Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GDonato (talk | contribs)
10,863 edits
Line 743: Line 743:
There has been heated edit warring on the [[Hispanic and Latino Americans]], which resulted in user 24.9.96.166 being blocked by Jersey_Devil without any sort of explanation. We need administrator look into the edit warring on that article. The dispute has been between user "SamEV" and 24.9.96.166 and IP starting with 6 over on that article. Please help with the edit warring dispute on the article and see the talk page under "SamEV" and "Jersey_Devil." There is still NPOV dispute but users SamEV and Jersey_Devil (admin account) are removing the NPOV tag and reverting the article to their liking many times now. Please help. [[User:Onetwo1|Onetwo1]] ([[User talk:Onetwo1|talk]]) 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been heated edit warring on the [[Hispanic and Latino Americans]], which resulted in user 24.9.96.166 being blocked by Jersey_Devil without any sort of explanation. We need administrator look into the edit warring on that article. The dispute has been between user "SamEV" and 24.9.96.166 and IP starting with 6 over on that article. Please help with the edit warring dispute on the article and see the talk page under "SamEV" and "Jersey_Devil." There is still NPOV dispute but users SamEV and Jersey_Devil (admin account) are removing the NPOV tag and reverting the article to their liking many times now. Please help. [[User:Onetwo1|Onetwo1]] ([[User talk:Onetwo1|talk]]) 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:Man of wealth and taste|Man of wealth and taste]] reported by [[User:JGXenite]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Man of wealth and taste|Man of wealth and taste]] reported by [[User:JGXenite]] (Result: protection, warning) ==


* Page: {{article|Planet of the Dead}}
* Page: {{article|Planet of the Dead}}
Line 771: Line 771:
::::Oh, I'm happy to sit out a block if it's deemed necessary. I'm just making sure that info on the degree of edit warring is available. [[User:Man of wealth and taste|Man of wealth and taste]] ([[User talk:Man of wealth and taste|talk]]) 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Oh, I'm happy to sit out a block if it's deemed necessary. I'm just making sure that info on the degree of edit warring is available. [[User:Man of wealth and taste|Man of wealth and taste]] ([[User talk:Man of wealth and taste|talk]]) 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::TreasuryTag isn't the one "on trial" here though. You should start a separate report if you believe TreasuryTag has violated 3RR. ~~ [[User:JGXenite|<span style="color: #AB0F31">[ジャム]</span>]]<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:JGXenite|<span style="color: #000">t</span>]]&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JGXenite|<span style="color: #000">c</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::TreasuryTag isn't the one "on trial" here though. You should start a separate report if you believe TreasuryTag has violated 3RR. ~~ [[User:JGXenite|<span style="color: #AB0F31">[ジャム]</span>]]<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:JGXenite|<span style="color: #000">t</span>]]&nbsp;-&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JGXenite|<span style="color: #000">c</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}
*{{AN3|w}} - Both parties should use communication on the talk page of the article, where differences can be sorted out without repeated use of reverting. It would be productive to do this while the page is protected and then you can submit the consensus version, [[User:GDonato|GDonato]] ('''[[User talk:GDonato|talk]]''') 11:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:20, 13 April 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • 6th revert: [7]
    • 7th revert: [8]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    User:Tycoon24 reported by User:MMAJunkie250 (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [12]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]


    Global warming

    List of common misconceptions/Hippo43

    Pashtun Ismailiyya reported by Sampharo (Result: prot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [17]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]

    The User over and over again is trying to plug in Shia negative stories into the biography of this Islamic figure, and using hardcore Shia citations but fakely reporting them as secular or Sunni sources. Over and over since the User's message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umar#Regarding_my_reversions_and_edits he is insisting to plug in Shia beliefs in the body of the text, and against the obvious disagreement of most everyone in the talk page. Then the User used edit warring techniques to force maintenance of those changes and stories and outright lying about the citations. The citations are from shia books and we have been trying to clarify that these are all Shia beliefs, however the user is erroneously claiming that they are neutral secular "Yale" research books or referred to that they are mentioned in famous Sunni books. I have confirmed one of the Sunni books, Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, and found the page number and found no reference whatsoever, when told the user merely removed the page number but maintained the false citation.

    When he sent the link to one of the books he called "secular and neutral sources" it was a clear religious "introduction to Shii Islam". He continues to insist on reverting the page with false citations despite being disproven as per the talk page.

    I have posted a report before and it was somehow removed. Please tell me if there is something missing from my report before removing it so as to know how to make a correct report. Otherwise if you haven't removed my report for some admin requirement kindly please check why it was removed and by home. I don't know how.

