Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

Click here to add a new report

If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

Use this noticeboard to report active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Listing instructions Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution. Also consider whether a request for page protection may be appropriate. (Uninvolved users may wish to move disputes to a more appropriate place.) Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption. Please be sure you understand WP:REVERT. If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and warnings. When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the {{uw-3RR}} warning template. Violation of a WP:1RR restriction may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts which happened within a 24-hour period, plus a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed Note that a 3RR report helper tool is available, which assists in diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected. For how to make diffs, see this guide. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three revert rule An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Noticeboard archives

User:Greggy123 reported by User:WilliamJE (result: stale, no action)

Page: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Editor did similar reverts two days ago, with possible sockpuppetry involved.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

• Stale This report has been up here since January 22 with no action. No worth acting on now. only (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Byelf2007 reported by User:Fsol (Result: )

Page: Libertarianism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Byelf2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]
• 3rd revert: [8]
• 4th revert: [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

This issue about the reverted content was also discussed at here after which, user Fifelfoo created a version which seemed agreed by consensus: [12].

User:Avaya1 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: )

Page: Alawi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

• 1st revert: [14]
• 2nd revert: [15]
• 3rd revert: [16]
• 4th revert: [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

He changed a lede which has been stable for years and was reverted by two users, me and Funkmonk. Also this source he provided actually supports my version, as i have explained on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Zredsox reported by User:Night w (Result: Warned )

Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Zredsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]

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

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

Comments:
I've been keeping an eye on this page since an IP edit warrior hijacked it less than a week ago, evaded a 3RR block twice and loudly trumpeted his intention to disrupt the project until his demands were met—see archived report. In his last statement, miffed about the inclusion of the EU on this list, said that other trade unions and California should be added to the list for comparison.

Now, in the reported user's first edit after a lengthy wikibreak, he's begun an edit war to do exactly what the IP was demanding. The list of IPs used:

• 75.192.204.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · info · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.250.149.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · info · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.193.229.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · info · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.194.23.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · info · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.213.134.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · info · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — edited the talk page about 20 minutes before Zredsox edited the semi-protected page; I'm willing to bet Zredsox has edited from this IP

I've alerted the admins that helped settle this a few days ago. Nightw 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not broken 3RR. I was only defending my changes from unsupported, reflexive reverts. I have extensively laid out the reasons for the changes in the article on the talk page. These reasons have been ignored in a flippant fashion and no one seems to be taking the time to understand the very clear logic. Rather, the modus operandi is to revert to the stale version based on aged arguments. Nightw has stated that the lists must be single source. Well, if that is the case the NAFTA data comes from the IMF and thus can be included on the IMF list. Nightw says that mixing data is a bad thing. Yet, all the lists are referenced to sources which do not include the EU. Instead, a separate reference is used to mix the EU into the primary list. A moment needs to be taken to step back from the article and approach it in an objective manner as well as listening to the discussion rather than acting on reflex. zredsox (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

An extremely clear case of edit-warring. Have you ever read the bold, revert, discuss concept? You may not edit war, even if you believe you're right. If you have indeed also been editing the same article(s) while logged in AND while logged out, you're violating WP:SOCK. I would appreciate hearing your response. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to add. The system here is so flawed that it is almost impossible to gain any traction even when offering a valid argument. There is no such thing as consensus on the page in question. The page was set in stone by a popularity contest years ago. Attempts to break the status quo are repelled with the vigor of bees protecting the hive (mentality.) If you would take a moment to read my statements on that talk page, you would see I have taken the time to dispel aged logic (ie. NAFTA is a trade block. NAFTA does come from the single source cited. The EU is not an IMF member, etc) and used facts and references to back up my statements. Yet it won't change a thing as that false, assumptive mythos is built in to every revert and every counterpoint on that page, everyday. Thus, I am going to self remove myself from this discussion and the GDP discussion being it would be counterproductive for me to attempt to bring a rational point of view to the conversation when it is so clearly shaded. I bid you adieu. zredsox (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you take your ball and go home, I'll happily introduce you to dispute resolution processes. Yes, consensus may be a popularity contest at times - but that's how this project operates, and good editors learn how to work within the framework, not by railing against it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Warned The warning includes both EW and SOCK, and hopefully the editor has learned about WP:DR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ronniesudani reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: A week)

Page: Dome of the Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Ronniesudani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Comments:

