Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Reports

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

User:Badagnani reported by User:Ronz (Result: stale)

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

Recent discussions concerning similar behavior:

• RfC/U
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Badagnani 21 April 2009
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#More_edit-warring_by_Badagnani 28 April 2009
• User_talk:Badagnani#Welcome_back 11 May 2009
• User_talk:Badagnani#Wolfberry 17 May 2009

Once again, I'm concerned about his continued behavior and would like more admin help before the current disputes escalate further. In the last ANI, it was recommended that a 3RR report be written up the next time he started edit-warring again, so here we are.

In David Oei, an article he created, he is once again edit-warring over poorly sourced information that has been discussed in Talk:David_Oei#Advertisement and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_5#David_Oei.27s_former_wine_shop.

This time around the information was tagged as failing verification 23 April 2009 by an editor that had not previously edited the article. Three weeks later, I removed the material 18:33, 14 May 2009 . Within two hours 22:04, 14 May 2009 Badagnani restored it without any contributions to the talk page in a month. I reverted his edit added a comment to the talk page. He's restored a portion of the material again 04:16, 17 May 2009 without a source at all, and has still not contributed anything new to the discussion.

I've simple solution to Badagnani's ongoing problems: have Badagnani himself provide us with a solution. Require Badagnani to state for once exactly what parts of WP:DR he will follow and respect. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this: situation really needs attention. Badagnani has been asked more than once to go to WP:DR over these edit warring issues, and has completely ignored a user RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. Wikipedia:Verifiability's nutshell says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Are you really expending all this effort simply because you don't believe the pianist owned a wine store? You already told the subject of the article, that the wine shop he owned and ran for 10 years is "of no importance" to his life [in the context of a Wikipedia article] unless a citation can be found.
  It seems to be verifiable that he owned it: [1], [2]. Instead of deleting the whole sentence every time, why not suggest alternate wording? Or, take a break from this article...

• It's already been established that you don't get along with Badagnani. I'll repeat what has been suggested by others elsewhere: Why don't you take the articles you followed him to, off of your watchlist?
  Yes, other people are still having problems with him. But you're not helping matters by creating more drama over things like this. You're not going to educate him into becoming a model-editor. You might manage to provoke him into doing something perma-block-worthy, and that would be a shame. Fortheloveofgodandpeace, stop interacting with him. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded to Quiddity's accusations, instruction, etc here, repeating what has already been discussed here and here. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Re: Instruction: You quoted WP:BATTLE to me. Specifically, you quoted "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." I agree. I gave you suggestions on how to improve the article in a more harmonious, and less-wasteful manner. Was it a bad suggestion, to consider a compromise in the article, instead of an all-or-nothing solution?

2) Re: Accusations: How are we meant to resolve a dispute, if we can't discuss the nature of the dispute? You clearly followed (wikihounded) Badagnani across a number of articles. That seems to be making things personal, which WP:BATTLE clearly advises against doing.

I can only see negative outcomes, if you continue to attempt to interact with Badagnani, with the methods you choose to use. Instead, I'm suggesting things like: you read over WP:TRUCE, and perhaps question your own motives for continuing to force these disputes to occur.

3) Regarding the article/dispute in question this time, David Oei, are you really expending all this effort because you strongly disbelieve the subject owned a wine store for 10 years? Are you "challenging" this material?

From an outside perspective, it appears to be a quibbling over tiny details, with an editor that you have a bad history of communicating with. And purposefully quibbling with said editor. Almost 3 million articles, yet you keep choosing to clash with Badagnani...

-- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would broadly agree with Quiddity's observations and recommendations here. Badagnani has a history of not dealing with conflict very well, but Ronz is among the editors responding to Badagnani in a way that is guaranteed to prolong the disruption. I think they should stop. It's not as if a fact about a pianist owning a wine shop is going to hurt anyone if it stands in the article for a little while. Nor will it hurt anyone if the fact is not in the article. The editors involved in this conflict would do well to get a dose of perspective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has a long history of being blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and generally being unable to follow WP:DR. Badagnani persists despite all efforts to change his behavior. Attacking other editors for the way they've interacted with Badagnani only worsens the situation. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – Badagdani would edit war much less if Ronz (a polite and careful edit warrior, whose weapons are carefully cloaked by appeals to policy and concealed behind various WP:this&thats), and in particular GraYoshi, would stop following him around. Since 7 May 2009, GraYoshi2x (whose contributions are to move or redirect articles previously edited by B, or to remove content or links, or to side against B in any disagreements with 3rd parties, eg see Dombura) has made his first ever edits to the following 34 articles, all of which have been edited over months if not years by B: Almond tea, Baijiu, Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, Chicken balls, Dapanji, Dombura, Douhua, Egg roll, Fish ball, Fuling jiabing, Fun guo, Fuqi feipian, Hot pot, Jiaozi, Kai kou xiao, Kuai (dish), Lion's head, Mantou, Mung bean jelly, Nuomici, Paomo, Pork ball, Qingtang wanzi, Re gan mian, Red bean soup, Red cooking, Rice noodle roll, Ruan zha li ji, Sâm bổ lượng, Soy egg, Soy sauce chicken, Tuotuorou, White sugar sponge cake, Yun dou juan. Most editors would become edit warriors if subjected to such continuous and mounting provocation over several months. Occuli (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe GraYoshi is involved in any of the current disputes, nor does GraYoshi's attempts to clean up after Badagnani's problematic editing excuse Badagnani from following WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, take the advice that Q and others are giving you. [3] is just a pointless waste of time. Closing as stale, with an admonition to try to avoid B in future William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:PiTBUL882 reported by Dan D. Ric (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Arcángel (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PiTBUL882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 04:55, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 04:59, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 05:18, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 15:29, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

Dan D. Ric (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Continues to make the same edit, which he self reverted once, then made again. Dan D. Ric (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel reported by Collect (Result: Warned)

• Page: David Copperfield (illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: (multiple reverts)

Extended war - user seeks inclusion of contentious material without consensus on the basis of his comments on WP:RS/N for National Enquirer and TMZ.com. Other editors have removed such material citing BLP concerns. This has now gone on for several days, but only last day is cited.

• 1st revert: [4] 23:59 17 May and following. comments include "weasel-worded promotional sentence removed" "TMZ has **not** been judged unreliable, and in this case it seems to have actual documents and lawyers' letters to back up the report. See the pdfs) "

• 2nd revert: [5] 00:21 18 May "Reverted to revision 290615670 by Ratel; The RS noticeboard endorses TMZ, no matter what Amicaveritas says. (TW)) "

• 3rd revert: [6] 01:08 18 May "FBI investigation: shorten. remove slant)"

• 4th revert: [7] 07:46 18 May "FBI investigation: hey-yo, problem solved)"

• 5th revert: [8] 08:08 18 May "(Lots of secondary sources, will definitely be included. Get the BLP posse as you promised, Scott. I welcome it. (BTW, your weasel edit is not weasely))" (as I read them, he is at about 10RR in 3 days - including reverting three or four different edotors)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [9] prior warning at [10] by another user for same article

It appears the user may also be a tad uncivil here as well, he routinely makes aspersions on other editors. [11] is one of his mildest. To make things clear, my sole article edit here was to change a pound sign to a dollar sign. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) added earlier warning Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• These are mostly not reverts but edits or mods to other edits. Two of the other editors have COI (one knows the subject, the other runs his fanclub). Lots of well-sourced info has been removed, despite no real consensus for removal (RS noticeboard endorsed TMZ).► RATEL ◄ 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors can follow the TMZ/Copperfield controversy here and here. ► RATEL ◄ 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And three other editors (including Blueboar etc.) have no connection whatever with the topic (and the other two you cavil on are not "outed" as far as I know for any specific COI, unless you know much more than is on WP). As for saying editing to go back to waht youw ant is not a "reert" - I think you misapprehend what "revert" means here. Collect (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - Editor warned. I did not see a plain 3RR violation, but Ratel has been editing aggressively with regard to BLP-sensitive material. I've told Ratel that he may be blocked without further notice if he inserts negative material about Copperfield without first getting consensus on the article Talk page that is OK under WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and as I responded on my talk page, that won't happen soon, since one of the opposing editors runs Copperfield's fanclub, the other is a confessed personal friend, and a third is Collect (nuff said?). No way any consensus for inclusion will be forthcoming like that, even if the material SHOULD be in the article if objectively considered. ► RATEL ◄ 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting response to a clear warning, I think. And with you not mentioning the other editors, why make this post? Collect (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• The editors making Talk page consensus impossible and exposing a flaw in this methodology for deciding edits are:

