Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive123

User:Jt14905 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Continued edit-warring immediately upon returning from a 3RR block:
 * 1st revert: 14:27, 11 February 2010
 * 2nd revert: 15:29, 11 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:29, 11 February 2010

Comments:

Jt14905's first edit after returning from a 31 hour block for edit-warring in this article is to continue his edit-warring. After being warned about his continued edit-warring, he responded 15:12, 11 February 2010 with a comment that appears to indicate he's here to right great wrongs and use Wikipedia as a battleground.

The disputed content has been discussed at length on the article talk page since at least August '09 (Talk:Susan_Roesgen). --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * User given clear and final warning on talk page to stop edit warring and to not mark edits as vandalism when they are in fact not. NJA  (t/ c)  17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:134.231.7.244 reported by User:Etoile (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallaudet_University&oldid=341681239


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallaudet_University&action=historysubmit&diff=340724691&oldid=339209438
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallaudet_University&diff=next&oldid=340745006
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallaudet_University&diff=next&oldid=340748645
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallaudet_University&diff=next&oldid=341644427

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Is a warning possible? The edits are made from multiple IP addresses on the Gallaudet University campus.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gallaudet_University#Gallaudet_as_Quasi-Governmental.3F

Comments:

Three named editors - myself, Clercfan, and Eddau - have tried to keep the phrase "quasi-governmental" in the article, as discussed on the talk page. One or more persons on the Gallaudet University campus insist on reverting it. (All edits from the 134.231.x.x block are on campus; the edits can be traced to various public computer labs.) I know practically nothing about edit warring, and this is the first instance of it I have come across as a Wikipedian, so forgive me if I've filled this out wrong. I do know that the 3RR rule has been violated, so I thought this should come to someone's attention.
 * Result - Declined. There is no 3RR violation. The diffs of IP edits which you provide are a week old, and you did not leave messages for any of these people. At a minimum, you should start a new thread on the Talk page and clearly state your rationale. What you linked above as an attempt to resolve the dispute is a thread from 2006 to which you added only a few lines. One editor has been promoting the use of  'quasi-governmental institution' since November, 2009, and a number of people have reverted his change. It is unclear whether there is any consensus to keep it in the article.  Please try to get a proper discussion started on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Drork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Combination of and


 * 1st revert: changes 131,000 people were expelled to Syrian controlled territory to 131,000 Syrians fled the to the Syrian-controlled territory. as seen in this edit
 * 2nd revert: straight revert of this
 * 3rd revert: again, same as #2
 * 4th revert: replaces "Israeli settlements" with "Israeli communities" as seen here. Also reintroduces several changes from the past reverts, such as replacing "destroyed" with "ruined" in reference to the city of Quneitra

Just blocked the other day and has repeatedly brought others, myself included, here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Golan Heights. The settlements language has been dealt with in the archives as well

Comments:

Drork continues to insist that minority terminology and views be placed ahead of what is used in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources and continues to edit-war to achieve that.  nableezy  - 20:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what Drork is thinking—his behavior at this article is being discussed above, and he's still edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These are not reverts at all. I added new information per reliable sources which you can check. This is just a vindictive action on behalf of Nableezy, and as always he is backed by Malik Shabazz in a matter of seconds. I'm sorry, I don't have admin friends. DrorK (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single one of the listed reverts is a revert as defined by WP:EW. You reverted to a favored phrasing or repeatedly adding/removing the same information. Those are all reverts.  nableezy  - 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not acting as anybody's friend. I'm just tired of seeing you disrupting the encyclopedia with your edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy is lying to cover his own misconduct, to which I pointed out earlier. I am sorry but there is no nicer way to say it. And one other thing if I may - the change from "settlements" to "communities" where I deemed it appropriate is only a small change from of the vast amount of information I have added (including a relevant picture, which Nableezy don't like for some reason). Nableezy claims this terminology had already been discussed, but I didn't see him getting so angry when community discussions were completely ignored by him and his friends on Palestinian-related articles. Malik Shabazz: may I ask what was the purpose of you joining the attack against me, and not for the first time? DrorK (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already explained, Drork. You are becoming a disruptive presence on the encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain how I am lying. Every single one of the reverts listed is a revert as defined by WP:EW. To say that I am lying by saying that is, ironically, a lie. Also, I am not "angry" and I do not dislike the picture. Your continuous refusal to get the point only annoys me, it does not anger me. And changing "settlement" to "community" is in no way a "small change", in fact it is a major change that has been fought over in a ton of articles. To see you continue this fight here, again, annoys me. One more thing: "friends" are what we have in real life. I have never met Malik, never seen his face, never even emailed him. Though I am sure he is a very pleasant person and I do respect him, it is difficult to call him a "friend" when we have never met.  nableezy  - 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remind both of you that this isn't the appropriate forum to continue a content dispute. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing the complaint, I think we can work this out ourselves.  nableezy  - 22:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Frank777w reported by LuckyLouie (talk) (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) revert 14:47, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "Addition to restore original version.")
 * 2) revert 17:54, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "addition for restoration to original, longer version.")
 * 3) revert 19:06, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "restoration of original longer version")
 * 4) revert 19:33, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "addition to restore longer, original version")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Multiple editors attempted to resolve issues and explain applicable policy to this new editor on Talk page, to no avail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * by JamieS93. NW ( Talk ) 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:NatGertler reported by User:jstanierm (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

this user is pretty adept at wikilawyering and ought to know better than to edit war like this.Jstanierm (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Jstanierm, on pages like this, you can simply use the Edit button on the right side of the topic headings to edit that section. Not only is  it easier to find what you want to edit that way, it also adds a section  link to your edit summary, making it easier for other people to see  where on the page you've edited.  -- King Öomie  21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks -- still pretty new to Wikipedia. :) Jstanierm (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. There's a lot to pick up, I agree.
 * To your report, the first two links are broken (I suspect due to mismatched revision IDs), and the last four aren't diffs, but revisions. Here's the kind of link you're looking for (the final four edits you linked).


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * See Help:Diff for more specifics, and post on my talk if you have other questions. -- King Öomie  22:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And, checking those four diffs, you'll find that the first two were to quickly remove a WP:BLP violation, which I raised on the talk page while making the edit, the fourth is me editing to better reflect the source, which is an example of editing, not edit-warring. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the diffs in my original report. They should read correctly now and number at eight.Jstanierm (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took at look at the situation, and something seems odd. This report was filed without jstanierm trying to mediate the situation, or contact any of the three parties - he has never edited the article in question. Also, not one of the three parties was warned by jstanierm before this report was filed. Only NatGertler (a user who has apparently been involved with recent talk-page discssions with jstanierm) was named in the "edit war" - it takes more than one, though... where are the 3RR notifications for Kiviat (an apparent SPA) or the anon IP 173.84.21.18? While there's definitely been a lot of back and forth going on on all sides, simply listing all of the edits one editor makes are reversions (when they're not) is not the way to go. I'm a bit troubled about the reasoning for this one editor being targeted. For what it's worth. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice those other editors. As you stated, I recently dealt with NatGertler so I was aware of *his* recent actions and thought this was the appropriate place to notify admins.  If the others were guilty of multiple reverts too then they ought to get blocked also.Jstanierm (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:AN3 isn't a first-step solution to problems. I didn't realize you hadn't tried to mediate beforehand. -- King Öomie 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - The article is protected one week, and Kiviat is warned to observe Wikipedia policy, including WP:COI, WP:BLP and verifiability. The IP 173.84.21.18 may have some valid concerns (he claims to be one of the owners of the property) but he will be more effective if he joins the talk page. Editors (like Kiviat) who remove the COI tag against consensus may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoodinger10 reported by User:Arichnad (Result: blocked)
. : Time reported: 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 00:49, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343442742 by NatGertler (talk)")
 * 2) 00:58, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343456534 by 24.83.171.37 (talk)")
 * 3) 01:19, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343460191 by AV3000 (talk)")
 * 4) 01:21, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343460455 by Arichnad (talk)")
 * 5) 01:22, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343460669 by Alansohn (talk)")

~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Sourside21 reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Version reverted to: 07:34 10 February 2010, user made the same edit at 07:17 8 February 2010 and 15:15 9 February 2010 but made no attempt to discuss the edits when reverted.


 * 1st revert: 00:34, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "It wasn't even there until I added it on professional wrestling. Please take away your bias, even if you're a WWE fan, and recognize that WWE is recognized as professional wrestling.")
 * 2nd revert: 01:20, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "No, I didn't think it was a big deal until you overreacted. Please take your "DUN DUN DUN" elsewhere, until you are ready to take this article seriously.")
 * 3rd revert: 01:28, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "I agree. Let's keep the status quo until you address your problems with the WWE documentary's and TIME magazine's information. and no DUN DUN DUN, please.")
 * 4th revert: 01:54, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "Undoing because it was not a cleanup. Please direct any criticisms you have to WT:PW.")
 * 5th revert: 02:13, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "I'm not sure I approve of the sock puppetry, or in this case, meat puppetry, but I suppose it's something to consider. Nevertheless, criticism sections are generally not a good idea.")
 * 6th revert: 02:20, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "...what? What does your comment have to do with deleting a whole paragraph?")
 * Warning diff: 02:24 February 12, 2010
 * 7th revert: 02:25, February 12, 2010 (edit summary: "You must be talking to the wrong user. The user who wanted a criticism section was Wrestlinglover. I just wanted a small paragraph to address what's in mainstream coverage of WWE.")

-- Unquestionable Truth -- (user • talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: All reverts were on the 11th, the warning came after that on the 12th. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The warning actually came one minute before the 7th (or 6th) revert, Sourside also went back 15 minutes after the 02:25 revert. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

At 1:34 12 February 3bulletproof13 attempted to discuss the matter. Sourside blanked the page and reverted the article. Sourside was warned about edit warring at 01:00 10 February 2010 for the page OnLive, it's clear he knew long before the 7th revert what he was doing. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the user has been blocked for 3RR before there is no excuse for ignorance so 48 hours. Spartaz Humbug! 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen the block log. A previous block means that Sourside has definitely received prior warnings, so I fully agree with a block. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Collectonian reported by User:174.3.98.236 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first three of those edits by Collectonian are in sequence so only count collectively as one edit. Many editors going back to November have reverted the edits by the anon:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No violation. Stop edit warring over a guideline. It's about as indefensible as it gets. Go and follow dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This was a version that was not even edited by me. And this version was made after the rfc expired.  So:
 * I did elicit comment.
 * You are reverting (mind you, at least) an edit that was not only agreed on by consensus, but was not selfwritten.
 * Protecting this page for 10 days... shorter than when I left BOTH requests for comments up, before I made an edit. If I need only 10 days to wait, then why was I blocked, and why was this blocked?174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Kriswarner reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Section has been blanked five times.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

See Talk:Kriswarner for COI, see also Mark Weisbrot and Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp.


