Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Reports

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

• Three-revert rule violation on Richard Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

Time reported: 2:48 AM

• Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

• Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son

195.210.193.210 reported by Eklir

• User: 195.210.193.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warning diff: 18:22 2008-11-02
• Vandalized page: Chuvash language

This IP has reverted a legitimate reference source four (4) times so far: [6], [7]. [8], [9]; for no apparent reason other than that its language is German instead of the English or the Russian used in the other references. I came accross these edits on patrol on issues in languages and linguistics. I have checked out the legitimacy of the contested reference.

This user is also engaged in blanking historically attested alternate names for this language. Eklir (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

2 reverts in last 24h, none subsequent to your warning, no discussion by anyone on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This user also operates under 195.210.193.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 195.210.193.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Eklir (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chuvash language page ended up protected. A cursory check-up on the anon. reveals that he has a long history of vandalizing the Tatars page where he has been accused of sock puppetry. He is using the whole range of 195.210.193.x (where x stands for a number between 1 and 254), thus avoiding getting blocked. He is also active on other Turk related pages, always with an anti-Turkic/anti-Turkish/pro-Russian stance dismissing opponent opinions as propaganda. The IP address 195.210.193.x points to a location in Ljubljana (Slovenia) operated by the ISP TELEKOM SLOVENIJE D.D. Something should be done about him. Eklir (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He came back as soon as the protection expired, so we either protect this and all other pages he edits until he tires of his crusade against "false information" (evidently a dictionary he doesn't like), or we deal with him as an edit warrior. He's also blanking the discussion page of any mention of him. He is not a sock AFAIK, just using a variable IP address. I've been blocking the addresses as he uses them, but that's rather pointless. Do we protect the discussion page as well?? kwami (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Colonies Chris reported by Tennis expert (Result:no vio)

• Page: Colonies Chris is performing numerous edits despite an ongoing dispute (warning diff here, Date Linking RFC here, more discussion on the dispute at WT:MOSNUM).
• User: Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st edit: [10]
• 2nd edit: [11]
• 3rd edit: [12]
• 4th edit: [13]

• Diff of dispute warning: [14]

• Colonies Chris has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does, however, meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

— WP:EDITWAR

and

Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

— WP:EDITWAR

• Not only is Colonies Chris making these disruptive edits, he is using AWB to make clearly controversial edits in violation of the AWB rules of use. See this related edit warring case.

• See also this related edit warring case.

• Colonies Chris has made it clear that he intends to continue these disruptive edits. He said earlier today, "My edits are in line with the MoS, as you well know. I will continue converting articles I edit to bring them into line with the MoS."

• My notification of Colonies Chris about this edit warring case can be found here.

Tennis expert (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Administrator note Since this is the fourth reported incident regarding date de-linking/linking, and the three were given no-vios, I've given Colonies Chris a warning and any further de-linking will result in a block. This applies to all involved in the AN/ANI/EW disputes; further edit warring will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fourth incident, yes. But reported by the same two Spidermen acting in concert. Take that as you will. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A content dispute is a content dispute. Putting down the other side isn't going to change that. Anyway, let's not (de)link anymore until this whole mess is over. Sound good? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I come here to find that while I was sleeping I have been accused, judged, found guilty, warned and threatened with a block, all without any chance for me to reply. I will repeat that all my edits have been in line with the MoS. Tennis Expert and a very small number of others who don't like this part of the MoS have been trying to obstruct its implementation by repeatedy relinking dates (in clear violation of the MoS), harrassing editors and claiming that there is 'controversy' and 'no consensus', and going around putting official-looking warnings on the talk pages of editors who continue date delinking. And their obsessive relinkings have been supported by who else? No-one else. In fact, many other editors - including several who have not been involved in the autoformatting discussions, to preempt any accusations of there being an unlinking 'cabal' - have also unlinked dates in those articles (you might like to look at the edit history for any of the tennis articles that TE has repeatedly reverted), in an apparent attempt to overcome the disruption that TE was causing. Is there controversy, or just a lot of noise from a couple of very vocal opponents? I have hard evidence. In the month of October, I edited around 8000 articles; of these I estimate some 70% involved some form of date delinking. And how many editors complained to me about it? Six. About one in a thousand. Does that indicate that delinking is controversial, or does it indicate that there are just a couple of very noisy and determined people who won't accept that policy has changed? Tennis Expert did not mention that his earlier attempt to get me banned from using AWB was rejected. At least he has learned some civility - at that time, he took action against me behind my back, without even bothering to notify me. It is outrageous that I should be threatened with a block for implementing Wikpedia's own agreed Manual of Style. Both Tennis Expert and Locke Cole should be warned for harassing editors who are quietly trying to make this a better encyclopaedia for our readers, in full compliance with its own rules. If they don't like the MoS, they have a right to try to get it changed. And if they succeed, I will comply with the new rules, but until then I comply with the rules as they stand. I ask the admins to withdraw entirely unjustified warning and the threat of a block. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Firstly, you don't have definite statistics on who supports this and who doesn't; the RFC is still ongoing. Secondly, if some editors have issues with something then you discuss it. Anyway, clearly the MoS isn't agreed on if this is happening. I appreciate that you are passionate on the delinking of dates but please respect the terms laid down until this is all over or then it starts raining blocks and generally unhappy things take place. Can you agree to wait this out? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a note; edit warring is unacceptable, whether policy backs you or not. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring, despite TE's contrived attempt to allege that. Please withdraw that statement. I have simply been making edits in line with the MoS that TE does not like. Also, TE's statement that I have 'refused to participate in discussion' is completely untrue. I have been very much involved in the discussion, as my edit history on WP:MOSNUM etc. shows. And TE's suggestion that I am trying to 'enforce my POV' is nonsense. In the first place, POV has nothing to do with it, this is a disagreement about formatting, not content, amd in the second place the MoS is clear - autoformatting is deprecated. There's no room for 'POV' claims on that. Threatening to block me or other editors for implementing the MoS opens the door to any disruptive editor who's prepared to kick up a fuss to get their own way. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well... once again, having multiple editors agree with you does not give you free reign over any article because "policy says so". If users object, they object. If you continue to edit against their wishes, that is edit warring. Oh, and yes, he did accuse you of that. See this (this response probably doesn't make sense, editor changed previous post [15]):

Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

— WP:EDITWAR

I'm not up for arguing pointlessly over what edit warring is or who is right. There is a dispute here; stop the contested edits. Your understanding is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me make the situation a little clearer. I am a gnoming editor. I make small changes to a large number of articles, on any subject. I rarely touch the same article twice. It is therefore significant that only a very small number of editors have objected, Tennis Expert being by far the most vocal of them. In cases where an editor has objected, I have explained my reasons to them, and then left the article alone. What's different here is that TE's objections are not limited to the articles he has an interest in, he's trying to stop me doing this at all, even to articles where no-one objects. And my experience is that in 999 cases out of 1000, no-one objects. And I'm now about to go to work, so I won't be communicating or doing anything else on WP again until this time tomorrow. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're exactly right; he dislikes the edits themselves, not the articles in questions. So as long as the edits stop, all will be well. Have a fun day at work! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So children, what have we learned today? We've learned that if you don't like what other people have decided, you just have to disrupt things by making lots of noise and repeatedly reverting other editors' work and complaining that they're all against you and making accusations in every available forum, and reverting their attempts to discuss anything on your talk page whilst accusing them - untruthfully - of not discussing things; and in a while a kind administrator will come along and give you what you want by stopping the nasty men from doing all those horrible things that are so upsetting you. And why? Because it's causing so much disruption! This administrator action sets an extraordinarily bad precedent Colonies Chris (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, administrators give them what they want, and get an easier life this way. In a part of the universe where all which is not expressly forbidden is allowed, saying "there is no consensus for mass delinking" has a Stalinist ring to it. Then, getting Admins to answer these bogus cries of help is akin to accusing your enemies of being "Communists" during the McCarthyist era. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamesontai reported by emerson7 (Result: pending)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:Infobox University Chancellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Jamesontai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 03:46, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 253326080 by Emerson7 (talk) image width for infoboxes are generally 225px. please don't change it. go2talk page?")
2. 15:56, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 253327072 by Jamesontai; Please do not undo my edit until you discuss this at WP:UNI.. using TW")
3. 22:25, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 253408157 by Jamesontai; As I've said many times, please review this on WT:UNI. Further revisions of my edits will begin to be considered to be vandalism.. using TW")
4. 08:48, 23 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Emerson7; I have already expressed my views on this issue on the edit summary. Any further revisions by emerson7 will now be considered as vandalism. See WT:UNI.. using TW")
5. 03:24, 24 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Emerson7 identified as vandalism to last revision by Jamesontai. using TW")

• Diff of warning: here

• Note – Are you two seriously edit warring over— 25 pixels? Are 25 pixels seriously worth an edit war? Would the encyclopedia collapse and be lost forever if 25 pixels were either added or removed? I mean, it's not even a penis or something where size would matter anyway. Since you are both otherwise productive, rational, civil editors, I'll assume a solar flare or something else is interfering with your brainwaves, thereby somehow remotely causing this and do something I rarely do. You both have exactly two choices:
  1. You both get blocked for edit warring and this entire ordeal is subsequently added to our lamest edit wars ever page, or
  2. You both make use of third opinion or other dispute resolution steps, while I reserve full trout-slapping rights, even though I probably won't use them, because of how silly an edit war over 25 pixels is.

The choice is yours. Continued edits to the page by either of you over any of that content without showing clear attempts at dispute resolution will likely get both editors blocked. Also, please avoid attempting to justify your actions; you are both automatically and horribly in the wrong for one reason and one reason alone: 25 pixels.