The editor was recently blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on this article and others, where she/he is inserting "The Noble Sanctuary" in lieu of "Temple Mount". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a week Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DisneyCSIfan reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 1 week block)

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

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:
DisneyCSIfan has been edit-warring over maintenance templates and his addition of blatantly promotional language lifted directly from the Dish Network website. This editor also appears to have ownership issues on the article as well: this edit summary "like I'm actually going to do what u say. By the way, leave this page alone!") is especially egregious. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week In light of previous violations and blocks, I have placed a one-week block. MikeWazowski, please remember that users are allowed to blank their own talk pages; do not edit war with users to restore warnings to their talk pages (I'm going to post this on your talk page, too, just in case you don't come back to look at this page). only (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jweiss11 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Militant atheism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]
• 5th revert: [44]
• 6th revert: [45]

First Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Second Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
I pleaded with Jweiss not to edit war. He just couldn't help himself. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jweiss11 has a very long and unblemished record on wikipedia. It appears that he considered the labelling of a named group of indiviuals in this disambiguation stub as a BLP violation and he said so when Lionelt posted a warning on his talk page. Perhaps the page should be fully protected for a period to allow more calm and carefully reasoned discussion on the talk page than has happened so far. There is something odd going on here, because it is not normal for disambiguation stubs to make non-neutral statements of this kind. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP exemption doesn't hold water. BLP is for a living person. Jweiss is edit warring over a "group"--not any named individual. Additionally the policy clearly states do not rely on the BLP exemption as an excuse to edit war. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection is not necessary. Jweiss is the only editor edit-warring. He is reverting multiple other editors. Why should the rest of us be penalized for his bad behavior? Block him and the problem goes away.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is an "unblemished record" an excuse to edit war? Does he have a license for disruption? Is there is different set of rules for the Jweiss' in the Wiki? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And regarding "non-neutral statement" that was the result of a long and arduous consensus, which if I recall you were involved in. Noone said anything about "non-neutral" statements after weeks and weeks of discussion. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

The above quotation was placed here without a signature by Lionelt.[49] Please could he sign his comments? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If this were a sourced article, you might have a point. However, this is a short unsourced disambiguation stub. Moreover, as the founding member of WikiProject Conservatism, the dismissive tone you have used on Jweiss11's talk page and in your comments here and in edit summaries does not look good. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am overcome with remorse over my dismissive remarks and sincerely regret founding WPConservatism. Now. Can we get back to the edit warring?????????? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think disingenuous comments are particularly helpful. The underlying problem here seems to be with the level of the disambiguation stub in the heirarchy of wikipedia articles. Please see my remarks about that point in the post below that of Stephan Schulz. Mathsci (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that he is only trying to push his point of view (see [50]). Klilidiplomus+Talk 07:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I kindly asked User:Jweiss11 not to edit war on the militant atheism article and to discuss the issue with other editors but he reverted me as well. After seeing this, I placed an official warning (his second warning after being previously warned by another user for edit warring there) but he ignored the warning, and reverted me once again. He then proceeded to revert another user. Moreover, the {{controversial}} template on the talk page of the article cautions users against acting rashly. This behaviour is simply unacceptable. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, thank you for your observation about the oddness of this disambiguation page. What we have actually is a POV push by Lionelt, Anupam, and perhaps others supported by a bloc from WikiProject Conservatism. Defamation of living people on Wikipedia is far less acceptable than anything I have done. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the defamation. Anupam nor I wrote the dab. The pro-atheism editors wrote the dab after they deleted the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you are simply protecting the defamatory content made by those pro-atheism editors. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no living people to defame on the dab!!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The implication here should be obvious enough. The talk page is appropriately flying a BLP tag. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You're justifying your disruptive behavior on an "implication"??? I'm sorry, that just isn't good enough. Without a warm living breathing body in this dab you are just plain edit warring. BLP in no way applies to this dab. The BLP tag was placed long ago when this page was an article. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt: the BLP tag absolutely still applies here because of those close association of the terms on this dab page with specific living people. Furthermore, Wikipedia, structurally speaking, is a place for facts, not repulsive, biased agendas. You and your cohorts are the disruptors. What I've gone to "war" with here, all in defense of Wikipedia's central tenets, is your push to celebrate reactionary fear over sober analysis and your efforts to smear those who challenge your pathetic bias. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say this is a borderline case. I can see the BLP by association, but only just. Lionel, for somebody whose "self-control is the stuff of legend", I would seriously suggest to tone it down. Jweiss11, it is very rarely a good idea to do serial reverts, especially of content that has been around for quite a while without causing significant disruption. The issue now has escalated to at least two noticeboards. Please stop it. I suggest you both cooperate to find a neutral, well-sourced way of introducing the link between the dab and the article (if there is significant link). And by well-sourced, I mean a reliable secondary source, not a link to one pundit (or the other) used as an example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Having thought a little about the particular issue, it would seem more reasonable and neutral to disambiguate New Atheism on a disambiguation page for Atheism than on a page which many readers might see as a derogatory reference to this group. A possible solution here might be to create a disambiguation page for Atheism (disambiguation) with a link at the top of Atheism to that page, replacing the reference to Atheist (band). Militant atheism would then become a redirect to Atheism (disambiguation). This is one possible way of solving the neutrality issue, which might be worth exploring. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely worth exploring, Mathsci. Would you mind re-posting this proposal on the Militant atheism discussion page as a new subsection at the bottom, appropriately phrased, so that people can support, oppose, or comment? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