 * I can't help but note the simple fact that there is a major 3RR vio here, and that it should be resolved asap. It also appears to be part of a larger agenda that I'm not prepared to comment on. Jusdafax   21:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor has pointed out a possible COI at Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research. Though someone connected with the Center might claim BLP in removing certain things, the section they are removing is very well-sourced. You don't get to remove things simply because you disagree with a reliable source like the New York Times. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Z Victor Alpha reported by User:Tadija (Result: Sock blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Account was created today, and after my warning, he wrote this. User is well aware what sockpuppet is, and he is asking for my block. Same as did, with his puppets. Also, User finishes sentences with phrase GOODBYE, also same as. Some of the other editors agree also. . Sock, who breached 3RR. --Tadija (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

EDIT:

= =

--Tadija (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I had independently found that Neutral Solution 100 and Z Victor Alpha were both extremely obstructive accounts, and also both clearly a sock/master pair. I had not noticed Warcrimesexpert, but, looking now at the respective edit histories, it is clear that this is another sock. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Z Victor Alpha All socks has been blocked --Tadija (talk)

User:Z Victor Alpha reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result: Sock blocked)
. : Time reported: 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:37, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343597891 by Mean as custard (talk). I worked hard to neutralize the article, see reasons on TALK thanks Custard")
 * 2) 20:55, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "WHY ARE YOU REVERTING???? CAN you just point out your unfavored parts. Better still, USE THE DISCUSSION AS I DID")
 * 3) 21:01, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Go to the talk - NOW")
 * 4) 21:08, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343608580 by Uncle Dick (talk)")

Uncle Dick (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here
 * Result - Sock blocked. See next report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911 reported by User:David Starr 1 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result - Declined. I don't count four reverts here, and there are many editors working. It is far from a two-person war, and the talk page issues are complex. You might have more luck opening a complaint at WP:NPOVN, or if it's an issue of sourcing, you could try WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:125.237.33.169 reported by XLerate (talk) (Result: semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 03:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 21:12, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 342979649 by Gadfium (talk)")
 * 2) 22:33, 12 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343618441 by XLerate (talk)")
 * 3) 01:57, 13 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 343629792 by JamieS93 (talk)Quoted in Wikipedia"Commissioner for Rodney College!!"ey")


 * Diff of warning: here

—XLerate (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * by .  Jamie S93 ❤ 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:GiannaManiego reported by User:LedgendGamer (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * I provided the diffs in reverse order because it really doesn't make a difference. Look at the [ history] of the page. I would have caught on earlier if I hadn't been watching the Vancouver 2010 opening ceremony. &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  08:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Okay, some comments. First, I'm a completely uninvolved editor. I noticed the edit war, warned both users, and came here (as promised) when they resumed. This form seems to be optimized for reporting one editor, so I reported the one that seems to be the more agressive in reverting, also by taking into account the fact that User:HoppingHare attempted to start a talk page thread. This is clearly a war between two equally involved editors, so note that this report is also reporting . &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  08:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Page has been protected for five days, as it's been at least that long since a significant edit was made unrelated to this edit war. And also in the hopes that the two edit warriors will at least try to resolve the dispute on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Je suis tres fatigue (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Je suis tres fatigue (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I opened a discussion before s/he appeared in the article. I also left messages to his/her talk page and asked him/her to join the discussion.

However, s/he never replied to me and kept reveting the page without joining discussion. I tried to achieve a compromise and asked him/her several times to talk to me over the matter. But s/he never answered me and showed any efforts to avoid edit warring.

Kuebie has no intention to avoid edit warring. It seems Kuebie has blocked for this reason 4 times. 24-hour block will not be enough for him/her.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Not directly from this, but I've blocked Je suis tres fatigue (talk · contribs) indef after an incident involving a retaliatory bad-faith AIV that led me to block two users I have subsequently unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)"
 * Note has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion after he got blocked for the disruption to the said article, and tried to block his opponents to AIV. See Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich

--Caspian blue 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Kuebie is warned against continuing to restore his point of view in this article until it is supported by others. Any further reverts which are not supported by a Talk page consensus may produce an immediate block. I've no objection to Daniel Case's block of User:Je suis tres fatigue, who appears to be a sock. Ironically, Je suis tres fatigue's version of this article was more neutral and balanced than the one which Kuebie has been fighting to restore. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Drork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Multiple different edits, will break down below


 * 1st revert: rv of this; also the next consecutive edit (part of this 1st revert) is this, where Drork replaces "destroyed" with "ruined" as he had previously reverted here
 * 2nd revert: revert of this
 * 3rd revert: same as above
 * 4th revert: same as above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Golan_Heights.

Comments:

3 different users have taken issue with a number of things Drork repeatedly is introducing or removing from the article, yet Drork continually just re-reverts to his favored version. I had opened a 3-RR complaint a couple of days ago and withdrew it hoping that we could work more collegiality (see ). Since then Drork has continued to attempt to force in or out info and sources depending on his personal feeling of them, going so far as to write that the Encyclopedia Britannica "claims" something happened and not even attribute what CAMERA says in response.  nableezy  - 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an harassment on behalf of a person who tries constantly to introduce his political views into articles, but this is the last comment you'll hear from me about the matter. Nableezy's aggression works. He will definitely have his way, because I don't have the tools to handle him. If you believe him - block me, just don't expect me to defend myself each time such an harassment occurs. DrorK (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really not harassment, DrorK, and WP:3RR is pretty clear. The first "tools" you should seek must include reading this policy carefully, thereby avoiding repeated reports on this page, IMHO... Doc9871 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After viewing the editing/correspondence history of both Nableezy and DrorK, I don't think Nableezy is totally unbiased/objective with regards to Israeli-Arab conflict articles. DrorK is working hard to improve articles by including valid viewpoints, he discusses topics in detail and with a serious good faith approach, but quite often his work is interrupted, not just by Nableezy, due to the controversial/political nature of the edited articles. DrorK may have been emotional sometimes, and that's not the right this to do, but that's due to the continued interruptions by what seems to me a clique of pro-Arab/anti-Israel editors (each of them is involved in more than one edit war on other heated articles), who seem to be aggressively pushing an agenda. DrorK was alone in the field againt this group, and that's why he was eventually reported on this page. Reporting DrorK was according to the book (WP:3RR), but he was aganist a group of edit warriors. That's my observation. My recommendation: don't block him, but he should willingly refrain from editing Israeli-Arab articles for a week. When he returns to these articles, the pro-Arab/anti-Israel group over there should be given some kind of a notice by the administrators (on the article talk page), telling them that outnumbering someone does not mean they can cancel/revert his properly cited work, and that some Israeli viewpoints must also be included, for balance sake. John Hyams (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Drork is warned that continued violation of 3RR may lead to more severe consequences. Since his last change was reverted and the article dispute has quiesced, no action will be taken this time. Consider trying to work this out at the issues talk page over at WP:IPCOLL. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * For some reason, you chose not to notify me, as is required. You also forgot to leave evidence, as is required.
 * I was deleting my own comment, which is explicitly permitted. I don't know why you chose to delete part of my message, but misrepresenting my position by removing a fundamental part of what I said is disallowed, so I deleted the rest of it, as is my right.
 * Also, if you wish to pursue your accusation that I'm a sock, feel free, but it will be very unconstructive. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was still finishing the report and you clearly know about the report. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If he posted it on your talk page, and if you don't alter it in some way, far as I know it's up to you to decide whether it stays or goes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He effectively did alter it, by deleting part of my material and keeping part, in a way which misrepresented my whole position. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Speaker ─╢ 22:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 24 hours by User:Elonka. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Insideairtran and User:173.2.4.184 reported by User:C.Fred (Result: Blocks, semi)
. Time reported: 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 00:27, 14 February 2010  (edit summary: "Some people don't click on it they just read it. There may be several airports in the city such as New York, NY.")
 * 2) 00:33, 14 February 2010  (edit summary: "No one cares about neatness it is about making it user friendly. no offense but your making it not user friendly")
 * 3) 00:39, 14 February 2010  (edit summary: "AirTran Airways has a hub in Hartsfieldâ€“Jackson Atlanta International Airport and General Mitchell International Airport. Not in Atlanta, Georgia.")
 * 4) 01:32, 14 February 2010  (edit summary: "Why don't we forget like this ever happened and put it back to what it was for all history of AirTran Airways on wikipedia that know one had a problem with until you showed up.")
 * 5) 01:53, 14 February 2010  (edit summary: "This format worked for everyone since the beginning of this page until you showed up.")


 * Diff of warning: here and also a uw-3rr4 warning

Additionally, the following edits were made by, who is likely Insideairtran logged out:


 * 1) revert on the AirTran Airways article
 * 2) revert on the AirTran Airways article
 * 3) removal and second removal of warnings from User talk:Insideairtran.

Because I have edited the article, I do not feel independent enough to block the user myself. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: While not directly related to the 3RR situation, the IP has been used by indefinitely blocked user, which suggests that Insideairtran may also be a sockpuppet account. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - User:Insideairtran was blocked indef by another admin. User:173.2.4.184 is blocked 3 months as an IP sock of Airtran371. AirTran Airways has been semiprotected to keep down other sock IPs. These editors seem unwilling to accept Wikipedia's standard formatting for airline articles, and will pursue endless wars against the standard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jonathansamuel reported by User:Snowded (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 13th Feb 14:24
 * 2nd revert: 13th Feb 21:29
 * 3rd revert: 13th Feb 21:53
 * 4th revert: 13th Feb 23;41
 * 5th revert: 14th Feb 05:08
 * 6th revert: 14th Feb 05:19
 * 7th revert: 14th Feb 06:59
 * 8th revert: 14th Fen 07:04
 * 9th revert: 14th Feb 07:34