    --Sampharo (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigating. This is more of an edit war, but could involve sockpuppetry. One sec... --slakr\ talk / 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-04-06T05:53:13 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) m (43,761 bytes) (Protected Umar: IP vandalism. ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Number 57 reported by User:Martintg (Result: Withdrawn)


    • Previous version reverted to: [22]
    1. 07:47, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Er, no, it's for Ukraine in whatever form it was in.")
    2. 11:25, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv blind revert; these were all elections that happened in Ukraine; the flag or status of the country at the time are irrelevant")
    3. 18:59, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "They still happened, regardless of how flawed they were")
    4. 23:39, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Firstly, people need to stop blind reverting because they are putting back an error into the template, and secondly, not having articles yet is not a reason to not include them")


    • Previous version reverted to: [23]
    1. 07:46, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Er, no, it's for Russia in whatever form it was in.")
    2. 11:25, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv blind revert; these were all elections that happened in Russia; the flag or status of the country at the time are irrelevant")
    3. 18:59, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "They still happened, regardless of how flawed they were")
    4. 23:40, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv yet another blind revert that changes the format of the template")


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [24]

    --Martintg (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I second to Martintg here. This pointless edit-warring and 3RR violations by Number57 warrant administrative actions. There's absolutely no point introducing those red links to the templates, and this definitely should not be done through revert warring. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    5th revert: [25], 5th revert: [26]. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the edit summaries sum it up; the edits I were reverting were the problematic ones due to the fact that they were blind reverts; on the Ukrainian template the editors in question kept changing the year of the next presidential election to the wrong year, whilst on the Russian one, they kept reverting to an old format that is being deprecated. A discussion is currently underway on Template talk:Russian elections regarding this nonsense. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Closed with no action since the submitter withdrew his complaint. It appears that a deal has been reached on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ernest the Sheep reported by Matty (Result: Watching )


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    Lpi-english reported by Kuyabribri (Result: 31 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [27]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]

    I left messages on Talk:Language Proficiency Index ([33]) and User_talk:Lpi-english ([34]) in an attempt to avert edit war but got no response. Username is also likely a UAA violation, as it implies connection with the organization that administers the test. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CardinalDan reported by 129.240.0.83 (talk) (Result: CardinalDan warned, apparent IP socking being watched, article semi-protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [35]



    Excessive and disruptive revert-warring (in order to push the POV that the wife of the Danish PM is the country's "first lady"), showing no willingness to discuss his edits (despite calls to do so), constitutes plain vandalism. His other edits also indicates he is a disruptive revert-warrior. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may interrupt, all the revisions I did to that particular article were done because an IP user ignored consensus and kept reverting the article back to his/her view. I did give the individual proper warning, but he/she kept reverting. In any case, the other editors of the article also had reverted the IP user in question. In addition, the IP made a false report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism against me. All I had done was revert the article in question back to what was considered to be the consensus. If you look at my past edits, I have not "edit warred", as the IP has alleged. I feel that the IP user may be the same individual who had vandalized the article earlier CardinalDan (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These statements by User:CardinalDan are untrue. He took part in an aggressive revert war, without bothering to discuss his edits (unlike his opponent), giving no explanation for his excessive reverts, to restore his own POV (note that the false notion that she is "first lady" has now been removed from the other articles on her, in Danish and Norwegian, and has also been extensively discussed and proven wrong at the recent AFD entry, also note that the articles on Sarah Brown (spouse) or Cherie Blair are not inaccurately claiming they are "first ladies of the UK", so the solution with wife of NN, the Prime Minister of [country] should be considered the established/consensus solution with respect to these countries). Also, he made a false, bad faith report against an opponent in a content dispute at AIV. He continued the edit war after being warned of the 3RR. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that the user in question was blocked for 12 hours, I don't think the report was made "in bad faith". And I just reverted the page in question back to what was consensus, not what one person's POV was. CardinalDan (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. It was not a consensus version, it was your POV (which was already proven to be inaccurate) and you even refused to discuss your edits, just behaving extremely disruptive. User:CardinalDan also needs to be blocked for excessive revert-warring. It takes two to tango, and 9 reverts with no discussion, even after being warned multiple times, is unacceptable. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, reversion of vandalism is not considered edit-warring. CardinalDan (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone was vandalizing, it was you. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that User:CardinalDan is now trying to recruit acquainted admins (and fellow POV pushers/edit warriors) to support him or even "resolve" this case[36][37]. Stay alert. As his opponent was blocked for 12 hours, so should he. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment - As it was brought up as part of the above discussion - it appears that both 85.164.196.159 (talk · contribs) and CardinalDan (talk · contribs) were reported to WP:AIV (see here and here). However, while the reviewing admin blocked the anon (see here), the determination of the admin re: CardinalDan was that his edits were not vandalism (see here). Also, it appears that technically no 3RR warning was ever posted to User talk:CardinalDan - the warning diffs above are to a warning of claimed vandalism and to a comment field in the disputed article. Of course, this doesn't provide a pass, but should be taken into note by the reviewing admin. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it unlikely that an experienced user is not aware of the 3RR, also, he was made aware of it through the comment field. As he was reverting the article, one has to assume he was reading the comments of the edits he was reverting. In any case, 9 reverts with no discussion constitutes disruptive revert warring and was clearly not a mistake, like he forgot how many times he had reverted. He has to be treated in the same way as his opponent. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I missing something here, or is an anon IP editor purposefully and admittedly edit warring to draw an experienced editor into 3RR violations? Regardless of the ruling on CardinalDan, the page should be semi-protected to force the IP to stop edit warring and use the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The edit war was not started by the IP, CardinalDan is the one purposely starting an edit war and the one behaving disrupting. Also, CardinalDan is the one who refuses to discuss his edits (which the IP has done long before the edit war, including at, but not restricted to, the ongoing ADF entry), CardinalDan's only "contributions" to the article have been unprovoked revert warring. CardinalDan is the one who needs to be forced to use the talk page or otherwise topic banned. User:Dayewalker, let me remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (OD)Please show me the personal attack. It doesn't matter who starts an edit war, as you point out above it takes two to tango. I stand by my interpretation of the events, and again request semiprotection of the page once the matter has been settled. Dayewalker (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would observe that 85.164.196.159, registered to Telenor, was blocked at 20:39. 129.240.0.83 appeared, registered to the University of Oslo at 21.10 to complain here. This appears to be a continuation of an edit war by other means. CardinalDan should have dropped the reverts and reported it here. I'll have a word with him about that and semi-protect the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AgadaUrbanit reported by Nableezy (Result: No action per discussion below.)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