...and would you please make that redlink for the template's talk page disappear? Thanks.

--slakr^\ talk / 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment (conflict here, was going to post a warning and protection result) Frivolous fight over the format of a template. Reporting user behaving no better than reported user, but both contributors have good records, and it would be a shame to block them over this one dispute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment The only thing I've asked this editor to do, was discuss the changes the 25 pixels would do to the articles. This article concerns BLPs, which stretching/shrinking the 25 pixels could make a difference (by making a person's face seem fatter/slimmer). I've really done this by the book here. I've asked the editor to comment to WT:UNI#Template:Infobox University Chancellor or Template talk:Infobox University Chancellor. Since this template does effect many articles, a simple explanation of what exactly this will do to the other articles should not have been that hard to type out. I've posted on the template's talk page, WikiProject Universities' talk page, and have extensively commented my point of view on this issue on my user talk page. All I've asked for was an explanation, and since I did not get that response, I honestly cannot assume that this editor's intentions were honorable, which resulted in the reverts I have made. I have no intentions of creating or participating in an edit war. I personally recommend to have the template reverted to how it was before, have WikiProject Universities look at if this change is feasible or necessary, and move on from there - therefore taking myself and Emerson7 out of this process. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 06:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also support protecting the template until WP:UNI has the chance to review it as well. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 06:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing, I think what I've done is the textbook definition of trying to reach WP:BRD, hence, not an edit war necessarily. Trying to get an editor to discuss his edit should not be considered edit warring. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 06:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly didn't see the part where I stated, "Also, please avoid attempting to justify your actions; you are both automatically and horribly in the wrong for one reason and one reason alone: 25 pixels., but if you wish to ignore that, I can help clarify:

1. His edits clearly were not vandalism,
2. In my opinion, you told, not asked the other editor to do something ([16]) by calling disagreement vandalism, and
3. You also appear to have used rollback (or at the very least twinkle without using rollback) in what was clearly a content dispute— not vandalism.

Page protection, although another admin added it, shouldn't be needed for something like this. In fact, I'm wondering why I'm still even typing this. You both know what you need to do: WP:3O, talk page, or pick a WP:DR step. --slakr^\ talk / 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Every time you start a lame edit war... God orphans a baby polar bear

Well, having WP:UNI look at it (which I made that request days ago) was essentially my attempt at WP:3O. But look, I don't want to drag this out any further, I'm not touching that template page. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment in all fairness--and in weak defense--i made several attempts at dialog with user:james l. tai, on his talk page where i pointed out that my edits were minor, and asked him for his specific objections. i regret not also posting to the article's talk, and not considering the toxic effects to wikipedia and endangered small fuzzy wildlife. mea culpa. --emerson7 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment So... what now? We've stopped editing - do we agree to have 3rd parties look at this? And stop calling me James (both of you)... that's not my name. -_- - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin reported by Guido den Broeder (Result: No violation)

• Page: Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20] Complex revert, reverting edits by more than one user.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [21]

User seems to find it very important to give the reader the impression that fibromyalgia is a controversial, psychosomatic disease. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. This user has been blocked 5 or 6 times for edit warring. These were legitimate edits for NPOV improvement, they were not the same edit, and this is pure and simply harassment. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No violation Only three reverts are listed above; it takes four to break 3RR. In fact, Orangemarlin has only three groups of consecutive edits in this period, so he can't have gone over the limit. I looked at Guido's numerous edits but could not tell which ones were reverts. Any admin is welcome to analyze the history further. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So nothing has changed. User is clearly editwarring, destroying all edits from multiple users, but if he only manages to put his reverts into three edits a day he is allowed to continue this disruptive behaviour. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Veecort reported by User:McJeff (Result: Editor claims reform, meatpuppets are still being watched)

• Page: ITT Technical Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Veecort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since his last block for disruption/edit warring, which is still listed on this page, Veecort has continued to edit war.

Veecort has also been using sockpuppet IP addresses. SSP/Veecort

• 19:00, 23 November 2008
• 20:31, 23 November 2008
• 07:11, 24 November 2008
• 19:31, 24 November 2008 (fails to break 3RR by 31 minutes)
• 22:24, 24 November 2008 (fails to break 3RR by 1 hour 53 minutes)
• 00:38, 25 November 2008 (breaks 3RR)

There was no 3RR warning diff, but as he's been warned about both edit warring in general once and 3RR in specific twice, I believe it is safe to assume he knows better and simply doesn't care.