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There has been a long running dispute about how to deal with Heidegger's Nazi associations (which are not disputed). The above named user seems to be a single purpose ID focused on this issue and has already had one block on the 8th of Feb for edit warring. As per the talk page reference under "attempt to resolve" above I put in place a compromise solution which has been supported by two other editors involved in the discussion with some minor modifications. Subsequently the above named user has reverted eight times including some crazy edit summaries about 3rr rules. I have made several attempts on the user's talk page, referencing 3rr rules, not reporting them when they hit 4 yesterday and even now suggesting a self-revert while this I prepared this report. However this is a disruptive editor, unprepared to learn anything about how to edit wikipedia. Aside from the edit war above, we have the constant creation of new sections on the talk page. -- Snowded TALK  07:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 1 week. I see nine reverts listed above, and am concerned that Jonathansamuel's relentless campaign risks driving regular editors away from the article. He does appear to be a single-purpose account.  The illusion that he is sincerely participating on Talk is belied by the rapid-fire pace of his reverts. This article may turn into a mess if admins don't deal vigorously with POV-pushing.  Note that Jonathansamuel was previously blocked 24 hours for the same thing on 8 February. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki alf reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: 163.1.147.64 blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Wiki alf has recently been editing from several IPs, including and. The ongoing edit warring at Kary Mullis to remove the verifiable assertion that global warming is a matter of current scientific consensus is representative of the user's recent edits, including not just edit warring but personal attacks on other editors. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverting repeated attempts to enter false information onto Wikipedia is not edit warring, it's reverting (sneaky) vandalism (vandalism as described in the section about sneaky vandalism in the policy on vandalism).163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor has informed you, you're not reverting vandalism. You're edit warring. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone can be wrong, including what you call an "uninvolved editor", I told them as much here, they haven't responded to that. I am reverting repeated attempts to enter false information onto Wikipedia (classed as vandalism as outlined in the "sneaky vandalism" section of the Vandalism policy).163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTVAND, as you've been told. Your continued accusations, despite discussion, that this is "sneaky vandalism" is a huge failure to WP:AGF. I suggest this IP is blocked at least so that the editor is forced to log in. Verbal chat  18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it one, no matter how many times you call it an orange. Keepcalmandcarryon also misrepresents the base of the issue - he says "remove the verifiable assertion that global warming is a matter of current scientific consensus" which is not the case, I am removing the fact that Mullis said anything about the human factor, you can put what ever you like about the consensus as long as you stop putting words in his mouth that he didn't say.163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From our policy on vandalism - sneaky vandalism - highlights added to show which two items of this policy both complainants are ignoring in their quest to stop me correcting their misinformation:

"Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states 'rv vandalism' in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted." Despite linking me to NOT:VAND many times saying "it's not vandalism" doesn't make what your doing not sneaky vandalism.163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 6th revert: Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * blocked 24 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note the IP is already editing from, as shown by the edit to the blocked IP talk page. I suggest both are blocked for longer, and the 3RR vio is reset on the named account: . Thanks, Verbal chat  19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SlamDiego reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

There are two separate disputed points related to the reverts.  


 * 1st revert: @18:24 18:24, 13 February 2010
 * 2nd revert: @19:02 19:02, 13 February 2010
 * 3rd revert: @19:49 19:49, 13 February 2010
 * 4th revert: @19:56 19:56, 13 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: @18:38

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For my first related edit, I adjusted the text to remove the controversial "definitive" claim, so that it explicitly only described a view that was advanced by the specific related source. After this, I left a message on the user's talk page, directing him/her to the article's talk page, in hopes of avoiding multiple reverts. Even though the content of the text was no longer in dispute, it was still deleted numerous times with nothing further contributed to the article's talk page as of the time of this report. The reverts also center around a claim that has failed my attempts at verification. I've asked the editor multiple times to clarify that the edits are not an improper synthesis. My requests have basically been declined or, at best, only addressed in a roundabout and indirect manner. BigK HeX (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Article protected three days. Both parties seem equally guilty in this edit war. Such detailed objections surely risk WP:Synthesis, and I note that nobody else seems to have given an opinion. Consider WP:3O, or anything that could bring in more people. Better yet, try to agree on a higher-level summary treatment that does not require battling out such minutia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that the four edits in question do not each cover both of the two issues in question. Rather, two concern one issue, and two concern the other. BigK HeX accused me of “synthesis” for removing a bald claim that treated Caplan's criticism as simple fact. BigK HeX insists that Caplan's claim appear twice in the article, both in the “Inter-War Period” section and in the “Criticism” section (I have never removed it from the latter section, nor removed it from one section when that was the only section in which it appeared), and accused me of edit warring for its removal, then escalated to removing the claim from McCulloch. Even before that escalation, I raised my concerns at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Austrian School. Rather than edit-warring, I've been trying to have the article conform to Wikipedia policy and gudelines, while dealing with an editor who does not disguise his intense hostility to the subject of the article. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've agreed on the talk page that SlamDiego is conducting Original Research. If I recall correctly, I am the original author of the entry, back when one could create an entry without an user account. (If I wasn't the original author, I expanded it dramatically.) I do think if an editor wants to get into the details of the sources, he or she will be quickly bored. -- RLV 209.217.195.164 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded on the article talk page to the charge that I was engage in synthesis, and would respond to that charge were it raised on some appropriate noticeboard. But this is not the appropriate noticeboard.  Lots of stuff is being thrown at the wall, and not even at the right wall, in the hope that some of it will stick.  Woe unto the project when that tactic works. — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"> &#8592;T  08:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mtevfrog reported by User:jonathansamuel (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User mtevfrog has, in concert with two other editors, repeatedly reverted to the same content. He refuses to discuss his reasons on the Martin Heidegger Talk Page, in which he does not participate at all. He is attempting to remove a quotation from the Biography section which has been there for months and to which he had previously assented on his own Talk Page when a Good Samaritan editor KT Tries Again! suggested a compromise. The quote remained for months. Suddenly mtevfrog wants it changed.

I would like to take issue with a false statement by Snowded in the 3RR complaint above this one. Snowded has filed a 3RR complaint against me. Snowded states that he and mtevfrog did not dispute Heidegger's Nazi associations. In fact, they repeatedly disputed Heidegger's Nazi associations, insisting that they were "National Socialist" associations, and attempted to expunge the word "Nazi" from both the introduction and biographical sections of the Heidegger article. Anyone can observe their repeated attempts to expunge the word "Nazi" from the Biography and Introduction by examining both the History page for Martin Heidegger and in the case of Snowded on the Talk Page as well. Jonathansamuel (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I supported the use of Nazi in the lede and inserted a sentence to say that he had supported Hitler later in the article, please. -- Snowded  TALK  08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC).


 * After days of repeatedly opposing the use of the word "Nazi" in the Introduction and Biography, Snowded, recognizing he had a losing hand, backed off. Previously he insisted that Heidegger was a "National Socialist" and not a Nazi. Or at least, he contended that Heidegger, if indeed he was a Nazi, should instead be called a "National Socialist." I could never tell what his actual point was, but Snowded defiantly and repeatedly for days attempted to expunge "Nazi" from the Introduction and Biography and replace it with "National Socialist." Jonathansamuel (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The warning was issued one hour AFTER the last edit. In fact the first edit removes one placement of a quote that you had by then duplicated in a flurry of edit waring.  The quote has not been removed, it has been moved elsewhere in the article so that is a misleading statement.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note the false distinction which Snowded makes between "moving" and "reverting." There is no distinction as far as violations of 3RR are concerned. As Good Samaritan editor KT Tries Again! pointed out both on the Martin Heidegger Talk Page and on user mtevfrog's own Talk Page, this dispute concerns the extent to which readers of the Biography section will be aware of Heidegger's considerable Nazi activities, particularly in 1933 and 1934. KT Tries Again! in a compromise to which mtevfrog assented, said that there should be one, but no more than one clear cut mention of Heidegger's Nazism in the Biography, and selected the quote from Heidegger's proclamation as the clear-cut mention. Suddenly, a few days ago, mtevfrog announced that he no longer accepts the proclamation quote in the Biography section and has started edit warring and violating 3RR. Jonathansamuel (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do NOT continue your dispute on this page, please use the Heidegger talk page for discussion. Poor Yorick (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No obvious action taken, though one of the two are under a block. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaredkunz30 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Uninvolved user reporting. This user appears to like to revert without discussing much, although they have not broken 3rr yet, they have been reverting quite a bit.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:


 * No obvious action taken, though reported party under indef block for socking. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this open if the sock case comes back negative via CU(although unlikely, I would like an assessment of the edit warring here).—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User:Drork (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: different reverts, see below

DrorK (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:  revert o fthis, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
 * 2nd revert: revert of this, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
 * 3rd revert:, revert of this
 * 4th revert: same as above, labeled as a revert )”restore” in the edit summary
 * 5th revert :, same as #1, labeled as a revert in the edit summary


 * Tiamut has violated 3RR here. It's ironic that John Hyams, who complained above about a tag team at Golan Heights, is participating in a tag team here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hyams made a decision that the State of Palestine should not be mentioned in connection with the Palestine region article where the state it is located. To make his point, he repeatedly cut a block of text from the Palestine article and pasted it into the State of Palestine article where it simply duplicated existing links and content per Tiamat's edit summary:"this infomation is already included in this article" I pointed out that the edits were an unnecessary disruption here:  harlan (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone once told me "Do you understand that 3RR is a bright-line rule?" I didn't agree with him then, I don't agree with him now, but I do believe people have to be consistent. DrorK (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether you agree, the policy clearly says that 3RR is a bright-line. You crossed the line then and Tiamut crossed it now. So what's your point about consistency? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think his point is pretty clear... where is the confusion? He was reported for violation of the bright line rule, and so now in order to be consistent, he is reporting another user for the same violation. Breein1007 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since DrorK's message appears to be directed at me, its point doesn't seem clear at all. Despite DrorK's complaints, I've been a neutral party on this page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's ironic Malik, but what exactly do you expect? This group of vehemently anti-Israel editors has been tag teaming in this fashion for months (if not years). Their behaviour has not only not been condemned, but it has actually been rewarded with actions being taken by admins against editors who are assaulted by their tag team edit wars. If tag teaming isn't going to be addressed as an issue and as a clear way that these editors have weaseled their way past WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR in general, then of course the "other side" is going to pick it up as a tactic too. Breein1007 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting duplicated content isn't the same thing as edit warring over a content dispute. harlan (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as WP:3RR is concerned, yes it is. Breein1007 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless the duplicated content is clearly vandalism, removing it is a revert for purposes of 3RR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI to the acting admin, although I'm sure you will check this for yourself anyway, I just want to make sure you are aware of the fact that Tiamut has been blocked 4 times in the past for violations of 3RR/edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Further to the acting admin, please note that the reporting party only received a warning for a very similar recent offence. I suggest following the reporting party's plea for consistency. Zerotalk 06:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that one week is extreme, considering the circumstances. Tiamut has been very patient and respectful while dealing with a group of strongly biased and disruptive editors, who are more interested in pushing their pro-Israel POV than improving the articles, and are just gaming the system by tag teaming another editor who had reasonable points about why changes shouldn't be made, knowing that she was outnumbered and that a rule could be misapplied to prevent her from doing anything about it. I think that, in all honesty, the changes made by her were quite reasonable, that valid points weren't responded to, and that this is a clear case of why bureaucracy and rigid application of rules without considering context doesn't make sense ... Tiamut has not been blocked for 2 years at this point, and has a long history of making valid contributions to the community, and deals very admirably with one of the most contentious topics areas on WP. I don't think such an editor should be blocked for such a long length of time -- it serves no purpose other than to let the pro-Israel goon squadron have free reign to come in and disrupt and bias the articles more in the meantime. This is the kind of crap that makes WP lose good editors. I hope a reasonable admin will come in and reconsider the length of the block. Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, because someone who supports Israel is a strongly biased and disruptive editor, but anyone who demonizes Israel is a perfect model of an ideal editor. Breein1007 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All rheotoric about "demonizing Israel" aside --- Editors who repeatedly include their own original research in highly contentious articles, and don't discuss changes on the talk page are being disruptive. Someone (Tiamut, in this case) who repeatedly asks people to refer to talk page discussions or discuss edits, and is asking people to include only information that can be verified by the sources cited, etc. is not being disruptive. They are following Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and verifiability. Again, considering that she was reverting because editors were including unverifiable information on contentious pages without discussion, I think that it is highly inappropriate to block her for a week. One day might be appropriate -- I don't see any reason for a week long block. If on the other hand, it had been Tiamut who had been trying to revert changes that were based on reliable sources, and had been discussed on the talk page, then I would feel totally differently. But that's not what happened. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:68.97.165.30 reported by Wildhartlivie (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP editor has routinely miscategorized articles on rampage/spree killers to mass murderers, even after having been approached and warned by other editors

Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hidemasa1976 reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

See also Sockpuppet investigations/Hidemasa1976

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

- new user; come back or tell me if they continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Pavani reported by StAnselm (talk) (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on
 * . : Time reported: 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 04:01, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "tag removal")
 * 2) 08:37, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "Bio was Lecturer in Serampore College established in 1818.  An appointed post.  He was also appointed as Auxiliary Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Auxiliary of the Bible Society of India.  Revert.")
 * 3) 11:42, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "Revert")


 * Attempted to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:G. Babu Rao
 * Diff of warning: here


 * . : Time reported: 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 03:11, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "addition of article in Indian Journal of Theology")
 * 2) 08:41, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "Unnecessary tags by St. Anselm.  Bio taught at Harvard University.")
 * 3) 11:43, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "Revert")


 * . : Time reported: 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 03:02, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "Article meets WP Bio")
 * 2) 08:35, 11 February 2010  (edit summary: "Someone's on a tagging spree probably in revenge.  Removal.")
 * 3) 11:44, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "Revert")

Comments: I need help here. This hasn't happened to me before. I've added notability tags to a few articles, and Pravani keeps on removing them, without seeming to want to discuss the issues. I'm not really sure what to do - Pravani has also responded by putting deletion tags on several articles I created (and to be found on my user page).

—StAnselm (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether tags, or text, when in dispute discussion should take place on talk pages. You seemed to be the only on attempting to use a talk page (their talk page) and thus they've been blocked to prevent more disruption. Hopefully the text in the block template will alert them of how to properly act when in dispute. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:189.237.72.159 reported by User:IllaZilla (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: — I remove "folk punk" from the infobox as the genre is not mentioned anywhere in the article or its cited sources.


 * 1st revert: —  restores "folk punk" to infobox; I revert for the same reasons stated in my original edit.
 * 2nd revert: —  again restores "folk punk"; I revert, again explaining why in the edit summary.
 * 3rd revert: —  again restores "folk punk", I again revert due to lack of sources.
 * 4th revert: —  restores "folk punk"; I revert for the same reasons previously given. (Note: this may be an unrelated IP as it doesn't appear to be in the same range as the others.)
 * 5th revert: —  restores "folk punk"; I again revert due to it being unsourced & not mentioned anywhere in the article body. (Again, possibly an unrelated IP but still shows that there is edit warring on this topic.)
 * 6th revert: —  adds "folk punk" with a reference to rateyourmusic.com; I revert, explaining that rateyourmusic.com is an unreliable source.
 * 7th revert: —  restores "folk punk", this time with no source; is reverted by.
 * 8th revert: —  again adds "folk punk" with a ref to rateyourmusic.com; I revert, again explaining that it is an unreliable source.
 * 9th revert: —  again restores "folk punk"; is reverted by me for the usual reasons.
 * 10th revert: —  restores "folk punk"; I revert for the usual reasons.
 * 11th revert: —  reverts me, then adds hidden text stating that the genres are sourced in the "style" section and again tries to source it; I revert as these claims are false (the article has no "style" section, "folk punk" is still not mentioned anywhere in the article body, one of the sources is unreliable & the other is a wrong link).
 * 12th revert: —  again restores "folk punk", without any explanation or sources; I revert as usual.
 * 13th revert: —  removes genres from the infobox altogether, stating that there are no sources for "punk rock" either (check out that edit summary!); I revert, and because I forgot to leave an edit summary I leave a note on the IP's talk page explaining that several of the article's sources explicitly state "punk rock" as the act's genre.
 * 14th revert: —  reverts me; is reverted by.
 * 15th revert: —  reverts TrafficHaze; TrafficHaze reverts back.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: — note 3 warnings and a note on sources, all within a week.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: — not on the article's talk page, but on the talk page of the most recent (and apparently stable) IP. Probably should have opened a discussion on article talk, but as you can see this has been going on long enough that the editor knows to read edit summaries, & has been warned several times.

Comments:

Clearly what we've got here is a prolonged case of genre warring on Against Me!. Sorry for the many diffs but I felt it necessary to establish that this is ongoing (over 2 months of back-and-forth) and that the IPs involved are not stable. I believe I was right to remove "folk punk" from the infobox initially, as the genre is not mentioned or sourced anywhere in the article itself, and I belive that I and others (Kraftlos & TrafficHaze) have been right to keep it out for the same reasons. It has only been re-added by IPs, and a glance at the ranges above indicates that the 189.xx editors are likely the same person. 189.237.72.159 seems to be the most stable and most recent IP, and has been warned several times; I have also left a note on that IP's talk page about sources. However, these warnings and notes have not quelled the anon's edit-warring. The only sources presented by the anon have been thoroughly unreliable, and when told this he simply resumes adding the genre without sourcing it. I requested semi-protection of the article, but it was declined as the IP is "pretty static" and it would be "better to report the IP", so here I am. I believe the evidence above shows that the IP has only been static for about a week, and I have no reason to believe it will remain static, so while I believe 189.237.72.159 probably merits a block I still think that semi-protection is the best solution to ensure he doesn't simply resume under a new IP. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected due to the genre war. One party in the dispute is a dynamic IP who seems to be an enthusiast for folk punk. He continues to revert but doesn't have the sources to support his view. Neither editor has made any appearance on the Talk page. It would be good to discuss the genre on article Talk and not just in edit summaries or on the IP's user talk. (A fluctuating IP may not see his talk messages). EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

John Prescott (Result: Semi)
Not sure if I'm at the right board here, but would someone please take a look at John Prescott. Following the blocking of a sockpuppet earlier today who was changing John Prescott's nationality from Welsh to British against concensus, an IP has been edit warring & doing the same (or changing it to English). S/he's now been blocked. And, Hey Presto, a new account has been created changing Welsh to British. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy response. Any chance you could protect the page at the stable version i.e. before the arrival of the blocked socks/IPs etc? Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected by Toddst1. JackNoseworthy has been blocked indef as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:189.164.86.232 reported by Smartse (talk) (Result: Semi)
. : Time reported: 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 13:25, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "corrected inappropriate deletion by MaryGD of Schmidt quotation and specious reasoning for deletion. Quotation bears directly on topic.")
 * 2) 13:39, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "Reinstated Mr Schmidt's quotation from cited reference. Specifically bears on topic. Undid revision 344402161 by Smartse (talk)")
 * 3) 16:06, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344407762 by Smartse (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Note - has also reverted twice on the article today too. Smartse (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

—Smartse (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Second note - is continuing the pattern of the aforementioned IP users. Probably all the same editor. X X X antiuser eh? 03:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. The various IPs must be the same person, and that person has violated 3RR. He stubbornly reinserts a quotation by Howard Schmidt, though nobody on the Talk page supports it, and four different people have reverted it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Haida chieftain reported by User:NeilN (Result: Indef)
. : Time reported: 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 21:06, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:30, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "Shaw and other cable companies together owe, upwards of a billion dollars for past TV signal copyright infringement.  Once Shaw owns CanWest, other cable companies owe Shaw for past CanWest TVsignals")
 * 3) 01:00, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 19:43, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

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

Comments: Another revert from user's IP -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Still at it -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Indef. This is the user's fourth block in 2010, and they show no sign of learning from experience. They appear to have some kind of an agenda regarding the Canwest article, and they ignore all feedback. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that this user is willing to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Newman Luke (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Comments:


 * See also Debresser's history of bad behaviour discussed at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. Newman Luke (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that editor Debresser might want to be more watchful, however the complainant has made many significant and questionable edits to the page without significant discussion. Revert him 6 or 9 times if necessary!
 * Editor Newman Luke (love the name!) may I please ask... What is it about the term "consensus" that we need to discuss here?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As an outside observer I note the number and type of edits made by the ocmplainant in several articles are certainly a large part of the problem, as there is no mention of the vast nature of the changes made on the article talk page, as WP:BRD anticipates. Collect (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not know who is right here. But whichever admin closes this report should also take a look at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And note that Debresser started that section in an apparent attempt to circumvent 3RR by a subtle hint for meatpuppets (evidently it failed, as he eventually made the further reverts listed above, breaching 3RR). Newman Luke (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston has asked me to comment with regard to my edits possibly breaching 3RR. My reply is that as far as I am aware they do not, and I would like to see the diffs to prove me wrong before people make such accusation. Newman Luke (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

is up on WP:ANI and has himself engaged in edit warring on this article, while at the same time refusing to participate in discussion as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism and WP:BRD and the recommendations of that WP:ANI discussion. This post here is moot to the issue at hand, which is the problematic edit pattern of User:Newman Luke.

In addition, technically I am not sure 1. who of us made the first 3RR edit (see )2. whether his actions may be considered vandalism 3. whether there is dispension for reverting edits of a user who refuses to head the advise given him on WP:ANI and continues his disruptive editing 4. whether the fact that my edits were all different (just reverting to the same version) makes a difference.