    Nableezy (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I respect Nableezy opinion and really sorry to be in this page. I discuss my contributions on the talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If he says he will stop reverting until there is an actual agreement on the talk page, instead of just posting to the talk and continuing to revert, then close this out please. The user is very civil and behaves well except for the reverting. The images one is an issue because of the different reasons used, the last one is 'leave the grandma alone' after the issues in his first 2 reverts were resolved. But if he says he will stop reverting without any agreement then please close this out. Nableezy (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not change the article for at least 24 hours. The changes of "grandma" image were discussed here. I did not take part and it was wrong. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note – No action per the above discussion; please re-open if problem arises again. Black Kite 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1111tomica reported by Yannismarou (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [45]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [50]

    Let's just note that the aforementioned user not only edit-wars, but he also removes the AfD template. If you check his contributions log, you'll see that he is engaging in a nationalistic edit-warring in a series of articles. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Black Kite 12:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PhilLiberty reported by Septentrionalis (Result: 24h)

    American Revolutionary War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 19:33, 10 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid A. apparently doesn't know that independence = secession")
    2. 19:50, 10 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid In English, "independence" = "secession"")
    3. 16:41, 11 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "specifying what the war was fought for")
    4. 17:18, 11 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I guess that's my quota for today")

    —All three four of these appear to be exact reversions of the lead, against different editors. Considering Phil's attitude, and block log, I think he knows about 3RR, but I'll go tell him about this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Somewhat baffled by the edit war, since was a war fought by Americans for secession from the British empire is patently true, but you colonials are funny folk. Still, its 4R, so 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not patently true. If Scotland had gone Jacobite alone, would that have been a "secession from the British empire"? Yes and No. Was the colonial situation parallel? Yes and No. What was the constitution of the British empire? That was scarcely discussed in Whitehall until the next century, and may not yet be resolved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Threeafterthree reported by JCDenton2052 (Result: stale)


    • Previous version reverted to: [51]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [56]


    User has repeatedly used the edit summary "See talk" but has not provided any rationale for his blanking on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, stale. Would have been "no technical vio" if seen earlier. With warring edit comments of "trolling" and "bad faith" it looks like you both need to strive for politeness William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At some point, trolling is trolling. I have no problem using the talk page and have done so with no response from this editor there, just continued reversion with rv vandalism in the edit saummary. Hopefully this will move to the article talk page or I will have to seek out other dispute resolution. Thank you, Tom (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Planecrash111 reported by JustSomeRandomGuy32 (Result: indef)