McJeff (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This issue is also at ANI, SSP and RFCU just now. By this edit of 05:06 on 25 November, Veecort appears to be undoing some of his changes that had previously been criticized. Perhaps McJeff can comment if this means Veecort is giving up the edit war. This board would not usually sanction an editor who had promised to stop warring. If he has *not* stopped, this does look like a case for an edit-warring block. Veecort admits his dislike of ITT here. EdJohnston (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If Veecort is undoing the edits, I don't think he needs to be blocked. Blocks should be preventive, not punative. I probably misspelled punative. ~Anyway, if he continues I can note it here, on ANI or privately, whichever would be best. McJeff (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to strikethrough my previous comment. Veecort's admitted meatpuppet 70.190 has not agreed to "edit nice", and instead has posted a personal attack and lie about my block log on the article talk page. When a user apologizes for bringing in meatpuppets, is he still held accountable for the actions of his meatpuppets after his apology? Is a meatpuppet considered to be a part of a dispute from the beginning or from the point he joined in? McJeff (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

More admins have joined the corresponding ANI discussion since this 3RR was filed. That's also the thread where Veecort seems to promise reform. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No action. Veecort seems to have reformed, so the remaining problem is that he solicited help with this article on an anti-ITT forum. The article is still semi-protected by User:J.delanoy. Re-open the case if you see continuing problems with the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Orderinchaos reported by Dissembly (Result: No action)

• Page: Lindsay Tanner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Orderinchaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [22]

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

This user has been engaged in edit warring, rather than simply violating the three-revert-rule.

I have been editing this article at around the same time, and i have modified all of my edits to take criticism and disputes into account (e.g. refining references to include chapter and page numbers, changing disputed wording to reflect only source material and no original research, etc...).

However, after each and any edit, User:Orderinchaos has clicked the "undo" button. User:Orderinchaos has made no new contributions and no attempt to compormise on wording with their own edits, instead using the "undo" button (this is the first reason i beleive this fits the "Edit warring" mindset). This has caused User:Orderinchaos to revert edits wholesale on two occasions, making it no longer possible to make even uncontroversial additions without them being deleted (see first and second reverts linked above). In addition, User:Orderinchaos has been using the comment field of the "Edit article" page to make personal attacks/threats, which can be still be seen in the History tab[26]. (This is the second reason why I suspect this fits the definition of an "edit warring" mindset.)

In addition, i have been informed by another user that User:Orderinchaos has made references to collecting "offline information" about me. I have no further information as to what User:Orderinchaos means by "offline information", but this may begin to push it into the realm of RL harrassment/stalking, and constitutes a third reason to suspect this user to be engaging in Wikipedia with an "edit warring" mindset. (Updated to add: I have been informed that Friojolez8282 has submitted a formal complaint on this matter to Wikipedia Oversight.)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [27]

I am not sure what penalties are due for this sort of behavior, but I believe that the innappropriate comments this user has been making in his "comments" field[28] should be removed entirely (is that possible?). I also wished to draw this to the administrators attention, as this kind of behaviour discourages users from returning to engage with Wikipedia edits at all. The reference this user has reportedly made to having an "offline" interest in me is particularly troubling. Dissembly (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have been perfectly reasonable in dealing with a person who, with a friend, is determinedly attempting to drive a far-left agenda on an article about a Minister of the Australian government and force violations of WP:OR/WP:SYN and WP:NPOV into the article. I became involved as I saw the edit war the two users in question had gotten into with one of the Australian Politics project's regular contributors, and ended up concluding the latter was entirely right in their judgement that the content in question should not be in the article. The off-Wiki information, all available online through what I would consider to be both common-sense and non-intrusive means, merely demonstrated that the two users were closely linked and are student activists in the real world. I think it is important that Dissembly and his friend learn that process-warring (including bizarre allegations [29] [30] [31], wanton misinterpretation of policy, and meatpuppetry ([32] [33]) is not an acceptable means of obtaining a content outcome. The person has not shown any wish to negotiate honestly on the topic on the talk page, has rebuffed any attempt to intellectually engage, leaving questions about the edits unanswered on the talk page or using them as a springboard for more personal attacks. No page numbers, by the way, were ever provided.

The user's claims are frivolous (I challenge anyone to find anything inappropriate in the edit summaries linked, or oversightable, for that matter) and should be dismissed as those of a person who failed to push their point of view on a high visibility article because an admin with some background knowledge in the field (Australian politics) got involved. As a user with almost 40,000 edits to my name, nearly all of them development of new content or expansion of Wikipedia's coverage, and with endorsements such as this, together with the user's own spotty history, I think there's some WP:AGF issues apparent. Orderinchaos 07:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing but a series of unfounded allegations and bizarre attempts to slander my name. Is there an administrator here? Dissembly (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I second Orderinchaos' comments. Timeshift (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no inappropriate edit summaries, rather I see removal of largely inappropriate edits. I would strongly caution Dissembly that making frivolous reports just makes his or her behavior more disruptive, and I would advise that (s)he take a close look at the situation before editing again. As to Orderinchaos, good job keeping cool in a difficult situation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade, i have made no innappropriate edits in my history with Wikipedia. In any case, it is not my behaviour that is being questioned here. I have never made a "frivolous report", and i find this assertion to be inappropriate and a violation of the "Assume Good Faith" policy of Wikipedia. Are you an administrator? Dissembly (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does tend to work by the "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" maxim. Orderinchaos 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer Dissembly's question - both Orderinchaos and Seraphimblade are administrators. Timeshift (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius reported by Locke Cole (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: User talk:Tony1 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Tony1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [34]