An RfC was held this past fall which discussed whether the content of militant atheism should be split and the militant atheism article being made into a disambiguation page. However, no one ever ended up moving the content to its appropriate place. The militant atheism article was made into a disambiguation page, but the content was never moved, which is resulting in this problem. As such, I followed through with the RfC and moved the relevant content to the New Atheism article, which now discusses its criticism as militant atheism. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the text you wrote was so "unbiased", that you moved it to conservapedia, where it was the "article of the month".--В и к и T 18:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Fastily​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lung salad reported by User:Eusebeus (Result: 31 hrs )

Page: Josephus on Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Lung salad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]
• 6th revert: [57]
• 7th revert [58]
• 8th revert [59]
• 9th revert [60]

(Note: these diffs are not always single edits but a collection of edits to restore controversial content. The article talk page has further details of the dispute)

You have deleted citations to an existing passage. The passage stands but the citations have been removed. And you yourself have committed 3RR. Lung salad (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eusebeus proposed a rewritten version on the James section. Then History2007 proposed a completely different rewritten version on the James section that Eusebeus quickly accepted without any reservations whatsoever. History2007's version was biased concentrating solely on authenticity without giving reasons why the passage was disputed. The passages supported by verifiable citations were removed completely. This is article should be NPOV and not POV. Eusebeus has not given an account of his reverts. Lung salad (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Should like also to add that Eusebeus invited me on the Talk Page to contribute material that included providing citations why passages were disputed. Lung salad (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61], [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

Lung salad (talk · contribs) has been involved in an interesting but contentious expansion of content at the above article. His edits and positions have attracted some controversy, especially his apparent insistence on ignoring a mainstream scholarly consensus with which he would appear to disagree. Now, per my long experience at places like WP:WQA and per WP:DR, I reverted to a version of the article from several weeks ago with the suggestion that the content expansion be treated systematically through its discussion on the talk page with the idea of then moving consensus wording into the article. I fear that User:Lung salad may be somewhat of a novice, as s/he seems largely unaware of basic wikipedia practices so it is important that in addition to enforcing a 3RR, the process for dispute resolution, consensus building, reliable sourcing, etc... be explained to the editor. Eusebeus (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (Post scripta: User has 4000 edits, so the failure to engage is not the result of inexperience. Article should probably be locked briefly to allow for some cooling off and consensus to form.