    • Previous version reverted to: [57]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [62]

    User is very aware that the consensus does not agree with his edits, and continues to do so anyways. See here. User also has history of edit warring and refuses to stop even after multiple blocks. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I've tried to speak to this multiply-blocked user several times in good faith, but he refuses to stop and discuss his edits. I had previously filed an ANI report on him [63] to try and get an admin to step in and speak to him, but PC111 has continued to edit war. Dayewalker (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2009-04-12T11:05:03 LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs | block) blocked Planecrash111 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism: Hiding revert - against consensus - with misleading edit summary) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecuadorian Stalker reported by Sherlock4000 (Result: indef)


    • Previous version reverted to: [64]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [71]


    Administrators:

    This user is a self-professed stalker who recently "discovered" Wikipedia and lives up to his name by blindly reverting careful and time-consuming edits, without adding anything. His reverts also include the deletion of extensive, sourced material, which are included in this version.

    He (or she) will continue to undo my edits and other serious editors' with snide little asides until the user is blocked, so I hereby request that you please block this user.

    Thank you for your time,

    Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, another revert by Ecuadorian Stalker: [72]

    There appear to be about 5-6 reverts (in as many hours) by both editors. -- Marek.69 talk 06:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left messages on users' talk pages reminding of the 3RR rule. (User Ecuadorian Stalker's account is only a day old, so he is probably unaware of all of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines) -- Marek.69 talk 06:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors have now stopped editing the article. Have advised a discussion on the subject. Marek.69 talk 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ES has certainly stopped :-) : 2009-04-12T20:45:12 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Ecuadorian Stalker (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (obvious sock of User:Historian19) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biophys reported by User:Offliner (Result: self-rv)

    • Previous version reverted to: [73]
    • 1st revert: [74]
    • 2nd revert: [75]
    • 3rd revert: [76]
    • 4th revert: [77]
    • 5th revert: [78] - done after report was filed

    In each of the reverts, Biophys removed the statement by Mary Dejevsky. Biophys is an experienced used and is surely aware of 3RR; he has also been blocked before for edit warring. Offliner (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment, Biophys was reverting the addition of libelous, controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. Offliner and Russavia have long been content opponents of Biophys, (Russavia having received a two week block for harassing Biophys). seems like they are attempting a block shop exercise by the insertion of such material into a formerly stable article which they have never edited before. Martintg (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I have explained on the article talk page, I really don't see how Mary Dejevsky's statement "he expertly fronted a publicity campaign" would be a BLP violation in any way. The first time I edited Goldfarb's article was on 9 April, but I have edited articles related to his books and the events where he has been involved. It is perhaps worth noting, that Biophys has been constantly removing similar statements from other articles as well, although they are directly supported by multiple mainstream sources, are neutrally worded and attributed, and are essential parts of the article subject: [79][80][81][82]. As for Martintg, please don't try to defend Biophys' clear 3RR violation by making baseless accusations and by trying to draw attention to irrelevant matters. Offliner (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been previously warned about vexation litigation here, yet you continue. Biophys warned you of the WP:BLP problem on your talk page [83], yet you continue to edit war yourself:
    1. 09:30, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Political activism */ role in litvinenko affair")
    2. 00:09, 10 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv - it is not WP:UNDUE. this is the political activity he has received the most mainstream media coverage for")
    3. 01:58, 10 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Political activism */ chief editorial write of the independent")
    4. 05:08, 11 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv - please don't remove important, well-sourced content")
    5. 15:25, 11 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv - it is neutral, well-sourced and relevant info - no WP:BLP violation here")
    6. 04:22, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv - nothing deflamatory about that. it is well-sourced and important info.")
    assisted by Russavia (who has also never edited this article before):
    1. 00:49, 10 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 282752511 by Petri Krohn; it isn't BLP to include verifiable information. using TW")
    2. 15:30, 11 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Political activism and social work */ merger into one")
    --Martintg (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said, I really don't see any WP:BLP problem in the addition; if you want to argue about this, I suggest you do that at the article talk page and not here. Biophys dropped me a note, and I answered - how is that relevant to this report? And I really don't know what Russavia or "vexatious ligitation" has to do with this - this is a simple report of Biophys' quite clear 3RR violation and persistent edit warring in two articles, which has to stop. Offliner (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and about the "vexatious ligitation warning" diff you provided there [84]. You obviously failed to notice the follow-up Connolley posted after I modified my 3RR report: [85]. Unfortunately, in the end it was you who got blocked for edit warring in that case: [86]. I really don't see any "vexatious ligitation" in a report that in the end was completely justified and accepted by the reviewing adming. Offliner (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So I caused Biophys to breach 3RR, Martintg? Good one. As he has been told, Wikipedia is not censored, the information is verifiable, it is sourced to a reliable source, the opinion is attributed to its author, it does not breach bio of living person's policy. When an editor such as Biophys is here to advocate, information in such articles is not desirable for him, and frankly, the longer Biophys goes on with removing such information that is critical to figures who are associated with Berezovsky, one really has to start wondering whether Biophys has a conflict of interest with these people. People don't like my WP:ALPHABETSOUP, perhaps when they can understand what all that soup means, I can stop using it. And as it stands, Biophys has breached 3RR, that much is absolutely clear. Offliner, there is no need to say anything else here, because the report speaks for itself. --Russavia Dialogue 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    12 hours ago. Interestingly, I seem to remember that Russavia's last breach of 3RR (a week ago), being at least as clear as that, was declared stale after five hours. Colchicum (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Protecting WP from potential libel issues regarding the biographies of living persons is not subject to 3RR, in addition Biophys did place a notification of the violation. Given that Russavia and Offliner have demonstated themselves to be antagonistic to Biophys (my personal opnion based on past interactions), the 3RR motion here appears to be little more than tag-team block shopping to enforce a POV which could be considered as violating WP:BLP guidelines. As for "alphabet soup", (to Russavia) my overwhelming experience has been that editors pushing personal POV liberally lace their arguments with WP:ALPHABETSOUP to intimidate their editorial opposition and unilaterally cut off meaningful discussion--attempting to bolster their position by proximity to their invocations of WP:RULESANDGUIDELINES. If you wish to discuss content and its applicability to an article and wish to be taken at face value, please do so in plain English. This is an encyclopedia where articles are discussed and created in plain English, not an acronym farm. PetersV       TALK 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:3RR, Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. I can see nothing from Biophys on that noticeboard, and I see no discussion from Biophys, except a claim on Offliner's talk page. Inserting poorly sourced material that a person is a paedophile is a violation. Inserting well-sourced, neutrally worded, attributed opinion into an article is not a violation. 3RR policy does not exempt Biophys in this instance. And to prove it, here is what was written:

