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.

Hans Engstrom and Malin Tokyo reported by Gsmgm (Result: 12 hours)

• Page: Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Malin Tokyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Hans Engstrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 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]
• 8th revert: [9]
• 9th revert: [10]
• 10th revert: [11]
• 11th revert: [12]
• 12th revert: [13]
• 13th revert: [14]
• 14th revert: [15]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [16]
• Diff of 3RR warning 2: [17]

The page contains ranks, personnel categories, and the number of persons in each rank as reported by the Swedish Armed Forces including references to all the information. For example, who are comissioned officers and the number of persons with the rank Kapten(s). Some are upset (presumably officers themselves) about the officer vs troops ratio, which has been reported as 18,676 officers vs 770 troops. No one has found any errors. Despite this, all the numbers and statements from annual reports have been deleted many times w/o motivation. This is a pure conflict of interests since officers want the numbers of troops to be much greater relative officers to assure that they are looked upon as officers and not merely as soldiers or anything else.

After the removal of fully sourced offical number and statements from the Swedish Armed Forces, redefinition of terms began to elevate most personnel of the Swedish Armed Forces as Comissioned Officers despite of those official statemetns and numbers reporting differently.

The numbers from the Swedish Armed Forces annual report are 100% accurate and fully sourced and if I am hindered from publishing them on wiki, wiki will loose all of its credibility. Consider the hypothetical situation when management of a company tries to stop the publishment of their audited financial statements, size, capital, personnel, ratios on an wiki article that describes the company under their management. I request those numbers to be restored immediately! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gsmgm (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Result - Hans Engstrom 12 hours for 3RR. The two parties, Engstrom and Tokyo, have been disputing on this article for a long time. Technically, there is only one 3RR violation, so the block is for HE. If the revert war continues after the block expires, with no-one opening up formal dispute resolution, sanctions for both parties are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been posted for discussion at the WP:COIN ([18]) with Engstrom accusing Tokyo of a COI. I cannot see where the conflict of interest is however. Smartse (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is clearly a conflict, if the cause is interest or someting else is not so clear. There are however no room for interpretation of swedish military ranks since the Swedish Armed Forces have now adopted NATO-standards for ranks (see Ranks and insignia of NATO and http://www.mil.se/sv/Arbete-och-utbildning/Sok-utlandstjanst/Nivaer/) 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC) You are stating your own opinion and interpretation of ranks here, which is completely out of the scope as this page is for dealing with edit wars. The underlying issue is the removal of fully sourced statements from the Swedish Armed Forces and has nothing to do with NATO. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC) No, you are. This is the correct and official translation of ranks published and used by the Swedish Armed Forces. There is no room for interpretation. This is the very foundation for the edit-war. You are missusing the statistics to prove a point that is incorrect. I may add that I am serving with the Swedish Armed Foreces, but as a private, so I have no personal interest in promoting officer ranks. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) First, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss your claims. There are no translations and there are no documents that support your claim above about NATO, Sweden is not part of NATO. You are now claiming that the annual report is false. Are you a private now!? You are firing lots of accusations against me in public w/o any ground for those. You had one whole month to verify those numbers from the military, but you found no errors and no one else did. Now you are accusing me again that numbers are incorrect and that I am misusing statistics w/o presenting any proofs. Wiki, you must deal with this person. I have spent a whole month in the discussion forum prior publishing the table and after no errors found I published it. Why is this person starting this here now. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Everyone found errors in it! There are more than seven users and you are the only one who thinks the table should be included in the article! As an effort to resolve the dispute about the article content, all editors agreed that we should make only small additions and discuss each addition on the talk page before posting it in the article. Yet Malin posts this new table without discussing it properly and without finishing the discussion on the earlier version of the article.--Stulfsten (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Nope, they didn't,,, where are the errors? I took the initiative, not you, of starting over bit-by-bit and the facts table was a result after lots of rewires... You have been stating for several mothts that this and that are wrong, but you have never ever pointed out what is wrong and why it's is wrong? You said that there are about 30,000 people, which are not in the table. What people!? For weeks you were not able to tell what those people are. Those turned out to be HD staff as pointed out by someone and irrelevant. Other than that, you have not provided any information at all about the Swedish military. We need an independent person unrelated to the Swedish miltary to deal with this issue... This has gone too far and there is no solution.. Those pople are redefining their own ranks.... I am the only one free from COI, but we need more. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC) This editing war has beeing ongoing for ever, it seems like. The reason for the war is Malins (Lindquist, Randström, Tokyo) faulty comparison between Swedish officers and officers in USMC and BA. Malin has repeatedly posted false information and has repeatedly posted unethic posts with a fair amount of disrespect for both officers and other wiki contributors. I know that Malin has acted in the same way on other places on the internet and she has been banned from at least one forum because of her misconduct. COI in this case can be seen as between us that wants the information on Wikipedia to be correct and Malin that apparently has declared an internet fatwa on the officers of the Swedish Armed Forces. /Army officer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.160.68 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) As far as I see, I cannot find any substance in any of the statements above other than a number of personal accusatios. From scratch, I have drawn all the insignias of the Swedish Armed Forces -- a great effort that persons that is describes abowe would never ever do! What I have published is the number of officers =18,767 vs troops = 770, which indicates that there are lots of officers but hardly any troops. I have also publsied major indepedned researches from top universities regarding your organization. Hardly any errors has been found by anyone. For this, I am being insulted and trheatened by Swedish officers. No errrors were fund in my coparission with BA and USMC.... I compared a rifle squad leader of 6 men in Sweden with x years of experience with a rifle squad leader of 8 men in the BA with x years of experience and simply took their rank and conclude that they are very cloose. My conclusion was regarded as a serious insult by Swedish officers, as lies, me having a fair amount of disrespect, discredting the officers cors,et,etc... but they did not provide any useful information on the subject. I feel that some Swedish officers here are intruding on the human right of free speech. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki0508 reported by User:Howard the Duck (Result: )