But, as I said, I don't think the technical details matter: the issue is dealt with at WP:ANI and User:Newman Luke is so far blatantly disregarding its recommendations, and came here for the possible gain of a temporary victory. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said at WP:ANI, Debresser refuses to use the actual article talkpage, or point out specific edits he thinks introduce factually untrue or inappropriate material. He was cautioned for failing to do this by the Arbitration committee two days ago. He also insists on escalating the heat by going straight to WP:ANI, and uses divisive and agressive rhetoric; this he has also been cautioned by the Arbitration committee against doing. Newman Luke (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'd also like to point out that Debresser has explicitly stated he thinks he can ignore WP:OWN - - the policy which prohibits editors from claiming ownership of articles, or dictating who can edit them, or claiming veto over the content. Newman Luke (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I answered these allegations and untrues in the WP:ANI discussion. They have no value here and now. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Protected two days. Debresser has made four reverts, and Newman Luke only three, but I believe that both parties are edit warring. There are enough grounds to block both, but that can wait for the next stage. Neither party has written anything on the talk page in the past week, and the project discussion is of a very general nature, like 'Newman should not be doing this.'  Newman's request for specifics is surely justified. If warring continues when protection ends, blocks may be issued. I recommend that neither party make any significant change to the article until they receive a formal consensus on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. No problem here. Actually, forcing Newman Luke to discussion and consensus seeking is precisely what I was trying to achieve on WP:ANI. I am glad you choose the wise path, instead of just blocking us. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Its no surprise you find there's no problem, after your fifth revert - - is now the protected version. Now, will you use the talk page? Newman Luke (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. "Now will you use the talk page?" Is this article the property of two editors? I've put some of my arguments protesting the wholesale rewriting on the talk page, with no answer. What happens when the protection stops? (Please excuse me if I've broken some policy by writing here.) Mzk1 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Talk:Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Please continue the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. My concerns on the edits (some of them, with no response) are in the previous section (Rewriting). I was not referring to the specific changes that I made myself. But I am concerned that NL will continue without discussing, and whoever reverts that will get their hand slapped. Mzk1 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Newman Luke is now on the admin radar. If he seems to be engaged in a pattern of reverts that lack any Talk consensus, consequences may follow. Be sure that you yourself make reasonable efforts to negotiate on Talk when you disagree with edits by Newman Luke.  There is nothing sacred about the old version of the article, but any changes should have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And when are you going to put Debresser on the admin radar for ignoring WP:OWN, indeed claiming that it doesn't apply to him, despite even being cautioned by the ArbCom to behave and use article talk pages instead of aggressive behaviour?Newman Luke (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And when are you going to put Avraham on the admin radar for ignoring WP:DELETE and instead blanking pages he doesn't like, even including talk pages (

)? Newman Luke (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If this weren't so serious it would be hilarious! You were going through making sweeping changes without discussion just as if you owned the article.  You were deleting and changing with NO REGARD for the opinions of other editors who are ALSO involved with that article.  Do you even have an inkling as to how "circular" your arguments are?  They circle right back to you.  Please wake up and really see what's happening here, because you've been warned that if you don't, you just might be blocked from editing!  So far, the only person who seems to really want that to happen is YOU.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  04:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go and read WP:OWN again, as you've just contravened this bit:

Examples of ownership behavior.... "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?"
 * and this bit:

Examples of ownership behavior.... "Get consensus before you make such huge changes"
 * and this bit:

Examples of ownership behavior.... "...please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval."
 * Newman Luke (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is you who should read that policy again, which also says that editing WP is a "collaboration". So if ONE editor says all that stuff to you, then YES, you can accuse the editor of trying to own the article.  But when several editors ask you to discuss changes first, that is "collaboration".  Please discuss your changes to this article on the Talk page BEFORE you make them.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ratel reported by THF (talk) (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 00:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:20, 14 February 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 344043671 by THF; restore gutted section and remove editorialising "poked fun" comment. (TW)")
 * 2) 03:44, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 344104684 by Ratel; rvt wholesale undiscussed changes; rmv additions of unsourced comments. (TW)")
 * 3) 04:40, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */  remove comment unrelated to Rove")
 * 4) 16:13, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */  this guy is not notable at all, so we should delete this or put him in context")
 * 5) 22:41, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */ Sorry, no, check the book again, Moyer is not mentioned in the BDSyndrome section")
 * 6) 15:04, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 344379124 by Ratel; Blatant and egregious wp:SYN removed. (TW)")
 * 7) 22:50, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */ consensus clearly against including this")
 * 8) 22:52, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ already on page")
 * 9) 23:40, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* Newsday */ unnecessary and off-topic repetition of material from Newsday page") (arbitrarily removes material User:THF added.)
 * 10) 00:09, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* Commentary */ Restore gutted section that is sourced and for which there is no consensus for removal")


 * Diff of warning: here

5 reverts in last 10 hours, part of larger pattern of 10 reverts in last 49 hours.

All my attempts to resolve on Talk:Bill Moyers have been rebuffed. Editor just ignores me or insults me and continues to insert his original research from (trivial) WP:PRIMARY sources and delete well-sourced material that I add. Reverts are indiscriminate: last edit duplicates material that is elsewhere in the article, all so that there can be a full section of COATRACK criticism of Karl Rove; 03:44, 15 February 2010 edit misused Twinkle to rollback several changes I made because he disliked one of the deletions. Tendentiously claims WP:SYN violation because I summarized three pages of a book with a single sentence; tendentiously claims that best-selling author is "not notable" while he adds links to blogposts and web interviews. NB that his edit summaries are inaccurate: the "undiscussed" changes are discussed ad nauseam on the talk-page; the "unsourced" comments were sourced, but for the fact that he reverted as I was in the middle of editing the page, and I could not source the comment without reverting. THF (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Please note that the reversions are to a BLP, where 3RR does not apply when removing denigrating material, such as the reporting editors attempt to insert a journalist's opinion that Moyers is insane (suffers from a "derangement syndrome"). Many of my reversions and amendments were to prevent the article becoming nothing more than an attack on Bill Moyers. Note that THF is engaged in an edit war on the page and an admin has had to remove numerous AGF breaches made by him. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ratel, unsatisfied with lying in his edit summaries, is now lying here; I've made two reverts in the last 24 hours (each time after extensive talk-page discussion where no one could cite any legitimate policy reason for opposing the policy-supported edit), three only if you include this cleanup edit undoing part of one of Ratel's indiscriminate Twinkle rollbacks. Ratel's claim of protecting BLP is questionable given that his reverts have deleted sourced criticism about Moyers's rhetoric while reinserting unsourced criticism of Karl Rove irrelevant to the Moyers article. THF (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The complaining editor THF has thus far been the antithesis of an ideal Wikipedia personality and I would suggest that the evaluating administrator take what he says with a healthy dose of skepticism. Gamaliel (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel is retaliating here after admins at WQA took him to task for his uncivil personal attacks on me, including baseless claimsof sockpuppetry. THF (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not use yet another page to attack the same editors. Try to confine yourself to under a dozen or so, please.  Gamaliel (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing - reviewing together with below, this may take a while. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The BLP exemption should not be asserted in questionable or borderline cases, but given discussion on talkpage and elsewhere no block is warranted at this time. Reporting user blocked for related matters. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was pointed out to me that any edit that doesn't add brand-new material counts as a revert (a subtlety I'll remember for the future). I'll take a week's wikibreak from the article, which is something I've been encouraging my fellow editors at the article to do as well. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel reported by THF (talk) (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 10:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 03:07, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* On Karl Rove and U.S. politics */ no consensus for inclusion of this controversial material in this BLP")
 * 2) 21:15, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* Newsday */ clearing up some confusion regarding sources")  removed dubious tag without addressing reasoning on talk page
 * 3) 05:35, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* Newsday */ restored sourced material but i am willing to engage in a civil discussion regarding it")  NB edit-warred to reinclude material, but did not reinclude npov-section tag that was removed only after factually incorrect material was removed
 * 4) 05:40, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "/* Allegations of bias */ tweak wording of CK, rm DL again - no consensus to include, obviously controversial, and there's plenty of more notable critics anyway")  Deletes innocuous sourced cite to David Limbaugh on tendentious grounds that the best-selling author isn't "notable enough" -- meanwhile does nothing to remove the multiple left-wing blogs cited in the article


 * Diff of warning: here demonstrates he's aware of 3RR, but insults me whenever I point out he's close to it.

Four reverts in 27 hours. But has been tag-teaming with User:Ratel.

—THF (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor refuses to engage on Talk:Bill Moyers. Very clearly POV-pushing: I gave an extensive refutation with several cites on the talk-page why I removed some questionable factual content; he simply reverts the edit without ever defending the factual accuracy of it on the talk-page with misleading summary that "he's willing to discuss"--and his only discussion is to delete my talk-page comment. Refuses to permit citation to best-selling book under any circumstances, with such marvelous reasoning as he doesn't like the author's brother.

Editor also edit-warring on Nina Totenberg with tendentious theory that L. Brent Bozell III isn't notable, ignoring and refusing to engage evidence to contrary on talk page or respond to proposals for compromise.

Similar unCIVIL POV-pushing edit-warring and misuse of WP:TW on Center for Constitutional Rights, where he reinserted a blatantly POV description of the organization in the infobox, and refused a polite invitation to self-revert that clearly erroneous edit.

This is not how an administrator is supposed to act. THF (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that replacing a "unsourced" tag with a source is a revert, since the source was not there before. In fact, it's exactly what we are supposed to be doing here, sourcing articles. If any administrator feels that it is a revert or otherwise inappropriate, I am willing to self-revert my last edits to the article and refrain from replacing "unsourced" tags.


 * I stand by my other edits here, whether they qualify as reverts or not. The material I removed was a controversial edit to a BLP, there was no consensus for inclusion, and the majority of editors on talk do not support inclusion.  Thus repeatedly inserting it in the article without consensus is what qualifies as tendentious edit warring.


 * The uncontroversial material I restored is sourced to a first-rate reference work. THF's method of "disputing" it is to call me a liar (despite the fact that I quoted the entire paragraph from the source on talk word for word) and demand I give him my database password so he can examine the source without going to the library himself.