    Mary Dejevsky, the chief editorial writer of The Independent, opined that Mr Goldfarb "expertly fronted" a publicity campaign in the last week of Alexander Litvinenko's life and that Mr Berezovsky dictated the view that the British public had of the event.

    which is quoting[87]:

    In the last week of Litvinenko's life, it was also Berezovsky's money that bought the publicity campaign, so expertly fronted by Alex Goldfarb. Thus the view that the British public had of Litvinenko's illness and death was essentially dictated by Berezovsky. Until the very end, neither the hospital, nor the British authorities, nor the Russian embassy contributed anything at all. Berezovsky, through Goldfarb and the PR company, Bell Pottinger, had the field entirely to himself.

    I look forward to being reported to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and for people to ask to sanctions against me, because according to numerous editors above, I have now breached WP:BLP and I should be blocked indefinitely for blatantly breaching that policy. --Russavia Dialogue 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your skills at creating wikidramu. I really do. But don't you think you should take this particular kind of dramu to WP:BLPN? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is User:Biophys, User:Martintg, User:Digwuren and User:Vecrumba who should be taking it to WP:BLPN, as those four editors are the ones who are claiming/gaming it is a violation of WP:BLP, and using that as an excuse for Biophys' clear breach of WP:3RR. If anything, Goldfarb's article needs more information on how he is an (close) associate of Berezovsky. Looking at [88] we have the International Herald Tribune, The Guardian, Moscow Times, Taipei Times, New York Times, The Associated Press, News 24, The Independent, Washington Post, Financial Times, RFE/RL, USA Today, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Deccan Herald, BBC, Los Angeles Times, Kommersant, The Peninsula, Jamestown Foundation, and many, many, many, many more making this information known. But here on WP, it is a WP:BLP violation? And if it is a breach of BLP, look at it this way, now that I have also transplanted the information here, you have an extra reason to have me indef banned for blatant, egregious violations of WP:BLP. Anyone who seriously thinks this is a violation of BLP has a kangaroo loose in the top paddock. It is clear that Biophys has simply removed information he doesn't like, and he clearly breached 3RR in doing so. Stop making excuses for it. --Russavia Dialogue 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from a totally uninvolved but tired user of having see |the same old stuff again by the same members at this board along with AN/I and other boards. I don't see any Blp violation in the given diffs, and don't understand why Martintg tries to derail from the main subject, Biophys's 3RR violation. Accusing Russavia's old log is out of the topic as well (well, my 5 minute research gives Biophys' RfC/U and ArbCom case). Offliner edit-warred too but reverted 3 times, and Russavia reverted 2 times. Then who is the most reverter in the situation? Biophys with no doubt. BLP exemption is not applied here. I don't think protecting the article would work.
    WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive88#Biophys reported by Russavia (Result: no vio) 12 January 2009
    WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive89#Biophys reported by Offliner (Result: Move protected) 18 January 2009
    WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive90#Offliner reported by Biophys (Result: O article-blocked for 48h) 9 February 2009
    WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive95#User:Offliner reported by User:Cmp7 (stale?) 29 March 2009
    WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Russavia and Offliner submitting bogus 3RR reports (harassment) filed by Colchicum on 2 April 2009
    So we can see endless edit warrings, revenges, accusations between Group1 (Martintg, Colchicum, Biophys) and Group2 (Russavia, Offliner). These are just a few of recent cases. Administrative actions are really required, --Caspian blue 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that this is no longer a stale report, as Biophys has just reverted again, with this edit. --Russavia Dialogue 19:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering User_talk:Offliner#Vexatious_litigation, I suggest at the very least putting Offliner on a 1RR parole, particularly as his reverts involve introduction of controversial BLP issues. This entire thread looks like more harassment of Biophys. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't support such a thing, given the tedious nature of Biophys' edits across many, many, many articles which removes information that he doesn't like. Alexander Litvinenko, Russian apartment bombings, Boris Berezovsky, Yuri Felshtinsky, Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist), the list goes on and on and on. --Russavia Dialogue 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Russavia, throughout these conflicts, you appoint yourself judge, jury, and executioner. Please assume good faith, I for one am not "gaming" any system here nor did I stalk you or Offliner to Huffman coding as you have charged. I suggest the BLP concern which originated this be taken up in article talk or appropriately in a request for comment for a wider audience as it is quite obvious (to me) that you and Offliner have no desire to negotiate with those editors who you deem to be your adversaries, only to denounce them, as you have attacked me a number of times and now here. Your increasingly incivility will bring neither peace nor consensus in our time. Obviously how you decide to spend your next WP:YEAR is up to you.
       And as for I look forward to being reported to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and for people to ask to sanctions against me, really that does nothing to advance any content, I really abhor these constant reportings which accomplish little except polarize individuals by accentuating lines of division. Your comment only serves to illustrate the WP:BATTLEGROUND (or is it WP:BATTLEFIELD) mentality you appear to now live by. We can do without the martyrdom. PetersV       TALK 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So many people willing to offer advice, how kind. Biophys appears to have self-reverted, so I can see little point in a block. However, like others, I am getting somewhat sick of the same infighting amongst the same people. Perhaps fortunately for you all, I'm on a slow link at the moment. If you can't stop fighting each other and can't bring yourself to go through WP:DR then you'll just get blocked. Substance: it isn't clear to me why [89] is an exemption under BLP; the general advice here has to be that while you should remove BLP-type material, once you've done it once or twice you should put it on the BLP noticeboard (wherever that might be) and if no-one there cares to come to your aid, you should conclude that it isn't BLP-exempt. Unless you have something strongly germane to add, I strongly advise against adding further comments to this section William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anonymousone2 reported by Dcoetzee (Result: indef)

    P = NP problem. Anonymousone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [90]
    1. 04:20, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 282972550 by Shreevatsa (talk) How is ArXiv not a reliable source? It is gov't sponsored research.")
    2. 04:46, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "However, I must so successfully insist because ArXiv is used as in references in several other categories and pages in Computer Science and this page. We cannot pick and choose.")
    3. 05:15, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "I respectfully disagree. Is it a requirement that all referenced sources be refereeable? If it is not this should be allowed to stay.")
    4. 05:26, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "Please keep discussion local. How is it irrelevant if it is specifically on subject? Under what basis is your judgment valid to discriminate?")
    5. 05:50, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "Wikipedia is not a place for debate. It is noted this was acceptable per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples..")
    6. 08:59, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: I think this may have been a computational redirect accidentally triggered by a bot. There was no vandalism present.)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [91]

    User:Anonymousone2, also editing as User:67.102.24.106 and possibly also User:Otisjimmy1, is persistently introducing a reference to a (clearly erroneous) source against consensus, and has been reverted by four different regular editors to the article, but continues to revert to reintroduce the reference. The source claims to have solved a long-standing open problem in computer science, but has not been peer-reviewed or received any serious consideration by anyone. They're attempting to use the reliable source guidelines in order to back up their position, claiming that the website hosting the paper, arXiv, is a reliable source. I didn't issue a three revert warning quite soon enough, so they may not have been aware of the policy. So far they have not reverted again since being warned. I did not block them myself as I am an involved editor. Dcoetzee 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: The history of the deleted article Succinct problem strongly indicates that this user is a sock puppet of User:MartinMusatov, who has already been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of another user, and is the author of the reference being introduced, indicating a conflict of interest.