• Page: V-League 6th Season 1st Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wiki0508 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Vleague016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [19]

• It seems that he does not revert in one edit but instead has an entire series of edits. I have already contacted him for discussion and warned him of 3RR but he doesn't respond. It has been challenged that his revisions were indiscriminate collection of information but he just re-adds it.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

–Howard the Duck 15:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Added another user. Doesn't respond to user talk messages. –Howard the Duck 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy (no vio)

Please, explain User:Madcoverboy that he has to read the Wikipedia guidelines very carefully before reverting articles like the article Steinway & Sons. He is undoing some of the edits in a roughly way. (See Talk:Steinway & Sons#New edits) Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, since you're such a fan of the guidelines, could I point out to you that your report isn't correctly formatted? And that failing to sign your talk page edits is annoying? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says, that I am such a fan of the guidelines???

What about keeping your attention to what is relevant (the problem I wrote above), than talking about signing comments or other formalities.

The problem is that Madcoverboy says things on the talk page and make changes in the article, that he claims is according to the guidelines. But when you go to the guideline pages you can see that he sometimes has misunderstod the guideline. Therefore he has to read the guidelines carefully before editing articles. Otherwise he will continue making some wrong edits in articles from time to time.

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Fanoftheworld is a WP:SPA (Special:Contributions/Fanoftheworld) with an unabashed POV and a possible COI with the Steinway Company (given the user's familiarity with press releases, marketing information, licensed products, and edits to "competitors"). While the article has been substantially expanded with his or her contributions, the user exhibits many characteristics of article ownership as well as disruptive and tendentious editing. User:Theseeker4, User:THD3, User:Karljoos, and User:Alexrexpvt have all repeatedly attempted to intervene and correct the article's deficiencies only to have the article return to an advertisement in due course. I don't believe 3RR intervention is called for at this time since both parties are currently engaged in attempts at discussion and consensus-formation, but I provide the revert diffs below for other editors' judgment. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Fanofthewrold reported by Madcoverboy (Result: 24h)

• Page: Steinway & Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]

• Diff of 3RR warning in edit summary: [29]
• Diff of 3RR warning to user talk page: [30]

No sooner had I posted the previous message than did Fanoftheworld go and revert edits yet again. My other comments above still hold. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The problems in very short

The problems is in very short, that Madcoverboy doesn't write explanations when he makes edits; that he sometimes misunderstands guidelines; and that he doesn't write answers on the talkpage but make edits regarding subjects that are in discussion on the talk page.