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

Editor is repeatedly removing my comments from another editors talk page and refuses to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

24 hours, and some advice for both of you to leave one another alone as every interaction seems to end rather badly. In this case, however, Ohconfucius' behavior is far outside the bounds of what is acceptable, and has been repeated despite warnings. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I generally do try to steer clear of his edits, but unfortunately he appears to pick fights with me over seemingly trivial things (like these talk page comments). I will continue to try and avoid this editor if possible. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: this editor seems be evading his block using his sockpuppet. See Date delinker (talk · contribs) (note the user page makes clear it is owned by Ohconfucius). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 Administrator note Ohconfucius was blocked at 06:10, 25 November 2008; his edits at Date Delinker post Ohconfucius-block have been dealing with overlinking, such as this -- not date de-linking. seicer | talk | contribs 00:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius was blocked for a violation of WP:EW (specifically 3RR), not for his date unlinking activities. This is a case of block evasion (see WP:EVADE). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was not going go comment using this account, but seeing as this is no longer an incidental matter, I thank User:Locke Cole for the opportunity to respond to one in many of the ongoing series of attacks against not only me (and some other users) personally, but obstructing us from carrying out what is otherwise considered by the vast majority of users as cleaning up by running to WP:AN. The separation of functions between the two accounts is crystal clear, it always has been, and always will be. Date delinker was blocked for delinking dates, albeit as a secondary result of reducing the extent of overlinking. DD has never done anything which is not specified explicitly in the mission statement; the account has only been working on date-delinked articles since blocking was lifted. It will be clear from a review of Coles contributions that he has been working on all cylinders in an attempt to challenge, using all means at his disposal, the current consensus on deprecation of date-autoformatting. I will once again civilly mention that Cole has been persistently stalking, spamming certain users' talk pages including User:Tony1 and myself, but WT:MOSNUM and reporting us to WP:AN to the extent that several of us have asked him to desist in his harassing. Acting together with User:Tennis expert, they have filed cases against fure user who have been delinking dates or generally been opposing what they are doing, while none have descended to theur level by filing any counter-reports here. The block on User:Ohconfucius has not been lifted, which is a great travesty because my protagonist just got off with a wrist slap whereas I got slapped in the face. Even yesterday, before Cole started putting unwanted messages on Tony's talk page, he already asked Cole to stop his harrassment. I answered his call because I knew he was being tied up with clients, and Tony later specifically gave me dispensation to remove the spam posted to his talk page. Date delinker (aka Ohconfucius)_{hard problems}^proverbs 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy (specifically as WP:3RR is a policy and you're using a sockpuppet to circumvent it). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gune reported by Kraftlos

• Page: Roronoa_Zoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Sanji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Tony Tony Chopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Gune (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gune has been repeatedly reverting sub-pages of List of One Piece characters that have been merged and redirected through month and a half long merge discussion. He has exceed three reverts of these pages and has received warnings for his actions, however the behavior continues. I'd like to see some sort of administrator intervention. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically here, there have [[]] been 3 reverts, however he's reverting other pages as well. He was blocked in October for doing the exact same thing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

Roronoa Zoro

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]

Sanji

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]

Tony Tony Chopper

• 1st revert: [45]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [46] Warned by 2 editors.

Edit: Fixed the format. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You both merged the pages with the only concensus being you two when multiple editors have disagreed. Besides this isn't breaking the three revert rule unless I did it once more time. Gune (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the admin decide. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this has nothing to do with the merge discussion. We held it from mid October until now and he decided that it wasn't important enough to voice his opinion (though he were actively editing other articles the whole time). This is just a case of WP:ILIKEIT. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Only the ships were agreed to be merged along with Franky and Brook. No other pages were agreed on. Only you and Goodraise supported all character merges. Multiple editors disagreed. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and just because you both think you own Wikipedia. In fact when Goodraise put the Sanji page up for deletion it was a reopen merge discussion consensus not merge anyway just because I like to think I own Wikipedia. Gune (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, we're not talking about the merge discussion. You had over a month to present arguments against these merges and you didn't take that opportunity. Edit warring is not an acceptable alternative. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and you thinking you own Wikipedia is the best course of action. Go delete pages and info like all deletionists do. Gune (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to delete pages, I cut clutter. There's a difference. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the fact that you admin seemed to skip over my report without giving me some kind of feedback. Report withdrawn, problem seems to have resolved itself. Will re-report if this happens again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RetroS1mone reported by Guido den Broeder (Result: no vio)