    Update: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martin.musatov. He's been engaging in a number of other furtive and manipulative behaviors, such as tricking other innocent users into introducing the reference on his behalf, and adding the reference to forked copies of other articles. Dcoetzee 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef as sock; would have been 24h for just 3rr William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecuadorian Stalker reported by O Fenian (Result: 24h )


    • Previous version reverted to: [92]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [97]


    Editor is also almost certainly a sockpuppet of banned editor Historian19 (talk · contribs) based on the articles edited and the same combative editing style. O Fenian (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Black Kite 12:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris cohen reported by John Carter (result: stale)


    • Previous version reverted to: [98]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [105]


    Editor is seemingly determined to have the subject's family tree information added to the article, regardless of how many times and how many changes he has to make for it to reasonably fit in. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Last edit more than 48h ago; stale William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Athenean reported by Balkanian`s word


    • Previous version reverted to:[106]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [111]

    Comment: 1st revert is actually not a revert, reporting user has a history of nationalist edit-warring, source falsification and blocks under his old name, User:Arditbido. --Athenean (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: His first edit is a factual revert, that he has tried unsuccesfully before. On his comments on me, I wont bother, its quite clear who`s the source falsificator (Talk:Cham Albanians#Mazower). This user has only reverted on Cham Albanians page and never contributed on it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: On the second and subsequent diffs, I actually used a completely different wording, in accordance with what the source actually says, so that is not a reverts to the first diff. This editor has also been warring on Chameria, and has previously been blocked 4 times for edit-warring. As for his falsification of sources, it's all here Talk:Cham Albanians#Misuse of sources. --Athenean (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A revert is used even when it is a rewording, per definiton of 3RR. Per my abuse, those misuses of sources that I was accused, by you, were all fall down, and my wording is still in that page, cause you could not find any argument, except making bad faith new sections.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that whole section you added was removed by consensus, so no, your wording is not "still in the page". --Athenean (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hcp7 reported by NJGW (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [112]



    User has stated on the talk page that they will not discuss the edits and instead refers to my edits as trolling and vandalism [117][118]. This is an SPA account that has only edited one article with the express purpose of promoting a specific POV. Probably a sock.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [119]

    NJGW (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but what you are saying is false. I did not say I will not discuss; I said, first remove your personal attack which you refused to do. You attacked me twice, first in your talk page, and second in the article's talk. Also, I did not violate the rule: the first edit was not a revert. You must provide proof that I am a single-purpose account and a sock or otherwise you should be blocked. Hcp7 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Before I made my first about edit, I kindly contacted the user but they responded rudely by asking a completely irrelevant question about myself. Then they again asked the same question in the article's talk page. User:NJGW is the one who should be blocked, not me. Hcp7 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, perhaps the problem is reading comprehension. Here's the question, which I answered here. Why is it rude to say "I hope this is now clear, but feel free to ask more questions if don't understand." Why is it irrelevant to ask "By the way, under what account did you edit in the past?" You seem very touchy on the whole past account subject. Care to suggest why that might be? NJGW (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins, here's one more diff: [120]. Hcp7 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24h for incivility. Didn't check the 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VicMackey2002 reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result: )

    At a guess I would say that this IP edit 00:27 13th April 2009 was the same editor. I gave him a warning [121] and that appears to have made them register to keep editing.

    I admire their enthusiasm but the edits to the pages relating to the Shield do not fit the MOS. I'm not going to make another revert to the change back out but rather I am going offline after putting this report in. I am expecting to lose my internet access by the morning, so if you could e-mail me and I will pick it up Tuesday. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SaltyBoatr reported by 141.154.15.7 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]

    Fairly complex - the violation involves acting against multiple people

    1} Here [122] adding back what looks like inappropriate material for the article deleted by myself [123]

    2)Here [124] adding back material deleted by SMP [125]

    3)Here [126] adding back material deleted by SMP [127]

    4)Here [128] deleted multiple entries made by myself,ex [129] and [130] and two others


    I warned him about what looked like a 3RR violation several days ago and I also warned him about this most recent one reported above. He then deleted both warnings here [131] to make it look like he has not been warned.