I have not so far wrote any warnings on Madcoverboy's page but maybe I should do that, like he does on my page. Do not think that his actions on Wikipedia are all correct. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'velooked at the talk page. There is discussion from MCB William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That is really a very misleading thing to write. If you look at the time he last wrote at the talk page and the time he last edited the article, you will clearly see, that he is stopped writing on the talk page but that he still is editing disputed things in the article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: 3RR
I see that a user easy can give RRs. I will do the same sometime. Madcoverboy has also edited against: "Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.". But the administrators are clearly on Madcoverboy's site. I must dissociate myself from that way of acting. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lokyz reported by User:Radeksz (Result: no vio)

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

• 1st Revert: [31]
• 2nd Revert: [32]
• 3rd Revert: [33]
• 4th Revert: [34]

Lokyz has tried to insert questionable sources into the article, as well as remove any reference to Poland or Belarus from the article (he does this to a lot of Lithuania related articles), along with several typos. Here, I tried to engage him on the talk page, which still hasn't gotten a response: [35]. He's been around for awhile, been part of a couple RfA's (where he got a restriction for incivility [36], which he's also been blocked for before), so he obviously is aware that the rule exists.radek (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

L's first edit is marked "rvv". And as far as I can see it is indeed reverting vandalism. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a removal of word "Poland" form the article (Bronson's father emigrated to US from a town that between the wars was Poland, before that Russia and today is Lithuania). (Add: More specifically, while that edit was made by an anon, Lokyz still took this as an opportunity to revemoe material that he didn't like. So it's still a content dispute, not a simple rvv.) radek (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are BBC or USA today questionable sources? Is Šiaurės Atėnai, a weekly printed newspaper sponsored by Ministry of Culture a dubious source (despite quite old-fashioned design of the webpage it is respected publication)? Altough provided references do not mention Poland user:Radeksz is still altering referenced information to his liking.--Lokyz (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDb w/o a Writer's Guild note is most def a non RS as is tv.com. I didn't remove any references to BBC or USA.radek (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I, as the principal editor, who currently expanding this article, I can note, that indeed this edit is a revert of vandalism (while reverting vandalism 3RR not counts): a) IP removed referenced name b) invented, that parents were from Poland and Lithuania. On the side note, Radeksz systematical edit warring indeed needs attention (he was already blocked for the edit warring in the past [37], but failed to modify his behavior):

• On Charles Bronson:
  • 2009-04-21T13:45:30
  • 2009-04-21T18:53:04 (like restoring Buchinski, removing back that his father served in Russian army etc)
  • 2009-04-22T08:40:25 (like again removing that his father was Lithuanian immigrant, or that both parents were LT immigrants etc)
  • 2009-04-25T20:22:03 (like again removing Lithuanian father etc.)
  • 2009-04-25T20:35:11 (as as above)
  • 2009-04-25T21:20:29 (as as above)

• Battle of Grunwald
  • 2009-04-17T14:57:29
  • 2009-04-18T00:53:32
  • 2009-04-18T01:21:43
  • 2009-04-18T22:52:23
  • 2009-04-19T21:42:46
• Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)
  • 2009-04-15T18:17:27
  • 2009-04-15T18:39:00

And many others articles recently affected by Radeksz edit warring. Such editing practices should be stopped. M.K. (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing as no vio. Better lucknext time.All sides cautioned re reverting. Excess discussion trimmed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Adijarca reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24h)

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

• 1st revert: 18:01, 25 April 2009
• 2nd revert: 19:56, 25 April 2009
• 3rd revert: 09:09, 26 April 2009
• 4th revert: 11:13, 26 April 2009
• 5th revert: 13:16, 26 April 2009 (by IP)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [38]