• Page: Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Notable people with chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: RetroS1mone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [47], contains reverts of (parts of) the following edits: [48][49]
• 2nd revert: [50], contains reverts of (parts of) the following edits: [51][52]
• 3rd revert: [53], reverting the following edit: [54]
• 4th revert: [55], reverting the following edit: [56]
• 5th revert: [57]

• Diff of warning: [58]

User is editwarring on multiple articles, basically destroying almost all my contributions without discussion. User seems to be stalking me, showing up at an article that he normally doesn't edit only to delete my one remaining edit. Between him and Orangemarlin on Fibromyalgia, they have deleted most of a full day's work. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guido has listed five reverts to five different pages in this posting and should probably be sanctioned for abusing this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this at WP:ANI and Guido has refused to modify or remove this frivolous report. Verbal chat 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do none of you ever read any policies?

For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages... (WP:EDITWAR) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown edit warring occurring on any of those pages, let alone multiple pages. Verbal chat 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The diffs are right there, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So is your contention that anyone that reverts the same editor anywhere on the project, more than four times, within a "protracted" period of time, is edit warring? Because if it is I think your reasoning is highly faulty. There has to be some edit warring first. Verbal chat 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Editwarring is an attitude; the number of reverts is by itself not decisive. The key element here is that user reverts my every edit on sight. What I content is that if you recognize the common denominator in all these reverts, you may better understand what is going on. That, however, requires some knowledge of the topic, which you may not possess. Wikipedia is weak that way. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome and Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome in both cases R only reverted one of G's edits, so clearly isn't blind-reverting. In both cases an edit comment offered a plausible explanation for the revert, so I don't think basically destroying almost all my contributions without discussion. is a reasonable description of the situation. This is your second rejected report in as many days; don't make a third William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing beforehand whether a report is going to be rejected, so basically you're saying that I should never again make a report but instead simply allow my every edit to be reverted without protest. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to every one that defended me today, this is intolerable behavior for editor just off month block. Guido, you can know beforehand a report is going to be rejected when what you are reporting is not edit warring. Here is quote from WP 3RR, "A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." so is obvious, Orangemarlin reverted most twice, I reverted most once. Pls do not waste peoples time like this again. RetroS1mone talk 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• 6th revert: [59] Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a separate edit on a 6th article!! I explained my edits, I was changing POV and original research by Guido and a IP. RetroS1mone talk 07:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Georgia (Result: No action)

Irakli

Georgia

Dear administrators,

I have a question to you:

Does russian Wiki have the right to amputate two Georgian regions and subtract their area from the whole area of the country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.169.110 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No action. We have no jurisdiction over the Russian Wikipedia. Please ask administrators there what to do. Here is what appears to be their Administrators' Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamo9503 reported by User:195.58.69.62 (Result: 1 month for vandalism)

• Page: John Beck (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Jamo9503 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.58.69.62 (talk • contribs)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Blocked – for a period of 1 month Long-term vandalism. Two previous blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Thunderer reported by Domer48 (Result: 24h all round)

• Page: North Irish Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: The Thunderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [60]

• 1st revert: [[61]

• 2nd revert: [62]
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert: [64]
• 5th revert: [65]
• 6th revert: [66]

Thunderer has been told of the WP:IMOS and has insisted of reverting against consensus. They recently had 7 3RR reports on this very subject here. They were blocked and apologised, and the next day started again here and now the report above. They have been asked not to keep reverting here and to come back to the mediation we are involved in by the mediator here but with no luck. Reporting here is now the only option left open. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

T is edit warring, but not against consensus. I'm very surprised you put in such a one-sided report. But nonetheless, 24h all round William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you William M. Connolley I hope it helps. I had written up the 3RR for the other editor when I coped I had not given them a 3RR warning, so I could not file the report. It appears however, it was not nessary since you blocked them? As to consensus, it forms no part of this report. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As to consensus, it forms no part of this report - a bizarre statement, since you plainly did make it part of the report William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You said yourself T was edit warring, end of story. Your opinion on the issue of consensus forms no part of this report. And yes it was against consensus, but this is not the place to discuss it. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

65.31.103.28 reported by Plastikspork (Result: No Blocks issued)

• Page: The Real World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [67]

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [72]

I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, but the user is unwilling to talk about it first before making edits. Instead, the user has threatened to "block me" if I touch the page again. See Talk:The Real World. I believe some discussion should take place before edits to this section continue. Plastikspork (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! I never violated the three revert rule. The first one wasn't a reversion! Plastikspork is confusing the first time I added the info to the article with a reversion. Also, the first time Plastiskspork made the reversion, he didn't explain why. It was a constructive edit so I didn't see why he reverted it without at least giving me an explanation so then I wrote 'unexplained reversion' when I reverted it back. He merely replied in edit summary to "go to the talk page if you want to make this edit" without attempting to do so himself. I explained that every editor doesn't have to go to the talk page before they make an edit on Wikipedia. I then warned him that he would be violating the three revert rule at his 3rd revert this is how he has responded. Only at the last minute did he actually start up a discussion and explain to me what he had a problem with on the talk page, making no attempt to do so in his edit summaries. 65.31.103.28 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But the other three edits of course still leads to the edit war. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that they are working it out now. I see no need to block.