 * I will not comment on my edits to other articles here as those discussions belong on the talk pages of those articles and not here. This page should not be yet another battleground for THF to argue about whatever he feels like at the moment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing - reviewing together with above, this may take a while. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * . Reporting user blocked for related matters. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by MILAZERO (talk)(Result: Declined - Stale )
. : Time reported: 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest --MILAZERO (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6

But that user had 3 blocks for edit warring: you decide--MILAZERO (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Last edit in that series was 4 days ago. Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did decide. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 16:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this. As noted at the top of this page, this is for recent edit wars. No editing of the article at all for 3-4 days is not a recent edit war. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  16:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ru magister reported by Serg3d2 (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5
 * 6) 6
 * 7) 7
 * 8) 8

—Serg3d2 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:TheLeopard reported by Ecourr (Result: Protected)
. Maliciously deleting well sourced contents including info from classic Chinese history record, peer reviewed academic journals, government website and government media. Didn't stop after I post discusion. He even erased my warning.
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4

Ecourr (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User reverting substantial blanking of the article without proper discussion, and thus not a blatant disruptive pattern of edit warring. Please use discussion. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "substantial blanking of the article"? He is deleting huge amount of contents. How can you say this is not disruptive? Ecourr (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, sorry it was early for me then. I've cautioned the user reported on ownership, and I agree that there's concern, but I don't think enough discussion has taken place to say it's disruptive and against consensus at this point. I will leave open though for another admin to consider. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. On the Dongyi article, Two new-account users User:Reriemw and then User:Ecourr both have contributed the exact information several times to the article, and Ecourr have reverted my edits several times. I've commented in edit summary to User:Ecourr to resolve the dispute regarding the problems over the user's contribution in the article's talk page and gain consensus before presenting it.--TheLeopard (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I only reverted the contents you maliciously deleted on the execuse that peer reviewed journals are needed. I even added peer reviewed journal sources. But you contininue to delete even after the warning. The contents you deleted are well supported by the sources provided and these are reliable sources. You can single out which sentense is not accurately cited, instead of deleting all the contents. Ecourr (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Might you both consider WP:3O if discussion doesn't produce a consensus? <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  09:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

From the template in the talk page, users from WikiProject China should weigh-in on the user's content. Various users' input would definitely help resolving the dispute.--TheLeopard (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would recommend that one of you put a note on their board to get more eyes on it, as resolution is the ultimate goal. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  09:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm actually the third party. I was just adding more sources that TheLeopard was asking for. But he even delete the sources I added. Ecourr (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Ecourr, User:Reriemw are the one who puted all these paragraphs on the article, and you are directly involved in the dispute. We need other editors' opinions and consensus on this issue.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Protected. I'm here in response to NJA's request for another admin to look at this. Please try to get opinions from more people about the value of this material. Be aware that when the source names are only provided in the Chinese language that English-speaking editors may be unable to review this material and give any advice. Surely you can at least give English translations of the journal names and book titles. And brief passages from the sources could be translated so people can figure out what they are saying. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JpGrB reported by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) (Result: Semi)
. : Time reported: 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:18, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "Unsourced.")
 * 2) 21:15, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "It's all the same vandalism.")
 * 3) 23:45, 15 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344299686 by 75.89.176.197 (talk)")
 * 4) 20:49, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344473560 by 188.141.40.189 (talk)")
 * 5) 04:53, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344556592 by 69.117.175.71 (talk) Stupid? I'm sorry, but *THIS* is the way we do things here.")
 * 6) 06:32, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "This is the summary. Here, we aren't interested in the one scene featuring Mr. Linus.")
 * 7) 07:05, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "Please stop this. You will be reported for vandalism and possibly blocked if you continue.")
 * 8) 07:21, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344571612 by 24.18.156.43 (talk) Major vandalism. Please stop.")
 * 9) 22:22, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "Reverting some major unsourced vandalism.")
 * 10) 23:10, 17 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344707045 by 74.13.203.52 (talk) Not needed for a short summary.")
 * 11) 07:42, 18 February 2010  (edit summary: "Not a reliable source. Sorry.")
 * 12) 07:43, 18 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344777449 by Benatfleshofthestars (talk)")

Comments: Pretty much the entire internet including IMDB and numerous reliable spoiler sites knows the names of the next 12 episodes of Lost but this editor and a couple others are on a crusade to keep them listed as "TBA" up until ABC or TV Guide confirms the names (meanwhile those official sources have literally NO incentive to go out of their way to tell us what everybody already knows). It is incredibly irritating and the fact that they are engaged in an edit war against practically every casual well-meaning editor of Wikipedia who has gone to the work of looking up the names on the 9.5 million sites that have them, and thinks they are doing a service to the community by adding the information tells me that JpGrB's primary motivation is not to make Wikipedia a better site, or to have it contain more facts, but rather to satisfy his own needs to feel like an important figure of authority in a world that has left him behind.

-UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment- User:JpGrB has done nothing wrong and is merely removing things that are improperly sourced or unsourced entirely. The article in question has been protected in the past because IPs continually add speculation, information from blogs and IMDb (which has long been held unreliable) and even things that are just plain made up. We are merely conforming to WP:V and WP:RS. Also, this user didn't even have the courtesy to tell JpGrB that he had been reported here, nor did he/she even try to start a dicussion on the matter anywhere. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to say I also don't really see much wrong with those edits by User:JpGrB. The issue isn't whether "everybody knows" the information or whether it is correct, it's whether it has been added with reliable references, and it really didn't look as if it had. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an entertainment news source, so if it's behind the times that's just fine - and the addition of new material should wait until a reliable source can be found. I'm also disappointed that User:UnnotableWorldFigure did not try to discuss this on the Talk page before going for an Edit War report. Also, the "...satisfy his own needs to feel like an important figure of authority in a world that has left him behind" comment is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, and must be close to warranting some remedial action itself. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  13:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- Just to be clear, your stance is that there's something wrong with adding content to a page that happens to be truthful and is most likely what a high percentage of users have come looking for when they search for the page, but there's nothing wrong with reverting the same article 8 times across 27 hours -- always reverting it back to the same version in spite of the fact you're not allowed to do this more than 3 times -- in order to delete good faith edits by anonymous users. Well apparently there is a deep misunderstanding of what "wrong" means. Good day.UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- It is also notable from Jackieboy87's own talk page that he was enlisted by JpGrB specifically in hopes of getting the 3RR rule bumped up to a 6RR rule so realistically they should be viewed as one entity and investigated together as I'm sure that will bring the total number of reverts far in excess of 8 per day. Here is the relevant talk item: Hey Jackie, I was wondering if you could possibly help with the continued vandalism from User:Greenbird534 to, currently, the Lost season 6 page. They continue adding IMDb as a reliable source, and, they have a large history of vandalism on other Lost articles, as well as other articles overall. Thanks. Happy editing. --(JpGrB) UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Article is now semiprotected. User:JpGrB is warned that he shouldn't exceed 3RR. IPs have been adding lots of information that they 'found on the web' and many of them seem unaware of our WP:Reliable source rules. Since lots of people must be watching this article, JpGrB should not assume the role of its sole defender; let others help with that. Use WP:RSN if there is controversy on whether a source can be used. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:NastalgicCam reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: 24h, semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]
 * Not sure how to properly do this section, please check out the article's recent history

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

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

Comments:


 * This user is using multiple admitted sockpuppets, which I have tagged as such, and is repeatedly removing sourced information from several editors, violating WP:POINT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, on top of 3RR. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours to NastalgicCam. The article has been semiprotected since we don't know how many IPs he is using. He and his IP sock,, between them have made four reverts in 24 hours. A case for blocking his IPs could be made, but for that you should file at WP:SPI.  EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins please note, is a newly-created SPA sniffing around the article. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Coral Bay reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

CoralBay has a history of being blocked for edit-warring and WP:OWN issues, and is at it again. Technically, this report should also include as well, but at least that editor (who is only at three reverts) has tried to discuss things outside edit summaries, which CoralBay rarely does. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 1 week. This is Coral Bay's third block so far in 2010. He reverting to insert unsourced information. I'm also warning TAnthony. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did realize that we had gotten into 3RR territory and notified Coral Bay here before TheRealFennShysa made this report.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the further info at User talk:EdJohnston, and the abuse of multiple accounts recorded at Sockpuppet_investigations/1989_Rosie/Archive, I've extended Coral Bay's block to indef. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced the editor will follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Notpietru reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I've raised the issue elsewhere - admin opinions appreciated. How is reverting malicious edits by racist editors unjustified? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Notpietru is now at a 6rr on the article, tossing about accusations of racism etc... to boot.Bali ultimate (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notpietru has a history of edit warring and incivilities - including in numerous edit summaries - most particularly under his old name of User:Pietru, where he's been blocked eight times for edit warring, 3RR violations and gross incivilities.  This certainly isn't the first time he's accused an editor of racism ,,,, , , of "vandalising" an article edited against his preferences , , , , , , or otherwise has just been uncivil , , , , , , , , .    RGTraynor  11:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors are kindly asked to read the Maltese Nobility talkpage. If you seriously can't understand why the above editor is racist (or, at best, intolerably ignorant), there's not much I can say. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notpietru blocked for 1 month for disruptive editing, as a repeat offender. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Koavf (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 15:09, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "rv unexplained changes to image")
 * 2) 20:43, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 344466222 by Koavf (talk) rv dash trolling")
 * 3) 23:53, 16 February 2010  (edit summary: "rv to make content consistent with citation; del. text to make more neutral")
 * 4) 00:23, 18 February 2010  (edit summary: "made ref consistent with content")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Warning on user talk of a potential post to AN/I:
 * Warning at AN/I that user made of me:


 * Please note that the poster has provided neither "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:" nor "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:", instead choosing his own wording to conform with the difs that he has provided.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments: For thorough details, see Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597. For an abbreviated version:
 * Reverting happened on Hollie Steel
 * The user being reported was on 1RR.
 * I told user that I was willing to discuss any changes that he wanted to make to the article on his talk and asked him to change his tone. He responded on mine. I responded on his. He posted about me at AN/I with a spurious allegation that I had broken a sanction and been uncivil.

As I wrote above, I told the user I would post to AN/I if the reverting and incivility didn't stop. He posted there first, where I told him that I would take this to 3RR pending the outcome at AN/I. User has been hounding me; mischaracterized my edits as trolling, vandalism, petulance, etc.; been consistently uncivil to me; and resorted to AN/I without responding on my talk or the article's talk page. User has been blocked for the same behavior regarding George Orwell and Snow Patrol several months ago (hence his current 1RR restriction), and I think that he is simply editing in bad faith regarding these issues. He has accused me of incivility and "spite editing" when it is frankly he who has been that way to me. Again, all of this is enumerated in great detail at my post here: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597. I was willing to overlook his hounding at Talk:Remain in Light and his 1RR violation at Hollie Steel if he was willing to post to talk, but he went to AN/I instead, so I am following up his baseless allegation there with a substantive one here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This board is for reporting edit warring, not for going on about perceived slights or insults or feelings of persecution. This issue is resolved, as the admin who has been keeping an eye on my 1RR sanction already made a decision two hours before Koavf posted here. So I can honestly say that I'm the not one doing the wikihounding at this point.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm doing exactly what I said I would do at AN/I. If you would prefer me to move that discussion there, I will. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a tad wrong there, RP. This board is indeed for reporting edit warring, but, as it quite clearly says at the top, and on the edit notice, it is also for reporting 3rr violations.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 08:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, but you'll also notice in the box at the top of the page it clearly states, "Do not continue a dispute on this page.".  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   08:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And you are pointing this out to me why? I'm not in a dispute with you.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 08:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking no action here: seems stale now, not technically a 3R violation, and was already being handled by an admin before the report was filed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if there was no 3rr violation, the user is continuing to edit war on the article page. He's on his 5th revert now.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:174.6.80.110 reported by User:Ridernyc (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This has been happening for months now. The editor constantly changes genre information in user boxes despite several editors reverting and warning them. There is strong consensus both in general and on the various talk pages about what should be listed in the info boxes. This has been going on for months now and no one can get a response out of the editor, they just ignores and come back and do it again. Ridernyc (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 1 month. He has been warring on music genres for six weeks or more. This is his second block in the month of February. His main activity (except for formatting fixes) is changing music genres; he never participates on Talk. His genre changes are always reverted by others. Editor might be unblocked if he will abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:LaGrandefr reported by User:Bertport (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:59, 18 February 2010
 * 2nd revert: 22:40, 18 February 2010
 * 3rd revert: 01:25, 19 February 2010
 * 4th revert: 09:47, 19 February 2010
 * 5th revert: 09:57, 19 February 2010
 * 6th revert: 15:20, 19 February 2010
 * 7th revert: 15:41, 19 February 2010
 * 8th revert: 15:54, 19 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaGrandefr&diff=345033022&oldid=344979852