The last edit is very likely by the user logged out in order to avoid 3RR block exactly. SSP could be filed for checkuser but in my view it is fairly straightforward. The user also removed the 3RR warning posted as his talk in an effort to conceal his actions. He also deceptively marks the reverts as minor edits to avoid scrutiny. note the date of the removal of the 3RR warning [39] and the edit of the IP. [40]Hobartimus (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

24h, plus 48h for the anon William M. Connolley (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ausdawg reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Anzac Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ausdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 14:03, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "http://www.qppstudio.net/publicholidays2009/australia.htm")
2. 14:10, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "official and unofficial day")
3. 14:21, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "official changes1")
4. 14:37, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "anzac day is also on the 27th in some states as changes indicate")
5. 14:44, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "correct changes in accordance to message")
6. 15:04, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "it is not irrelevant it may be after the 27th 2009 but not before it is a regular question i get asked and is of some relevance")
7. 15:10, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "lots of people may think it is relevant to no when the public holiday is i agree with you about taking it down after the 27th but this is an information site isnt it?")
8. 15:13, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "im sorry are you disrespecting my family because they are from qld and we have the 27th off and i personally feel it is a relevent point to respect people on anzac day")
9. 15:20, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "delete on the 28th apr to show some respect")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor continues to readd but I can not continue to revert since I've hit my third revert. Bidgee (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: )

• Page: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Complex reverts, prev version provided for each revert

• 1st revert: [41] - labeled as a revert in the edit summary
• 2nd revert: [42] - revert this edit by Follgramm3006.
• 3rd revert: [43] same as previous, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
• 4th revert: [44] removes same passage as before, adds in different version
• 5th revert: [45] as previous one

• Diff of 3RR warning: use ris well aware of 3RR, and uses it frequently against others: [46], [47]. Nevertheless, was warned and asked to revert: [48]

Indeed I was warring, after the notice by Brewcrewer I made no more reverts, and all the warring has ceased with a compromise between the two of us that were warring. Very sneaky of NoCal(ton) to have no edit summary with my name here and no notice of the report. Not averse to a block, but there is nothing to prevent, nothing is going on now. Nableezy (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick ts reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 1 week)

• Page: 2008 Greek riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Nick ts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single-purpose revert warring account, has been on a slow, sterile reverting spree at a single article, evidently politically motivated related to the conflict currently at WP:ARBMAC2. But this account isn't worth burdening the Arbcom case with, can somebody please take care of it? Please consider indef-block.

(No regular AN3-style link list this time – you'll get all the picture at a single glance by looking at his contrib history. He's been doing nothing than these reverts for two weeks.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing even remotely close to a 3RR violation is in the article history. By the standard of a "slow, sterile reverting spree", Fut.Perf. is just as guilty. NoCal100 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, seeing that he's reverted three times last week, while Nick ts has been at it this whole week. I'm not going to take action, since I'm too involved (party to ARBMAC2), but the notion that this is nothing worth looking at completely ignores the bigger picture of edit warring that doesn't violate 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked one week, by Moreschi, with the comment edit warring only. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Daymeeee reported by Nil Einne (Result: No action needed )

• Page: Resident Evil 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Daymeeee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is engaged in long term edit warring:

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]
• 5th revert: [53]
• 6th revert: [54]
• 7th revert: [55]
• 8th revert: [56]
• 9th revert: [57]
• 10th revert: [58]
• 11th revert: [59]

I'm an uninvovled user so not that familiar with the details but there has been some discussion here Talk:Resident Evil 5#Wesker's "death". While I don't know if there is quite consensus, Daymeeee appears to be the only one (except for this [60] who was reverted by someone uninvolved below [61]) who is trying to force this specific POV and has been reverted by multiple different editors with the compromise version [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

While never blocked, user has been warned multiple times about edit warring (and other things besides all to do with the RE5 or related articles albeit not always this issue) [67] [68] [69] including:

• Diff of 3RR warning: [70]