TheMagicOfDC (talk · contribs · count) a SPA who runs a Copperfield fansite and is in contact with Copperfield diff

Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) another SPA who knows Copperfield personally, he says, and he uses a lot of legal phrases like "plaintiff" and talks with familiarity about court documents involving Copperfield diff

Collect. All that needs to be said about him is here at his own glorious RFC. No sensible consensus possible with him editing the page (not a PA, a fact). ► RATEL ◄ 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha -- all you do when given a warning is sling mud again (as you have now done quite a number of times)? Ed -- please consider this a specific request to consider acting on the PAs here, and the implicit attacks on Blueboar, Cameron Scott, Amicaveritas et al. And Ratel -- take a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on the article talk page if needed. It is hardly worth going to ANI in a case with so many issues and no smoking gun. Wait to see if Ratel will start to sincerely work for consensus and will observe the constraints of the BLP policy. If not, there are many possible remedies. If he continues to beat up on all the other participants he will not attract much support. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:97.106.43.95 reported by Wildhartlivie (Result: )

• Page: Lynette Fromme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 97.106.43.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [12]

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [17]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [18]

IP keeps reverting to a version that claims Fromme has a definite prison release date and removes the factual points that a parole hearing must be held and Fromme must attend in order to be considered for parole. The release date would only be valid if those conditions are met. Without that information, the article gives inaccurate and misleading information. IP history shows a pattern of abusive edit summaries and warnings regarding behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there must be a reason why you think your reverts are exempt from 3RR but I don't know what it is William M. Connolley (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that removing what is a conjectural interpretation of a source per WP:GRAPEVINE is exempt from 3RR. In fact, it says "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." In this instance, is it not only a gross misstatement of the source, but it is inflammatory in that it conveys to any reader of our page the impression that her release is imminent. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is, who gets to decide that is what you were doing. You? Please see [19] and in future be more cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's something quite suspect about an administrator adding qualifiers to existing policy in order to support his decision not to act upon expressed concerns regarding an editor's reversions, especially when the same administrator ends up taking action when someone else reports the same editor for the same behavior. I've been around here a long time and my editing practices have never been questioned. It's too bad when good faith efforts to keep misleading content out of an article leads to revisions in policy and guidelines language in order to ignore an issue that I brought up. I suppose it depends on who you are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Psw1359 reported by Smerdis of Tlön (Result: warned)

• Page: Distributed Inter-Process Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Psw1359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: J123Jordan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [20]

• See generally: [21]
• See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed Inter-Process Communication

I don't see a technical violation of the 3RR rule here, since enough time has generally passed between the successive edits, and I'm not parsing the whole history for technical violations, but the history of this page shows a long standing edit war between User:Psw1359 and User:J123Jordan concerning the article Distributed Inter-Process Communication, apparently about distributed computing on some Linux thingumabob. This has been going on since September of 2008. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it is a disaster area but no-one has even warned Psw about this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wozwoz reported by Binksternet (Result: 72 hours )

• Page: Super Audio CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wozwoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: This version was the one being put together by User:Melodia and User:Binksternet as of late May 17 and early May 18.