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple editors have been attempting to work with LaGrandefr on Talk:Tibet as well as on User talk:LaGrandefr. Bertport (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: the list above doesn't show how each of these edits is a revert. In fact, #1 doesn't seem to be a revert, and #4+5 are subsequent edits and therefore count as a single revert only. Still, this is unacceptable edit-warring, connected with an overall negative battleground attitude. Therefore blocked. That said, I notice that much of the material being battled over seems to have suffered from heavily tendentious editing also from the other side – typical tell-tale signs of tendentious OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cexycy reported by User:Rapido (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See comments below Terrillja  talk

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Continued edit warring. Cexycy keeps justifying his edits with summaries like "please read the discussion page", but appears to be using this phrase as a permit to justify his edits. This went to WP/3RR before and Cexycy was warned, then ignored the advice on the article talk page given by the admin , and reverted again - subsequently, went to WP/3RR again  and was briefly blocked for edit warring. Tired of this situation of original research, unreferenced information and point of view being added to the article. Many editors have tried to reason with Cexycy (see his talk page, and also e.g. ), but to no avail.

Rapido (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The 3rr warning was left after the last revert and neither user has reverted since the warning-- Terrillja talk  06:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, still a dispute. If discussion isn't working, use WP:DR. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Continued edit warring. Rapido has constantly reverted my edits and AFD'd a few articles which I have created (only for many of them to stay), therefore I do not believe that s/he has looked into them properly. The same principle seems to apply with general articles because Rapido is complaining that I am adding things without a reference. I have added some in and they are STILL being removed. Either Rapido can not see this, just not taking the time to get the right information or just being a little nasty. Despite trying to reason with Rapido by asking him/her to discuss certain matters, this has beem ignored. Another editor hold him/her to use the discussion box or leave an explanation as to why the dit was reversed. On many occasions this did not happen. I can't believe that Rapido has had the nerve to report ME when it is quite clearly not me who is lacking their facts. I have asked about original research and opinions which are there and had no reply. Everything what I put in can be verified. I added catalogue numbers and weblinks, however Rapido is STILL adamant that I am wrong. Another thing I would like to know is why Rapido appears to be following everthing I am doing and interfere with those as well while claiming that s/he is not picking on me or trying to stalk me. --Cexycy (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Headbomb reported by User:Likebox (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The user is aware that this was edit warring, and said so himself. He was acting in good faith, but this is not the way.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

This page was subject to good-faith AfD, at a time when very few expert editors were looking. Instead of being deleted (or sourced!) it was stubbified, and all the good content was deleted. At some point I went and rolled back (manually!) the page to a state before it was stubbified, then reverted my own undos after getting the technical text (~6 undos followed by ~6 undos of my own undos). I am saying this here so that adminstrators understand what the long list of "undo's" were--- they were just to recover an old version. They have nothing to do with the edit war.

Once I had placed the very old longstanding technical contents back on the page, there was a dispute over the contents with Headbomb. Some editors supported, some editors opposed. But during the course of the discussion, Headbomb, a very experienced editor, reverted the work of two different editors 4 times in less than 24 hours. This reversion deletes massive amounts of long-standing content, and feels like vandalism to me (although it is good faith). There were no substantive discussion on the talk page, even after many attempts to explain the history of the article, the nature of the sources, etc. I hate, hate, hate doing administrative action, but I believe that it is necessary here.Likebox (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The user in question has restored the content which is being deleted, so this request may not be necessary for protecting the page. But the rule was still violated, and the editing was very contentious.Likebox (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry--- action is no longer necessary--- the user has put the material back, with tags, and has resumed discussion.Likebox (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you count, because that 4th "revert" isn't one. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The content was removed--- but you put it back. As I said, I hope to get back to editing rather than this type of thing.Likebox (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No I did not, it was you who put it back violating 3RR in the doing (because the IP added a source you said you added), you reverted thrice under Likebox, and twice under IPs , which is nothing new for you. My "4th revert" if it can be called that, was this, which removes duplicate material and adds NPOV/Disputed/etc... tags.


 * As for consensus, anyone can take a look at this, this, this, and this, which is plenty of discussion about this very issue. WP:V is policy, not a suggestion. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not revert this article more than twice, and only once since you came along. You did not revert the article the fourth time, I realize now you were just deleting duplicated stuff. But the diffs you are linking to are not reverts--- they were explained above--- I wanted to get some text with equations in it, and I don't have unroll priviledges.


 * Your claim of consensus is baseless--- this article was written by an expert contributor six years ago, and has never been challenged before. This is for a reason--- it is a clear summary of difficult material. Your challenge was uncomprehending.Likebox (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) I understand now--- you thought I was IP socking--- that's not true, and anyone can check by comparing the IP to my IP. I didn't realize the IP added the same source I found--- it took me a while to find it. I guess I should have paid attention to the anon!Likebox (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also--- I object to you calling the original insertion of the text by me a "revert"--- it was a lot of effort to recover that text, it was buried under a lot of crap. There was no opposition at the time. I reverted Finell once, and I reverted you once, and that's it. I don't ever revert anybody more than once.Likebox (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus either way, anymore. Better to work on resolving the content dispute than edit-warring. --Michael C. Price talk 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox is correct here. A challenge always has to be a bit more than mere saying: "I'm challenging the content", without any argument apart from noticing that the content is not 100% properly sourced. I note that climate sceptic editors have behaved in exactly this way on the Global Warming article. They challenge statements they don't like, not by arguing directly the facts (for which they can and should use the literature, of course), rather they only base their arguments on pure Wiki-Law. Count Iblis (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue here is misplaced. Attention should be upon making the article more accessible, by including more explanation and links. That might bring it more in line with what Headbomb is after, but the guidelines are a distraction here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox is wrong here. Of course the emphasis should be on improving the article. The question is how to improve it. Adding large blocks of unsourced material, then hoping to find reliable sources to support what Wikipedians write without the benefit of research, is not the way. The right way is to do the research, then accurately summarize what the sources say. Further, consensus or no, Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires that unsourced content be removed when challenged. Likebox, primarily, edit and revert warred to add (or re-add) unsourced material that was deleted.—Finell 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, instead of warring. the various parties could try to help each other out to clarify the article. suggesting what seems obscure, suggesting what WP articles can provide details, and finding sources. Having arrived at a formulation that appears accessible, once the outline is clear, the items needing sourcing and the items that are simply exposition will be clearer, and the whole thing will wind up wonderfully. As Tim Gunn says on Project Runway, "Make it work". Brews ohare (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To Finell: You are being ridiculous--- the material is easy to source, and challenge must be done in good faith, with ample time to gather sources. The wrong way to write science articles is to do what you say--- if people looked for sources before writing science articles the science pages would be empty. The right way is to be bold and write the article from any expert knowledge you have, and then as people add more stuff and challenge dubious material, source everything until there is no more dispute or confusion. This requires working together with understanding to gather material about complex topics, and reading and analyzing the material like grown ups. It does not involve deleting complex material because it is hard to understand and verify.


 * About behavior: You were reverted twice, once by an anon, and once by myself. Likewise, Headbomb was reverted once by myself, and twice by other editors. I have never edit warred on this material, you deletionists were just outnumbered two to one.Likebox (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

- 2/0 (cont.) 00:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bikeric reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No discussion on talk page at all, five reverts today with no explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. Editor has not reverted again in the last 24 hours. If he resumes warring at MoveOn.org without discussion, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:121.213.164.165 and User:203.51.62.245 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 09:44] (by first IP)


 * 1st revert: 09:50 (as first IP)
 * 2nd revert: 09:53 (as first IP)
 * 3rd revert: 09:58 (as second IP) Edit Summary: (If you are patience and wait till I finish the changes that will be mostly appreciated)
 * 4th revert: 10:02 (as second IP, almost exactly the same edit)
 * 5th revert: 10:34 (as 3rd IP) (reverted to the revision of 10:04 by the 2nd IP.)
 * 6th revert: 10:47 (as 4th IP) to last revision

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:59 (first IP)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: OK I, haven't. The edits have been done before (except with correct grammar), and been rejected by consensus.

Comments:

It appears to be an attempt to hide the fact that scientific consensus is against this subject, by claiming "most" instead of "all", aside from the grammatical errors. I admit that I reverted numbers 0, 1, and 2, but the editor who gave the warning reverted #3 and #4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. Edit warring by multiple IPs who may be the same person and do not participate on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:GF940 reported by User:173.76.38.123 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Here's a link to comparing two of his versions, skipping intermediate edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurora_Flight_Sciences&action=historysubmit&diff=345337500&oldid=345287786

Not sure I quite could do this correctly, but you can see from GF940's edits, that he is just undoing stuff to push his agenda.
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurora_Flight_Sciences&oldid=345155654
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurora_Flight_Sciences&oldid=345287786
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurora_Flight_Sciences&oldid=345337500
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurora_Flight_Sciences&oldid=345337645

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

Tried to initiate a dialog, without much progress. Seems intent on editorializing on government spending on the Aurora Flight Sciences wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aurora_Flight_Sciences Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I noticed this page had been vandalized by pasting in some material from other web sites, and making editorial, rather than factual statements. I deleted some of that, and this fellow GF940 reverted it. I also tried different ways of changing material to give a more nuanced article, but he just reverts most of it each time. The paragraphs pasted word-for-word from other websites I think need to be deleted, at a minimum for copyright reasons. At least one of them is from an article over two years old, as well. This seems to be a person with an axe to grind against Aurora Flight Sciences. I do work for Aurora Flight Sciences, but have just been attempting to make a neutral article of fact, not with editorial comments for or against. I'm sort of a Wikipedia beginner, so I do apologize if I haven't got this form filled out 100% correctly. 173.76.38.123 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 1 week for disruptive editing. GF940 seems to be making this article into an attack page. Check the comments he left at Talk:Aurora Flight Sciences: "..want to show everyone how the government wastes tax dollars and this company, Aurora Flight Sciences, has been wasting a great deal of tax dollars by their false advertising." This block may be lifted if the editor shows willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:82.12.13.236 reported by User:Ragib (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 18:34, 17 February 2010]