While I appreciate this isn't a sockpuppetry report, there is good reason to believe this user is the same as anon 137.99.151.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was previously blocked for edit warring. Both these users have edited each other's talk page with comments and removing warnings etc they didn't like, and some of these have occured at about the same time, including reversal as the 'owner' of the talk page after someone reverts the other user editing the talk page. E.g. [71] + [72] or [73] + [74]. While there's no clear evidence of attempts to circumvent or avoid blocks, I thought it worth mentioning in considering what block is appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User was informed but removed it [75]. User also has self-reverted and agreed to stop [76] but sadly has followed that up with extremely pointy behaviour and more edit warring [77] [78] [79] Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No action at this time as user has indicated on their talk and in the edit summary of a recent edit to the page in question that they 'give up'. Re-report if it continues. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:64.185.238.44 reported by A new name 2008 (talk) (Result:semi-protection 1 week, user blocked 31 hours by User:PeterSymonds)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Human feces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.185.238.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 23:38, 26 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 23:48, 26 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 286328212 by Trevor Marron (talk)")
3. 23:56, 26 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 286330037 by Trevor Marron (talk)")
4. 00:15, 27 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 286333000 by Trevor Marron (talk)")
5. 00:18, 27 April 2009 (edit summary: "WP:IAR")

• Diff of warning: here

—A new name 2008 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User was blocked for 31 Hours for vandalism on this article. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 1 week considering that another user has inserted the same images. --JForget 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Canjth reported by Mr. No Funny Nickname (Result: Final warning )

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

• Previous version reverted to: [80]

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]

I did not make 4 reverts. I made three and have started discussing with the other editor. Canjth (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [85]

(Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

User:Bracton reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)

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

It's complicated; repeated addition of tax protester rhetoric.

• 1st revert: 16:23, 26 April 2009 revert to 06:25
• 2nd revert: 16:55 specific revert of my edit
• 3rd revert: 16:57 specific revert of my edit
• 4th revert: 19:10 restored move of section, previously reverted (although perhaps accidentally) by Famspear (talk · contribs) 18:45 in any case, some of the edits in that sequence restore material removed by Famspear.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:13

Addition of tax protester rheetoric. It's possible the first sequence before 16:23 also includes a revert, but the nonsense added wasn't in the article recently. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hut reported by JohnInDC (Result: 24h)

• Page: Michigan–Ohio State rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: The Hut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [86]

• 1st revert: [87]
• 2nd revert: [88]
• 3rd revert: [89]
• 4th revert: [90]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [91]

This case may not meet the technical definition of a 3RR violation, given slight differences in the edits and reversions and the fact that the changes were spread out over a period longer than 24 hours. It is, however, plainly an edit war. The user persists in making the same (essential) edits without seeking consensus and his edits have been repeatedly removed by several editors (myself primarily). The same contentious edits were the subject of an earlier 3RR report and block involving an IP (see Talk page result User_talk:76.112.248.224 and sample diff) and I suspect the instant user to be the same as the editor from that IP. I also note that the same reversions were also made twice by a newly created account, User Talk:Kill Bubba Kill, diffs here and here. JohnInDC (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional revert this morning by User:Kill Bubba Kill, diff here. I'll file an SSP report. JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the preceding note, a second suspected sockpuppet OhioState4Life has continued to reinsert the disputed edits without discussion or other attempt to gain consensus. Diff1, diff2, diff3. Sockpuppet report here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

24h, plus indef socks William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Vleague016 reported by Howard the Duck (Result: 24h)

• Page: V-League 6th Season 1st Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Vleague016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [92]

• 1st revert: [93]
• 2nd revert: [94]
• 3rd revert: [95]
• 4th revert: [link]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [96] (Level 4 MOS violation warning)

See also a similar unresolved case above. –Howard the Duck 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting without talking is bad. I've blocked for 24h to encourage communication William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted without talking anew after the block's expiry. –Howard the Duck 12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio reported by Brewcrewer (Result: 48h)

• Page: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Cryptonio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]
• 5th revert: [102]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [103] (Cryptonio subsequently removes notice [104])