• 1st revert: The sum of 11 edits, reverting User:Binksternet
• 2nd revert: The sum of 4 edits, reverting User:Melodia
• 3rd revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet
• 4th revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet
• 5th revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet

Most of what's being reverted is an extensive list of over 130 artists or albums. Other material includes the non-standard terms "hi-rez" and "hi-resolution", and URLs which are questioned as references. Each reversion has removed several fact and clarify tags without addressing the indicated problem.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [22]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Tiptoety ^talk 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

97.106.43.95 reported by Xeno (Result: 24h)

• Page: Resident Evil 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 97.106.43.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&oldid=290584526

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290584526&oldid=290574301
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290786238&oldid=290780651
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290792534&oldid=290792310
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290796224&oldid=290796154

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:97.106.43.95&diff=290698872&oldid=290585607 (from previous offense)

• Very lame edit war. I'm arguably involved, having tried to put an end to it.
• Possible sock of presently blocked 97.106.45.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  –xeno ^talk 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:97.106.43.95 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: 24h)

• Page: Conflict: Desert Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 97.106.43.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [23]

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [28]

Geoff B (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Minimidgy reported by Andrew c (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [34]

I'm an admin and I would block the user myself, as they clearly made more than three reverts, with the last one coming after a warning, but I have made a single revert to the page to remove what amounts to almost vandalism (repetitive insertion of strongly POV language). So I recuse myself of admin action, and hope that someone is watching this page and can take swift action. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Amerindianarts reported by Uyvsdi (talk) (Result: submitter warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dorothy Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amerindianarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 04:09, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 04:25, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "I did not add it initailly-someone else did. I wrote the article and nothing is offered for sale on the page which is within Wiki rules. Check them out. An authir can do it")
3. 05:16, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "Like I said, I didn't add it initially and I am the author. There are plenty of other commercial websites on Wiki directly linked to that offer info.")

—Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [35]

This is in regards to the three reinserts of the editor's personal, commercial as an external link. Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsd

No technical vio. U appears to be replacing a link to the original article with a link to the copyvio. I don't understand why U thinks this is a good idea and have begun a discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I more fully understand the situation now and see that both links have been removed, which seems fine. Thank you for your time! -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Errol Sawyer

Please see this (and with this as background).

I am an admin, but it could be claimed that I am involved, so I let others draw their own inferences and take appropriate measures. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

24 hours (via related ANI thread). EyeSerene^talk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re User:QuotationMan (result: malformed)

I will have gone into WP:3RR if I do any more on this the above user has decided he owns several pages and has removed huge amounts of info footnoted to WP:RS highest standards. A short ban is in order , I imagine such a ban will result in a few socks popping up. I think that might already be the case on that page.

Any advice help would be of interest. [36] [37] Catapla (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the first piece of advice would be to tell us which page the problem is on. You might, perhaps, consider following the accepted format for submitting 3RR reports? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a 3RR warning for User:QuotationMan. He has been trying to remove a large section from Libertas.eu with no support from the Talk page. Another editor is suggesting a WP:COI, and the repeated removals do hint at some motive other than plain article improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Imbris reported by Hobartimus (Result: Protection )

• Page: Template:HUCountiesto1918 (edit | [[Talk:Template:HUCountiesto1918|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Imbris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 21:53, 18 May 2009
• 2nd revert: 23:39, 18 May 2009
• 3rd revert: 01:45, 19 May 2009
• 4th revert: 17:19, 19 May 2009
• 5th revert: 17:44, 19 May 2009
• 6th revert: 18:22, 19 May 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: familiar with 3RR

Previous blocks for 24 and 72hours due second block was shortened due to some stipulation. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protected — Aitias // discussion 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:85Zed reported by J (Result: warned)

• Article: Palm Pre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 85Zed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Time: 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 17:38, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History and availability */ no need for mode of announcement. It was pedestrian and trivial. [...]")
2. 19:35, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 290989205 by J (talk) Rebates are instant at Bestbuy and other stores etc. so rebates are not all mail in.")
3. 19:59, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291009463 by J (talk) Please stop reverting. Bes buy and RdioShack do no mail in rebates on Sprint . they do nstate instead")

User continues to inexplicably revert to remove accurate, sourced pricing details in favour of his unsourced knowledge on the matter. Attempted discussion on talk page, but user has proceeded to revert regardless (including a "Please stop reverting" edit summary on his most recent undo).   user:j    (aka justen)   20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you notify him of the 3rr? Ikip (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't believe he would consider it sincere coming from an involved editor. He otherwise didn't notice my subtler guidance to explore options other than revert and undo, however.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please! Always leave a proper warning for the editor involved before bringing a dispute to this noticeboard, unless you are sure they're experienced. When you file a case here it is assumed you know that the editor has continued to revert past the warning. This user's talk page was a red link, so an opportunity for dialog had not been taken. I have now left a proper 3RR warning, and advised him of this discussion. His four reverts on the article aren't a good sign, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For information I am using the standards used in pricing as it appears in the category. I am using the pricing model used by 99% of press. I have backed up may position on Talk and have support of others. I have also given sources.