 * 1st revert: 15:03, 19 February 2010
 * 2nd revert: 06:01, 20 February 2010
 * 3rd revert: 14:38, 20 February 2010
 * 4th revert: 14:49, 20 February 2010


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:40, 20 February 2010


 * Talk:Bengali_Language_Movement

Comments:


 * The user (previously banned for vandalism) is back with his anon IP, and adding a fringe theory to the article (even though the text is quite orthogonal to the article). He keeps adding back his favorite text, initially unreferenced. But recently, he claims an article to be his reference. Coincidentally, the article is written by an active Wikipedian, who clarified clearly in the article talk page that the IP's understanding of the article is entirely flawed. Yet, the IP has continued adding back the text (and is harassing the author of the newspaper article in the talk page, demanding he provide a retraction of that article!!). --Ragib (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected. The IP is pushing a point of view, and seems to be a minority of one. See the TL;DR comments on the article talk page, complete with lots of bold face text. He can still participate on the Talk page and try to persuade people to support his version, but he shouldn't be constantly editing against consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This behavior is not new -- he has been adding unreferenced content to the article for over a week. All other editors discussing the issue in the talk page have reached a consensus that the text added by the IP is not relevant nor backed by the newspaper article he cites (this includes the *author* of the newspaper article). --Ragib (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User:94.66.137.113 reported by User:Greekboy (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1) 07:32, 20 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "[the album wasn't the best selling in 1996 and it has saled until today 120,000 (unofficial) sales]")
 * 2) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 345277564 by Greekboy (talk) (your source?)")
 * 3) 21:54, 20 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 345291037 by Greekboy (talk) (unreliable source, doesn't mention something about this album)")
 * 4) 22:01, 20 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 345293131 by Greekboy (talk)(this doesn't claim nothing, the source is not official and maybe is fake)")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP is reverting information from the page. At first the source was missing from the page, but then I added it. He insist that the source is "fake" or does not mention album (which it does), and then added a random fan club link as a more "reliable source". On the talk page, I have also a further source from her label.


 * Result - Semiprotected. 3RR violation by dynamic IP. EdJohnston (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:AGeorgas reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

AGeorgas reverted two of my recent edits in my attempt to provide balance in wording a subsection title-- and most likely will revert again, based on his past contributions. Also he made a biased change to the introduction after I made an edit for balance there, as well. I posted a comment about the need for balance a week ago and he only replied dismissively, along the same lines as today's edit summaries. (Unfortunately I reverted his change to my intro contribution without realizing that the specifics of the 3RR rule apply to to the entire page, not just related edits. I apologize for that.) PrBeacon (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No 3RR violation. If agreement cannot be reached, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You could try WP:Third opinion or a WP:Request for comment.  EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Chunk Champion reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:01, February 20, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 18:17, February 20, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 19:32, February 20, 2010
 * 4th revert: 01:48, February 21, 2010
 * 5th revert: 13:50, February 21, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:52, February 20, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: 14:36, February 20, 2010 - actually left a comment on the user's talk page as their edits have spanned multiple articles; see below.

Comments: List of Ben & Jerry's flavors, an article that Chunk Champion worked on a great deal, was deleted for being non-notable. He has since gone around to a number of different articles that have lists of flavors and has blanked sections, more or less fulfilling WP:POINT. I warned him about it but he continues to go around blanking sections. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this report. This edit went on a "virtual tantrum" after the two lists were deleted in a valid, well discussed pair of AfDs and vandalized the Ben & Jerry's article and the AfD as well as doing the edit warring on several other articles in making clear WP:POINT violations. In addition to his comments on his talk page, his responses to a merge proposal for some individual Ben & Jerry's flavor articles, and to my warnings and attempts to discuss things with him show little likelyhood he will stop this. (notice his modifying my warning on his talk page as well). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As an update, Chunk Champion is also now at three reverts Häagen-Dazs. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He has also now done FIVE reverts to Graeter's. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further update - this makes three reversions on Haagen-Dazs. (I'm not counting the first edit which was the blanking.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this edit indicates that Chunk is not willing to stop edit warring. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jehochman Brrr 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Viriditas and multiple IPs reported by User:AFBorchert (Result: sprot)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Pal Joey, Kim Novak


 * 1st revert in Pal Joey (film):
 * 2nd revert in Pal Joey (film):
 * 3rd revert in Pal Joey (film):
 * 1st revert in Kim Novak:
 * 2nd revert in Kim Novak:
 * 3rd revert in Kim Novak:

This is a cross-wiki edit-war expanding over Commons, en-wp, pt-wp, no-wp, hu-wp, and fy-wp between Viriditas and Mutter Erde who uses IPs since he has been banned at Commons. The background of this case can be found at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC) (admin at Commons)
 * Response from Viriditas: This is an extremely bad faith report made by User:AFBorchert an administrator on Commons who is defending the disruptive, indefinitely blocked User:Mutter Erde who has been using sock puppets and various IP's to evade his block for more than a year. Recently, I began replacing a low quality, poorly sourced image upload that Mutter Erde had made some time ago, with a higher quality, more accessible source.  The initial discussion can be found here.  The conclusion reached by another user in that discussion was that "uploading a separate, better image from the newer source is better for all involved."  So, a consensus was arrived at through discussion, even though Mutter Erde's IP tried to disrupt it several times. AFBorchert showed up out of nowhere to revert my edits.  I was told by another user to create a separate image and I did so, and replaced the lower quality images.  Mutter Erde's IP's then showed up to revert my changes and restored the poor quality image.  As far as I can tell, the indefinitely blocked user Mutter Erde is working with commons administrator AFBorchert to prevent the improvement of images on multiple Wikimedia sites.  Mutter Erde's IP address has continually tried to revert all my changes, and commons adminstrator AFBorchert claims that I need consensus to upload higher quality images to replace ones of lower quality. I have never seen anything this absurd in my life.  The only reason we are here is to improve the encyclopedia.  If an editor misspells convertable and I change it to convertible, that is called an improvement.  In the same way, if an editor uploads a low quality image and another editor uploads the same image but of a noticeably higher quality, that is an improvement.  That Mutter Erde is allowed to continue restoring poor quality images when higher quality images are available, and that an administrator is defending this disruptive behavior is simply unbelievable.  Mutter Erde's edits as a morphing IP can only be described as vandalism, since there is not a single valid reason to replace a high quality image with one of lower quality.  As someone who is reverting this obvious vandalism, I find AFBorchert's behavior here perplexing.  The IP range should be blocked, but in previous discussions about this (i.e. Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mutter Erde, etc.) admins have not found this to be a workable solution to the problem.  As an administrator on commons, AFBorcher should be trying to help fix this problem, not contribute to it. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: is "Mutter Erde" currently blocked or formally banned here on en-wiki, or only on commons? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the ambiguity. As far as I am aware, Mutter Erde is only indefinitely blocked on de-wiki and commons. See the Global user contributions tool for the record. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Formally, I need to remind you that under these circumstances you wouldn't have been allowed to revert him under the 3RR exemption, but since you remained under 3RR you're in the clear. Your edits were clearly a good-faith, obvious improvement, whereas the IP offered no reason for their reverts other than the frivolous thread they started over at commons, where they were block-evading; I'm therefore treating this as disruption caused by the Mutter Erde IPs alone. No blocks (since it's wildly dynamic IPs), but semi-protection of the two articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: just for the record, it appears is in fact banned here too, assuming that's the same person. Banned by Jimbo personally back in 2005, no less. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's him. Thanks for protecting the two pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:UplinkAnsh reported by User:Mohammad adil (Result: prot)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I tried solving thing on talk page as the above links clearly shows, but when a user is not interested in discussing and solving things by mutual consensus then wht can one do. I warned him not to engage in edit warring and article should be kept on the status it was before his edits (as he challanges the material in it so burden of proves lies on him) but he ignored it and rather kept on reverting my edits, his other edits confirms him a type of anti-pakistani indian, here for rewrite the history. الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have evidently both been reverting in the same way, and as for talkpage behaviour, yours is, frankly, not better than his; I'd say it's rather worse. I could have blocked you both but have instead protected the article, giving you one week time to sort out the dispute. Please use this week more constructively than you did before. (Another piece of advice to Mohammad Adil: please do not use txting jargon such as "r" for "are" or "u" for "you" in Wikipedia discussions. It comes across as potentially disrespectful and unconstructive. Wikipedia style is to try and use proper English.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Homered reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Indef blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Other editors tried to convince Homered to refrain from edit warring, but in vain.

Comments:

User:Homered is an obvious SPA and another sock of the banned User:Verjakette, who has been disrupting arbitration covered Armenia - Azerbaijan articles for years. Usually the admins familiar with the issue block his socks on spot. But since they are away, things will have to go thru regular procedures. I made an SPI request here: Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun, and more info about his previous socking is available in the archive of the SPI case. But it is gonna take a while until the CU is performed. In the meantime, Homered edit wars on such a sensitive article as Khojaly massacre, making edits against consensus, and introducing POV statements, calling the massacre "alleged", etc. He already violated WP:3RR, and shows no intention to stop edit warring. Urgent admin intervention is necessary. Grand master  17:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CU results are available, Homered is proved to be a sock of the banned user. See Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun. Grand master  19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef per SPI results.

User:Swapnilprakashpatil reported by User:Off2riorob (Result:Blocked 31h )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion has been forthcoming.

Comments:

There was a thread at the BLPN here, I left the user a note on his talkpage imforming him of the thread and requesting he move to discussion although only more reverting occurred. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 31h, as talk page, BLPN and user talk page discussions don't seem to have any effect. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Awaythelads reported by User:Socrates2008 (Result: Stale)
Pages:

User being reported:


 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:72.81.124.230 reported by User:Wikiwatcher1 (Result: Warned)
A new user is only deleting specific material on one article, Ingrid Bergman. I have not warned or posted any notices, but instead wrote to user on their talk page, User talk:72.81.124.230, which is being ignored. Four reverts, last two with no comments, so I feel a 3rr or other warning by another editor would be more neutral.

Diffs: 1 2 3 4

Maybe someone's comment on their talk page would help. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Warned. No warnings given, thus we'll see if one makes a difference. If not, re-report and cite this report in it. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  08:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need and User:Mserard313 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

I apologize in advance for not linking specific diffs, but this one is too large and obvious. Both of these accounts have made 10+ edits to the article over the last two hours, and the edit war is still ongoing. Both were warned on their talk pages  and acknowledged the warning, then went right back to work. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents... We've stopped edit warring now (i hope), finally... --TIAYN (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)