Cryptonio doesn't like the addition or prominence given to a reliable source that questions the amount of people killed during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. He has taken it upon himself to remove or minimize this information. His reverts have also included some insulting and incivil edit summaries.[105][106] Cryptonio has been blocked less then a month ago for edit warring. [107] His talk page also includes admin warnings concerning his incivility. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha reported by RolandR (Result: 72h)

• Page: Anti-Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [113]

RolandR (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if I should comment, but I came here to report the same. I just didn't know if the last revert was the same or whether it was just 3.5RR, while still flipping a digital comment toward policy. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Asasjdgavjhg reported by Emptymountains (Result: Final warning)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [114]

• 1st revert: [115]
• 2nd revert: [116]
• 3rd revert: [117]
• 4th revert: [118]
• 5th revert: [119] (?)
• 6th revert: [120]
• 7th revert: [121]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [122]

The user also keeps moving things around on the Talk Page. I keep moving the most recent discussions to the bottom of the page, and he keeps moving them back up to the top. Emptymountains (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Result - This is a new but rather stubborn editor. The 3RR warning is later in time than the last revert listed so a block would not be justified. I've warned him against moving others' comments to the wrong place on Talk. Report again if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Scorpion0422 reported by TJ Spyke (Result: no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of WWE Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 02:36, 27 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reigns */")
2. 02:47, 27 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reigns */ Why should DiBiase, Rhodes, McMahon and Batista be noted if they had no chance of winning the title?")
3. 02:57, 27 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reigns */ So why exactly does every edit to this page need your approval?")
4. 14:38, 27 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv. Rhodes, DiBiase, etc. had no chance of winning the title, so they should not be noted. It's the same reason why interference is (usually) not noted.")

• Diff of warning: here

User continues to act like they control the article, reverting anything they don't like (even if it is notable to the content of the article). After the first 2 reverts I contacted the user and asked them to discuss it on the talkpage. The user has continued reverting when another use added the content back in. TJ Spyke 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The first edit was not a revert. This is why 3RR is flawed, users use it as a way to get petty revenge on others. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion, instead of discussing the issue like I asked you too, you just kept reverting. You can't claim ignorance either as you have been around awhile and know how 3RR works. TJ Spyke 19:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No vio. First edit not obviously a revert. TJS cautionned for rather combative talk page attitude - please WP:AGF William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mtpisaman reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 1 week )

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

• Previous version reverted to: [123]

Physician:

• 1st revert: [124]
• 2nd revert: [125]
• 3rd revert: [126]

Osteotomy:

• [127]
• [128]
• [129]
• [130]
• [131]
• [132]
• [133]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [134]

Dawn Bard (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: Final warn )

• Page: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Links will be provided for each revert - these are revert of different parts of the article

• 1st revert: [135] reverts this edit, removes "gaza victory" & al-aman source
• 2nd revert: [136] again removes "victory' an al-aman source
• 3rd revert: [137] - labeled as a revert in the edit summary
• 4th revert: [138] - same as revert #3

• Diff of 3RR warning: [139]