I do not have four reverts of price issue. I have two. the other reverts are supported by a consenus on talk. One of those reverts is from an anon IP that has vandalized the page with the phrase "fu## N#gge#s". That revert constitutes evidence of bad reverts?85Zed (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you did revert, three times, on the issue of price. They are listed above for you to see. Revert is not the way to solve an editing problem, regardless of how certain you are about it. In this case, though, there are WP:RS and WP:V issues that I'm not sure you're familiar with yet, and I've gone into greater detail on the article's talk page. We can discuss it further there if you'd like.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

12.36.39.154 reported by Oli Filth (Result: 24 hours )

• Page: Oubliette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 12.36.39.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [38]

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]
• 4th revert: [42]
• 5th revert: [43]
• 6th revert: [44]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [45] (and [46] and [47]).

In the interests of full disclosure, I've noticed during filing this report that I've also violated 3RR if one includes my edits from yesterday, but I'm not the only editor who's been reverting the IPs edits. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• The IP has been Blocked – for a period of 24 Also, Oli Filth has been Warned Tiptoety ^talk 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

194.46.181.124 and cohorts reported for vandalistic edit-warring by Dr.K. (Result: Semi)

• Page: Corfu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 194.46.181.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 194.46.164.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 194.46.247.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 194.46.253.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st vandalism: 194.46.181.124
• 1st revert: 194.46.164.111
• 2nd revert: 194.46.247.61
• 3rd revert: 194.46.253.210

• Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

Even though the 3RR warning does not really matter because this is a clear case of vandalistic edit-warring by a pack of similar IPs. Dr.K. logos 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to request semi-protection for the Corfu article. Dr.K. logos 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Strike my comment above. Page was protected following request. Dr.K. logos 04:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a case of 3RR violations. Did you notify him of the 3RR? Ikip (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I notified a couple of them, one before the last revert. But since it is also a case of clear vandalism I think they should all be blocked regardless of the 3RR warning. Dr.K. logos 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected by User:Philippe. Looks like regular vandalism. Blocking the range is not practical. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for the technical information. Dr.K. logos 23:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black reported by User:Ikip (Result: 9 days )

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

• [added later] 23:26, 18 May 2009 Puts the project he was edit warring about up for deletion [49]
• 21:52, 18 May 2009 [50]
• 20:34, 18 May 2009 [51]
• 10:03, 18 May 2009 [52]
• 09:40, 18 May 2009 [53]

history of repeated edit wars on this project page in the past two weeks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
23:47, 16 May 2009 3RR warning: [54] For: 07:36, 15 May 2009 [55] 21:16, 15 May 2009 [56] 21:28, 15 May 2009 [57] 21:56, 16 May 2009 [58] 23:09, 16 May 2009 [59] 23:40, 16 May 2009 [60] [added later] 00:03, 17 May 2009 Then deleted the FAQ tag from the page itself: [61] 07:12, 7 May 2009 3RR warning: [62] For: 05:20, 7 May 2009 [63] 07:01, 7 May 2009 [64] 07:13, 7 May 2009 [65] 14:56, 5 May 2009 3RR warning: [66] For: 14:52, 5 May 2009 [67] 12:44, 5 May 2009 [68] 09:36, 5 May 2009 [69] Unrelated section deleted: 14:51, 5 May 2009 [70] Deleted other editors comments on WT:ARS: 09:07, 5 May 2009 [71] 19:37, 6 May 2009 [72]

As per the instructions above:

If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and or warnings.

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) AMIB has been blocked more than any other administrator, 12 times for edit wars. The last edit war block was for 7 days in February.

