of what he claims to be vandalism, but that is not "obvious" to me.
5. This is a revert for the infobox, which he is warring over
6. Here he is removing citation needed templates without including any inline citations

Warning - While not a 3RR warning specifically, I did warn him of administrative action. I also tried my best to come to a reasonable solution.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:

All I did was ask for a source, I don't see why someone would behave so aggressively unless they were POV pushing. The one source he did provide after I warned of administrative action was an opinion piece. This is a transparent ethnic dispute spillover, he has ignored reasonable requests for verification, and objectively broken the 3RR. Please help me resolve this dispute. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I told him three times that there are references, he refused to go to discussion and then after he does finally he accuses me instead of asking. Yet I went ahead and answered all his questions and showed the citations and STILL I left in his tag for him to approve and remove. Then he accuses me of being confrontational after his first comment was accusatory. That is not AGF and it wasn't calm when he wars over it despite telling him that there are sources. In fact, he expects me to do ALL the work. The consensus discussion requires him to discuss, he did not do it before and I told him the sources were on the page. Which I then answered his query with showing every point as sourced, and as I said I still did not revert him but left the tag and in fact NOTIFIED him for doing so and waiting for his revert.

As for the other topics, one can note I have made several discussions on the talk page. I have also shown that I did NOT revert the other issue with links as evidence on the page and that I did indeed revert my addition of 66 without intervening edits.

Further to note, he never warned me. He instead threatens me in the very edit he considers to have been discussing and then says I am uncooperative and confrontational. (I think vonversely an attempt to discuss that is threatening is MORE harmful to congenial discussion, confrontational and even condescending) Yet after that I still do NOT revert what he added and instead wrote on his talk page that the tag is there for HIM to remove. And yet im being uncooperative by answering his question AND leaving the content he added. What more should I do on this regard? Not only do I take his threats, I answer them and wait for him to determine consensus and remove the tag.

The vandalism was by an IP who reverted multiple times without any reason whatsoever. That is generally considered vandalism by many others around here.

As said both issues have been in discussion. I reverted my own 66 in accordance with the discussion on the other issue and then made suggested changes on the issue (which that user did too).

Further amongst some edits there aren't intervening edit which is note a war.

In sum, Ive made attempts at discussion. Heck, when consensus was against me I even agree and didn't edit. (See Srebrenica massacre and internal conflict sections) Other times I went to talk first to preempt possible wars. (cathegory ethnic conflict section, for one)Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

update still answering all his queries, and moving nothing on the main page. [His] Tags in place too..

Incidentally the othe reditor mentioned here is warring to in less than 24 hours, while yet the other editor is not even discussing in talk. At least twith the former were working out and with the latter Ive geiven up for now, but he is not discussing (and elsewhere).Lihaas (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. My inclination is to block Lihaas for violating WP:3RR and to some extent for his disruptive attitude. However, I don't feel I've sufficiently explored his conduct or other editors' conduct to do so, and I have to leave wiki. For the benefit of other admins, of the six diffs (reverts) listed in thie report, there are in fact four. Numbers 1 and 2 are consecutive, and numbers 3 and 4 are consecutive. Finally, assuming Lihaas is referring to the filer when he says that they are "warring to in less than 24 hours", I see no evidence of PraetorianFury even coming close to breaching 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No not referring to the OP, reference to the other editor which he mentioned here.\

Also, btw, what disruption of mine? I need to know for future.

Nevertheless, am on all discussion as I showed above. And not reverting even his on the main page. See that for the latest. But also wheres the procedure in his civility too? Warning? Diff on "warning" and "attempt to resolve" is the same. See hthat. I too responded in attempting to solve and gave him a heads up of it, that I was not obligated to do. The links are conflating several issues without R3RR on a current event with breaking news and many edits on the page. Its not a gross violation.

As of current discussion its established that I don't even know what he opposes specifically. Other than the blanket removal which he did at first, and were since talking, ive at least partly (apparently not fully) shown sources for, Ive just gone and outright asked him which part would he like removed? Were probably now a hair-trigger away from compromise as I just need to know what he wants...and theres only one part of the aspect at the least that I would like to see there. And this is from the discussion page were already discussing.