Actually, I'm 99 percent sure Plastikspork has resorted to sockpuppetry in order to get his way and make his forth reversion as this IP user here [73]. here he agrees with Plastikspork on the talk page [74] . IP user decided to make his first edits as a reversions and in our debate on the article agreeing with Plastikspork, if you'll notice his edit history: [75] 65.31.103.28 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Slow edit warring at Tatars (result: block; semi)

This has been going on for ages, and there is little sign of any attempts to discuss. Can someone protect the page or something?--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:Fnr Kllrb 48h for edit warring etc. Also SoWhy (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Tatars: IP edit-warring ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)))) (undo) which should help William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by Ohconfucius

Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR but proceeded to evade that block using a sockpuppet Date delinker (talk · contribs). I'm raising the issue here as my comment in the report above seems to have been missed. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not a sock, its an alternate account. Blocked 24h anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with date delinking: he violated 3RR on his primary account (Ohconfucius) and was blocked and subsequently used his alternate/sock account (Date delinker) to evade that block and continue editing. BTW: Is the autoblocker broken, I'd have thought he shouldn't be able to do that while blocked? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas reported by Moni3 (Result: 12h)

• Page: Lesbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&oldid=245096852

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=247945475&oldid=247879744
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=253538710&oldid=252916691
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=253540276&oldid=253539917
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=253819191&oldid=253709514
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=254113168&oldid=253923056
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=254221005&oldid=254114482
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=254225756&oldid=254221020 (of which you can see here edit came despite the nth warning to use discussion, where she still didn't)

The tag team reverting of User:Moni3, User:Barek and User:Gwen Gale have consistently refused to adhere to talk page discussion after they came to conclusion on October 25 in order to establish their own view. I have, on multiple, occasions informed them to use the talk facility get an agreement and then move to change it. Yet they insist on establishing their view. Even as a tag-team they could establish a consensus but still insist on their view.

See this Talk:Lesbian#update for the consistent refusal to adhere to the discussion. On this basis it constitues vandalism as it is "Reverting the addition of biased..." content. It's not as it I have gone about and deliberately my or my posse's opinion. I have used the talk facility that she (?) now decides it not worth using.

Furthermore, she has distorted the picture above in producing versions that mix a pre and post discussion consensus. The edits above were a result of the discussion on the page.

You can compare the edits to here use of the discussion page, and my use of the discussion page. There is no point in having discussion if it is consistently going to be ignored for dictatorial agendas pushing various points that refuse to come to dicussion. Lihaas (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• FYI - There were nine reverts in my original report. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and another since: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&curid=17846&diff=254225756&oldid=254221020 --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

12h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:GreeneHornet reported by _David^WS _(contribs) (Result: no block yet)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Greene (town), New_York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GreeneHornet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 11:57, 23 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Local Businesses */")
2. 02:39, 24 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Local Businesses */")
3. 19:49, 25 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Local Businesses */")
4. 13:55, 26 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Interesting Facts */")
5. 13:59, 26 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Local Businesses */")
6. 14:02, 26 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Interesting Facts */")
7. 14:13, 26 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Local Businesses */")
8. 14:14, 26 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Interesting Facts */")
9. 14:15, 26 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Interesting Facts */")
10. 14:25, 26 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Local Businesses */")

—_David^WS _(contribs) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have stopped after (your?) warning. Will block if more occurs - let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

71.190.2.49 reported by Ronz (Result: Blocked for 72 hours )

• Page: List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 71.190.2.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Most recent version reverted to: 19:47, 24 November 2008, which is at least his sixteenth revert to the article. He's been blocked twice before, November 18th and 21st, for edit-warring in the same article. He has yet to describe why he's making these reverts, other than he wants the article deleted and he is reverting to include the old AfD notice. This is his first revert since the last block. Three more reverts below.

• 17th revert: 21:20, 25 November 2008
• 18th revert: 23:12, 26 November 2008
• 19th revert: 00:47, 27 November 2008

Obviously, just someone trying to see how long he can continue edit warring. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not strictly 3RR, but the anon had already been warned about these reverts, and they're responding at neither their own talkpage nor that of the article. I've blocked for 72 hours. --Elonka 02:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:WLRoss reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: 24h)

• Page: USS Liberty incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]

In case it is not clear, every revert removes the Jewish Virtual Libarary source, and replaces it with either a {{fact}} tag, or a different incident with a different source. Each revert is also clearly labeled as a revert or undoing of the previous editor's work.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [81]

NoCal100 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored article to previous consensus version. Note compromise offered on talk here [82]. I'd also point out that this editor has a history of edit warring on this page [83], resulting in the page being protected here [84]. Justin talk 08:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