I reported this user yesterday, for a similar series of 5 reverts, on the same article - [140], but that report went unnoticed, apparently, and today he's right back at it, for a total of 9 reverts in the last 48 hours, including 2 separate 3RR violations NoCal100 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NoCal, do you have problem with notifying users when you file a report? And secondly, can you read? I didnt remove 'Gaza Victory' or the source in the second revert, I changed the order and the location, look more closely at the diff, at the end of the diff it is there. The second 'revert' is not a revert at all, I reworded what was in that section. The last 2 are reverts. Nableezy (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And your 'warning' was from yesterday, you, nor anybody else, have any warning for this. Nableezy (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be still edit warring, I have strong suspicions of rule gaming with 3RR. Care to defend yourself?--Tznkai (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I already said yesterday's report was accurate and I was edit warring, you can look above for that. The first two reverts listed here consistes of one removal of an extra name, when that was reinstated I changed the order around. The second 'revert' consists of 4 edits, in this one I changed the order, in this one I changed the wording slightly, in this one I fixed a grammatical error (no period), and in this one I corrected a spelling error. The last two probably constitute edit warring, but in my defense there has been strong talk page consensus in the past for this passage, and the user who changed it has been trying to do so over a long period of time to remove the phrases 'propaganda' and 'psychological warfare' for actions the sources describe as such. If you really need me to pull up the relevant section in the archives I will, but it was 'warring' so a block may be justified for that. I said above, I could and probably should be blocked for yesterday, I reverted too much instead of working out a compromise with the party I was warring with, which if you look at the history I made an edit that was kept by the other editor. If you want to block on what happened in the previous report feel free, I wouldn't even contest that (though I would ask that you block me on the 'honor system' as I am working on an article in my userspace, if that isnt allowed then whatever). But this above is frivolous, put together by an editor whose entire history on that page, and there isnt much by him on that page, wholly consists of reverts. But again, I was warring yesterday, and I did make two consecutive reverts of the same change today, so whatever you need to do is all good with me. Nableezy (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'compromise' from yesterday's incident was made here and the user who I had been 'warring' with kept it here. Others started warring on its inclusion or exclusion at all, I stayed out of that. Nableezy (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One more note, 'gaming' is kind of harsh, more like not paying attention. I said I was warring yesterday, I wasn't thinking about it today. I logged on, saw these changes and changed them back. The first 'revert' at all in this was removing one of three names, two of which were added in the prior edit. I felt it wasn't needed to have 3, so I removed one, that was changed back so somebody objected to its removal so I didnt remove it again. Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk page. Essentially you should now use a 1RR when editing this page, except for blatant vandalism only. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

all good, i actually was thinking of not editing that article anymore, too much of a pain. but ill try and follow 1rr on it from now on. Nableezy (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Scuro reported by Jmh649 (Result: Warned)

• Page: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

• 1st revert: [141]
• 2nd revert: [142]
• 3rd revert: [143]
• 4th revert: [144]
• 5th revert: [145]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [146]

Appears to have been discussed on their talk page. If reverts continue, re-report here even if not a 3RR as it constitutes continuance of an edit war after warnings. Refer to this report when/if filing new report. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Paulthomas83 reported by Justin Tokke (Result: incivility: 24h)

• Page: List of concert band literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Paulthomas83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [147]

• 1st revert: [148]
• 2nd revert: [149]
• 3rd revert: [150]
• 4th revert: [151]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [152]

Justin Tokke (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have reverted just as much. However, on the assumption that the anon is PT, I've blocked for 24h for that William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DionysosProteus reported by Angr (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [153]

• 1st revert: [154]
• 2nd revert: [155]
• 3rd revert: [156]
• 4th revert: [157]
• 5th revert: [158]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [159]

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Daymeeee reported by Nil Einne second time (Result: talk / gone away)

User was previously reported #Daymeeee reported by Nil Einne (Result: No action needed )

• Page: Mass Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Resident Evil (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Daymeeee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is continuoing to engage in edit warring now across multiple articles with pointy edits resulting from the way the other case turned out:

• 1st revert in Mass Effect: [160]
• 2nd revert in Mass Effect: [161]
• 2nd revert in Mass Effect: [162]
• 1st revert in Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows: [163]
• 2nd revert in Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows: [164]
• 1st revert in Resident Evil (video game): [165]
• 2nd revert in Resident Evil (video game): [166]

As mentioned, I reported this user about 40 hours ago for persistent edit warring. After I informed them of the case they then annouced they'd given up, self reverted to the consensus? version but in the same breath annouced they were going to make it their mission to change other articles in the same fashion. I informed them that such POINTy behaviour was liable to mean they would be blocked [167] and reverted one of the pointy edits (but was promptly reverted by Daymeeee) and mentioned this new development in the report. Because they'd agreed to stop the other edit warring, it was deemed no action had to be taken so the user continued with their new pointy edit warring which has been reverted by multiple users, primarily it seems those monitoring this user as a result of the recent history.