Even, giving benefit of doubt, i redacted my focus to only the content on issue.

note now also self-reverted to remove the passage altogether to generate consensus. Fair? I was going to just remove the removal of the cn tag but took it all off to negate now the 6th? That was what he originally did. Alternatively, if it is better to just use the cn tag added back, I don't mind that.

Ive done this too, don't know which one is best but don't mind anyone going to the preferred version. Also discussions were taking place before this before filing, as a note

Here...Im clearly not digging in and besting in arguement that "im right, youre wrong". Im accommodating to discussion, even in interim, till consensus if found. Isnt that unusual for AN? Should be encouraged, no?Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lihaas has also vandalized the page on India–United States relations by redacting SOURCED and CONTEXTUAL info 91.182.232.30 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I made a single edit there in support of another editor reverting those edits (which the IP popposed) and I went directly to talk to reply there. That is amongst a week of the breaking news edit I had an edit there. I welcome all and sundry oto the history and talk page there.Lihaas (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're fortunate that I don't have the time to deal with this. I don't understand almost anything you've said. I'm done here. Either another admin will take action or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) FYI, he has heavily modified his comments after the fact. This is what I saw which made discussion seem pointless. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week He's been blocked several times in the past for 3RR and warring, so a week is an appropriate length. only (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: SliceMix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chichirko (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. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]

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

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

Comments:

+Vandalism after final warning. Alex ^{discussion ★} 10:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The page has been deleted, so no need for further action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]

This page is under 1 revert rule restrictions.

Diff of 1 revert rule violation: [18] Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
It was an act for saving the map from vandalism. "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" (WP:3RR). For the description about consecutive edits by User:Bbb23 see here. AOnline (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 - You weren't reverting vandalism, you reverted content I contributed with sources
2 - I made an intervening edit, so you did in fact make two reverts Sopher99 (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AOnline, I'm not sure what your quoting of Bbb23 is proving here. There were edits between your two reverts according to the page history. Why do you believe that this comment applies here? Sopher99, can you point me to where the 1RR restriction is named for this template? I don't see it at a quick glance and I'm not familiar with the surrounding situations. only (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a notice right here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=edit Sopher99 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Two clear reverts, not consecutive, and I can find no reason to believe these were "vandalism". Second block for same. Kuru (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Edward Makuka Nkoloso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Removed orphan status; removing self-published status; removing unreliable sources status - reason in Talk."
2. 05:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "Removed vandalism"
3. 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "Removed citation flags (see Talk); moved citations to endnote using full cite template for clarity (see Talk); added "Later life" section; added avocation for witch doctors; added "whiting" source; minor spelling; removed year of death missing category"
4. 21:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "Remove orphan status as per Orphan policy: "It is recommended to only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." Article has two links to it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Comments */"
2. 20:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Comments */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The entire talk page, posting on WP:3O, see also above diffs.

Comments:

Full disclosure: I am involved with this user, but this has just crossed the line from disagreement to edit war, and something more than WP:3O is needed. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I have protected it for the week. Please seek the outside opinions at 3O, and settle this through conversations rather than reverts. If you settle the dispute before the week is up, contact myself or any other admin (or request at WP:RFPP) to have the protection ended early. only (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  3O *was* sought a little while ago, and I don't see this working itself out any time soon. That's partly why I posted here. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well you were both in violation of edit warring here, so the best solution was protecting rather than just blocking both of you. There really isn't much other remedy that can be done on the administrative end. only (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I've blocked Sumatro, plus the IP and JanHusCz, all of whom seem connected. I also opened a sockpuppet investigation on the users. only (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Gun control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC) "a rare 3RR for me, only because "minor" is a lie"
2. 18:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC) "nobody is even willing to defend this fringe nonsense"
3. 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC) "FRINGE, UNDUE, NRA"
4. 21:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "if we get any consensus to keep, we can always put it back"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ new section"
2. 20:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ removing bolding gthat isnt formatting right"
3. 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ r"
4. 20:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ r"
5. 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ replies"
6. 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ fixing formatting issues"

Comments:

note they admit the 3rr violation in their edit summary Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]