24h. Thats a cr*p warning, BTW; fortunately for you someone else did the proper thing on his talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole reported by Lyckey (Result: Reporting user warned)

• Page: Egyptian pyramids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [85]

• 1st revert: [86]
• 2nd revert: [87]
• 3rd revert: [88]
• 4th revert: [link]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [Gene Poole]

User Gene Poole insists on that the links The Ra Material and Don Elkins are irrelevant to Egyption Pyramids. However, the ra material (one of the contributors was Don Elkins) contain detailed information on how pyramids were built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyckey 16:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

Multiple editors (including myself) do not feel that the material is relevant. Please stop adding it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jamie above. One of those additions isn't even an article, it's a redirect to the other addition. Bring it up on the relevant talk page, please. Dayewalker (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is only one editor edit warring here - Lyckey:

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]
• 5th revert: [93]

The content being reverted has no relevance whatsoever to Egyptian pyramids. --Gene_poole (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is to bring the dispute to administrators' attention and to ask for a resolution. It is not a page for multiple editors to state what they feel about. Who has the power? administrators or editors? Let the subject be handled by one of 1621 administrators, who can exempt his personal feelings out (otherwise it can be judged as administrator abuse), not by "wanna-be"s. "Newage nonsense" or "Rubbish paranormal" has also right to coexist with other stuff in wikipedia. User Gene Poole should relax and take it easy while editing, he should not use editing feature as a way to outburst his personal feelings. There are millions of forums out there on internet to spit on paranormal and newage, why wikipedia? --Lyckey (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

It would seem that this was closed unsigned by Ohnoitsjamie; that seems somewhat improper, given his involvement. So I'm re-closing it with the same result William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Danch reported by Muchness (Result: indef for disruptive editing)

• Page: Gulnora Karimova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Danch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [94]

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert: [98]
• 5th revert: [99]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [100]

One of a group of SPAs who have been targeting the Gulnora Karimova article for POV-pushing; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#Gulnora Karimova article.--Muchness (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Indef blocked by Jennavecia for disruptive editing. --Muchness (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

KeepRecoome reported by Collectonian (Result: 12h and warning)

• Page: Template:Dragon Ball (edit | [[Talk:Template:Dragon Ball|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND List of Dragon Ball characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: KeepRecoome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Template

• Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link

List

• Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

KeepRecome is edit warring over adding a link to an article clearly about to be deleted/redirected without merge to the DragonBall template and List of Dragon Ball characters, despite the links never having been there before anyway. He first added the links to the articles under an IP, then later logged in under his user name (stating he forgot to log in). He has admitted to being this IP[101] and also to being a sockpuppet of User:Xlaer[102]. Requests that he stop attempting to waste other editors times by adding a pointless link to these two pages have been ignored. To reviewing admin, I am aware that my reverts on the list push 3RR and I will not be reverting it again.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of it, you just hate the character. It doesn't matter if the link was "never there", mayne links on Wikipedia get added all the time to these things. The fact is, is that the vote is not over, till then the page should be on there. I told you I don't use Xlaer, just that one ime to upload an image and it's never going to be used again. Thanks User:KeepRecoome —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepRecoome (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

12h for KR. Stern Warning for C who has not push[ed] 3RR but has clearly broken it. The promise and I will not be reverting it again is hollow, since its on his version William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else put it on "HER version" after the report was filed, and not because it was requested. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I missed that you'd deliberately broken 3RR after filing the report. 12h then, for symmetry William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Lyckey reported by A new name 2008 (talk) (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Egyptian pyramids‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lyckey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

(edit summary: "Undid revision 254378490 by Gene Poole (talk)")

1. 13:16, 27 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254416457 by Gene Poole (talk)")
2. 13:20, 27 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254417036 by Gene Poole (talk)")
3. 13:23, 27 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254378391 by Gene Poole (talk)")
4. 13:27, 27 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254417778 by Gene Poole (talk)")
5. 15:39, 27 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254418423 by A new name 2008 (talk)")
6. 22:26, 27 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254480119 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—A new name 2008 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Thunderer reported by BigDunc (Result: 48 hours)

• Page: Ulster Special Constabulary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: The Thunderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]
• 4th revert: [107]

• Diff of 3RR warning: Editor is aware of 3RR having previous blocks for edit warring

Editor is just finished a 3RR block on North Irish Horse and has continued to add a copyvio image back to this article dispite being asked not to. Editor also went to the image page to try and fudge his reverts. He is also in breach of Arb enforced 1RR on this article.BigDunc^Talk 15:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the copyvio has been supported by an admin here. BigDunc^Talk 15:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor is now blanking large portions of the article here BigDunc^Talk 15:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Thunderer is already blocked 48 hours by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. The issue was also discussed at WP:AE. Editors on this article should be careful to observe the 1RR in the future. The arbitration remedies are here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)