    I reverted the deletion of the warning [132] and then he deleted them again [133]

    FYI: My IP provider change my IP address every so often.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [134]

    Comment It's perfectly permissible to remove a warning from one's user talk page. It is presumed that by removing it, the user has acknowledged reading it. You were wrong to revert over that - no comment on the underlying issue, tl;dr. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I didn't really consider my edits to be WP3RR violating edits. But obviously this AnonIP editor thinks so. In response I have voluntarily done a self revert[135], and offer an apology. Also, I would welcome some advice as how I might find a way to get along with AnonIP, who I find very hostile and difficult. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The rules say 4 reverts in a 24 hour period constitutes edit warring. Either there were 4 reverts or there were not. I warned you about a 3rr violation on your talk page and I further warned you on the article talk page. You did nothing to correct your actions until I made this complaint. Re: Your self revert. You only made that after I made this complaint and you refused to do anything prior to this complaint, such as when I asked you to self revert here [136]and return "balancing" commentary to new material in the article. Not only did you not self-revert to restore balance but you added additional unbalanced commentary.141.154.15.7 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please accept my apology, sorry. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be of interest the history of this, see [137] and [138] and [139] and [140] for four recent blocks of this AnonIP editor. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I paid the price for not understanding wiki rules. Thanks to you getting me banned I believe I now understand them better and my understanding states that you are in violation. 141.154.15.7 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    69.3.159.225 reported by TravKoolBreeze (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [141]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [146]

    A discussion was started on the talk page and then I asked three editors for their opinion in which one did respond to the dispute. The user in question still reverts without adding any discussion to the talk page. TravKoolBreeze (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin user account [[147]] invalid blocking (result: declined)

    Admin Jersey_Devil is blocking users without giving reason on the block page. I suggest you take up this person's admin privilege and revoke his administrator right immediately. This block violation by Jersey_Devil was caused by the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#SamEV. He shouldn't violate his admin privelege by blocking someone when that user didn't insult anyone on this matter. The user blocked is: 24.9.96.166.

    I immediatily request Jersey_Devil's violation and revoke of admin privilege immediatily. He also reverted this very contentious topic with "npov" tag and removed the npov tag where there is heated discussion about the article going on for days. Here is his unexplained gross negligence revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=283512854&oldid=283470015 Someone people respond to this matter appropriately and revoke this user's admin account asap. Onetwo1 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Hispanic and Latino Americans

    There has been heated edit warring on the Hispanic and Latino Americans, which resulted in user 24.9.96.166 being blocked by Jersey_Devil without any sort of explanation. We need administrator look into the edit warring on that article. The dispute has been between user "SamEV" and 24.9.96.166 and IP starting with 6 over on that article. Please help with the edit warring dispute on the article and see the talk page under "SamEV" and "Jersey_Devil." There is still NPOV dispute but users SamEV and Jersey_Devil (admin account) are removing the NPOV tag and reverting the article to their liking many times now. Please help. Onetwo1 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Man of wealth and taste reported by User:JGXenite (Result: protection, warning)


    • Previous version reverted to: link


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    This user has been asked on several occasions (1, 2, 3, 4) to stop re-adding the statement regarding a link between two episodes of Doctor Who, and to discuss it with us first and provide sources for this link. They have continued to re-add the statement without any proper discussion, and have been warned twice (although I've now removed the second one) by two editors about overstepping the 3RR mark. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with JGXenite that the user is an edit-warrior, uncommunicative and adding original research. Could someone also take a peep at Talk:Planet of the Dead#Request in relation to this? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert one, revert two, revert three, revert four. Hmm, four reverts in less than 24 hours. Man of wealth and taste (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you definitely shouldn't be blocked, then ;-) [148] However, blocks aren't punitive, and since you've now stopped edit-warring (page protected, and issue stale), I see no reason why there should be any blocks. I'm assuming that you won't continue the behaviour once the page becomes unprotected? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm happy to sit out a block if it's deemed necessary. I'm just making sure that info on the degree of edit warring is available. Man of wealth and taste (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    TreasuryTag isn't the one "on trial" here though. You should start a separate report if you believe TreasuryTag has violated 3RR. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected
    • Warned - Both parties should use communication on the talk page of the article, where differences can be sorted out without repeated use of reverting. It would be productive to do this while the page is protected and then you can submit the consensus version, GDonato (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=283541384"