Why should any article containing verifiable citations have those citations deleted? Lung salad (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. The mainstream scholarly consensus view is presented in the said article. Verifiable citations about the subject matter that conform with Wikipedia policy are being deleted from the article. There is no Wikipedia prohibition on the history of a subject matter of an article, yet this does not even exist in the said article. All my edits to the article had verifiable citations that conform to Wikipedia guidelines, yet these have been removed. Lung salad (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also like to add that content to Lede of article contained several repetitions that were also repeated in the main body of the article. These repetitions were removed several days ago, which the above editor restored today. The Lede to the article was overlong, Ledes to Wikipedia articles should be brief and serve as introduction to the subject matter, not spring straight to conclusions that are repeated both in Lede and main body of the article. Lung salad (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This article has a lot of NPOV problems. Key details are being kept out (like that Hegesippus dates the date of James the Just to 69 CE meaning that the James of Josephus who died in 62 CE is a different James) and weasel words in sources are being used to keep out relevant information. This starting to echo the nonsense seen in the Christ myth theory article--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Up to 11 reverts now in 1 day WP:TE and general disregard for policy. As clarified here user:Lung Salad is up to 11 reverts now in one day, and does not deny crossing the 5RR, 6RR or 7RR lines, etc. but has attempted to justify the breaches via "content based arguments", which are of course beside the point in a bright-line rule case such as WP:3RR. The user is clearly aware of the breach and does not deny it, but argues that the breaches were justified. Moreover, as stated here the user has not only shown a tendency to disregard policy, but continues to argue that policy can be ignored, or does not matter. This has to stop if Wikipedia policies are to mean anything, else policies can be "breached at will" via lengthy content-based arguments. This needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverts listed by me above include the removal of vandalism by a user who also vandalised other Wikipedia articles in the process. Other users who broke the 3RR rule and who are in sympathy with the above user are not cited above. There is no "tendency to breach Wikipedia policy" since all my edits are supported by verifiable citations conforming to Wikipedia guidelines. Such edits have been removed from the article. None of my other edits in any other Wikipedia articles have been removed like on "Josephus about Jesus". Lung salad (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: My last edit to that article was over 10 days ago and I am not involved in the revert-cycle. History2007 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The user's contribution was copied-and-pasted from the Talk Page yesterday. Lung salad (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty amazing that Lung hasn't been blocked. I wonder what's going on. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not committed any Wikipedia violation relating to my edits because they are supported by verifiable citations. As they are in all my other contributions. I have no trouble on any other Wikipedia article where I contribute material from citations. Lung salad (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom and User:J3Mrs reported by User:Plutotamus (Result: No violation)

Page: Guy Fawkes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) J3Mrs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

• 1st revert: [65]
• 2nd revert: [66]
• 3st revert: [67]
• 4st revert: [68]

Additionally, "Don't re-insert it, it will be removed immediately."

(Note: these diffs are not always single edits but a collection of edits to restore controversial content. The article talk page has further details of the dispute)

Some contend the article should include

His legacy and the masks used to celebrate Guy Fawkes Night were partial inspiration for a graphic novel by Alan Moore titled V for Vendetta. It was later turned into a movie by Warner Brothers.

At least 8 other editors have mentioned this. It is instantly reverted by two or three people every time. Consensus has not been reached.

See talk page for details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guy_Fawkes#No_mention_of_V_for_Vendetta_or_anonymous.3F

The argument comes down to a misunderstanding. Those favoring removal make the point "explain what the mask has to do with Guy Fawkes?" while others (at least two independent editors) provide sources explaining how the historical use of the mask and the historical holiday inspired new works. At least two other fictional works are represented in the legacy section. Although the claim was made that one must use a scholarly source even though, the source used is clearly reliable and fits within the critera outlined by the "News Organizations" section of identifying reliable articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutotamus (talk • contribs)

This is a very biased and inaccurate account of events. The literary works presently included in the Guy Fawkes article describe how his representation in those works demonstrates an evolving public perception of the man. But the bottom line is that Guy Fawkes is not represented in V for Vendetta, which incidentally tells us nothing about Fawkes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The account Plutotamus (talk · contribs) was created 2 minutes before he filed this request. It was presumably created by 24.118.168.217 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) who has been editing warring along with other IPs to add this dubious content. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. And article semiprotected for two days Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:108.82.190.79 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: A day)

Page: Asma al-Assad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: 108.82.190.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments: I've also commented on the editor's Talk page ([76]).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:KevinPerros reported by Jayjg ^(talk) (Result: Two days)

Page: List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Time reported: 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 23:34, 11 February 2012 - first removes Feynman from list
2. 10:39, 12 February 2012 - removes Feynman again
3. 18:37, 12 February 2012 - removes Feynman again

1. 18:17, 12 February 2012 - first adds note about Feynman to lede
2. 19:32, 12 February 2012 - reverts in lede note about Feynman
3. 19:52, 12 February 2012 - reverts in lede note about Feynman again

• Diff of warning: here

Comment: Editor keeps removing Richard Feynman from the list, and adding a sentence in the lede about him. He reverted out the Feynman entry two times, and in addition reverted in his lede addition two times, making four reverts in total. He was warned about this in several places, including the diff above. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two days for edit warring and this diff. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)