Given the lack of any useful contributions, the multiple warnings for edit warring, the recent history of edit warring, the new pointy edit warring and the likelihood of this being the same person as the anon who was previously blocked for edit warring; it seems to me what's gone on is sufficient for at least a short block even if the recent edits alone may not constitute edit warring. If the closing admin still feels no action is warranted may I request that someone's help in monitoring this user and help convince him/her to stop? Because despite only being involved with this user for 40 hours it's getting a bit tiresome dealing with him/her myself let alone I suspect for those dealing with him/her for nearly a month.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have informed the user [168] Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This user is continuing to edit war on Resident Evil (video game) Lychosis ^T/C 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

After checking D's contribs, and discovering nothing on the article talk pages, I was going to block for reverting without discussion. But then I check more and discover that *no-one* is using the talk pages to try to settle this tedious edit war. So since D says he is off for a break, I think the best thing it to do nothing (you don't want me to block everyone who was reverting without discussing, do you?) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alonsornunez reported by Tennis expert (Result: stale)

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

• 1st revert: 12:18 UTC April 26 Used "undo"
• Previous version reverted to: Title of Section 2.2

• 2nd revert: 13:44 UTC April 26 Said "RV" in edit summary
• Previous version reverted to: Section 2.2

• 3rd revert: 14:51 UTC April 26 Used "undo"
• Previous version reverted to: Link to the tournament in Sydney in Section 2.1

• 4th revert: 16:41 UTC April 26 Used "undo"
• Previous version reverted to: Section 2.3

• 5th revert: 17:26 UTC April 26 Used "undo"
• Previous version reverted to: Section 2.1

• 6th revert: 19:30 UTC April 26 No edit summary
• Previous version reverted to: Title of Section 2.4

• 7th revert: 04:04 UTC April 27 Said "Reinstating consensus version" in edit summary
• Previous version reverted to: Section 2.3

• Diff of 3RR warning: [169]

This user made seven reversions to the Serena Williams article in a 16-hour period and acknowledged his edit warring objective after the last reversion here. Since at least February 2009, Alonsornunez has a disruptive history of edit warring, despite repeated requests on his discussion page not to do that. See, for example, these requests: (1), (2), (3). Tennis expert (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Addendum: This user made other reversions in the Serena Williams article during this time period that apparently do not count for these purposes because there was not an intervening edit by another editor. None of those "other reversions" are listed above. Tennis expert (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note that this matter is already being discussed concurrently with Tennis expert (himself accused by three editors of violating 3RR) on his talk page (of course, this does not prevent the matter from being discussed here); it is also of note that this incident, of which a majority agree was precipitated by Tennis expert, is part of a larger issue being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert. AlonsornunezComments 07:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is stale William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

HJensen reported by Tennis expert (Result: stale)

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

• 1st revert: 14:19 UTC April 26 Used "undo" and said, "This must be a mistake?"
• Previous version reverted to: Title of Section 2.2

• 2nd revert: 14:29 UTC April 26 "ce Srerena Slam section (I liked the less stubby version, and with a title; also changed some ref formattting"
• Previous version reverted to: Section 2.3

• 3rd revert: 16:33 UTC April 26 "I don't think one should link to redirects"
• Previous version reverted to: Link to the tournament in Sydney in Section 2.1

• 4th revert: 17:01 UTC April 26 Used "undo" and said, "I agree that the earlier version is the better; Nothing with wholesale"
• Previous version reverted to: Section 2.3

• 5th revert: 18:37 UTC April 26 Used "undo" and said, "My god you have reverted this section also! Please stop disrupting"
• Previous version reverted to: Section 2.2

• Diff of 3RR warning: [170]

As the above evidence shows, this user made five reversions to the Serena Williams article in a 4-hour period. And this is not a "stale" complaint as the current version of the Serena Williams article reflects the edit warring by this user and Alonsornunez and because HJensen clearly does not understand WP:3RR. See, for example, this post by him. Tennis expert (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note that this matter is already being discussed concurrently with Tennis expert (himself accused by three editors of violating 3RR) on his talk page (of course, this does not prevent the matter from being discussed here); it is also of note that this incident, of which a majority agree was precipitated by Tennis expert, is part of a larger issue being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert. And of course it is identical to the above report that was rejected as stale. AlonsornunezComments 07:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously quite, quite stale as the complaint above, per User:William M. Connolley. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)