Ikip (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 9 days Also, Ikip (talk · contribs) you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block. Tiptoety ^talk 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page). Risker (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - although the edit summaries look odd on the face of it, the contents of Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ were being discussed (kind of) at WT:ARS, the project talk page. pablo_hablo. 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the past history of edit warring, with 11 valid prior blocks for edit warring since his RFA, endorse. rootology (C)(T) 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Borcat reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [73]

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]
• 4th revert: [77]
• 5th revert: [78]
• 6th revert: [79]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [80]

In most of these edits, Borcat is removing or changing sourced material, and 3 editors other than myself have reverted him, so consensus seems to be against his/her edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked 24h. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

87.196.45.78 reported by Odin 85th gen (Result: talk / warned)

• Page: Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 87.196.45.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [81]

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]
• 5th revert: [86]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

Odin 85th gen (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No technical vio, and no recent evidence for attempting to solve this dispute on talk. Please see WP:DR. Moreover, this [88] looks like a good edit to me, and removing it a bad one William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wousfan reported by Galloglass (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [89]

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

I warned the user last night prior to his 4th edit with the following.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [94]

Wousfan appears to be a single issue editor trying to impose a highly biased version of events in the career of UK PM William Gladstone. Editor Johnbull has gone out of his way to help Wousfan by re-writing Wousfans POV diatribe against Gladstone in as near a NPOV form as he can, see here[95]. It appears Wousfan does not accept WP:NPOV in any way shape or form and is highly abusive in his summary replies to Johnbull. In addition there is also a 5th revert here[96] which although technically outside the 24 hour period is still germane to it. - Galloglass 09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist reported by Collect (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: [98] 12:24 20 May "This view doesn't deserve anywhere near such prominence"
• 2nd revert: [99] 12:54 20 May

Each revert specifically removing over 4K of material currently in an RfC in Talk:Fascism

• Diff of editwar warning: [100]

This user has 10 entries in block log [101], has been under substantial editing restrictions, knows better, and once again "User is engaged in edit wars all over the place, has already been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule and been warned he would be blocked if he continued as before" so he can not really expect that this is acceptable. [102] and [103] show consececutive reverts of a single other editor in two separate articles 3 minutes apart, less than an hour before the two massive reverts cited. Massive number of other warnings, remonstrances in talk page history. I am not presuming here that 3RR is a license for such edits against an RfC. Collect (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank1829 reported by Sampharo (Result: prot)

• Page: Umar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Frank1829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Original

• 1st revert: Here
• 2nd revert: Here
• 3rd revert: Here
• 4th revert: Here
• 5th revert: Here

The article reverted by the user contained false references to an existence of a Shia myth in historical accounts and Sunni books. Talk:Umar has a complete explanation of the long discussion and the conclusions that they violate WP:Reliable Sources and WP:verifiability, and are very biased and emotional in nature anyway and therefore violate WP:neutral as well. Moreover, it was a very old version with a huge number of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, stylistic bias and not to mention that the paragraph was written TWICE. Later he edited AGAIN a disruptive edit which reversed the meaning of the whole section explaining Sunni view, to a personal point of view of Shia Here, which violates WP:POV and further represents the polemic views of less than 12% of the muslim population to start with, so it already violates WP:Undue not to mention the three original ones mentioned earlier, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:neutral and WP:verifiability. In the end his only writing in the talk page was charged with emotional tyrade and personal attacks and would not even respond or read that the sources have been disproven nor that the version in specific he is using is obsolete.

• Diff of 3RR and Edit warring warning: First Warning until Fourth Warning

Above all this, he vandalized my User page User:Sampharo in this diff link

Please block this user until he understands about respecting other editors and that edit warring is not tolerated especially in religiously charged articles.

Cirt (talk | contribs | block) m (35,938 bytes) (Protected Umar: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)))) . As to your user page, that looks to be a clueless newbie mistake (except for the bits about lying; thats not acceptable). Explain patiently about the use of talk pages, and point out WP:CIVIL. If they continue to break civility, let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

JaniceMT reported by WLU (Result: 31h)

• Page: Parental alienation syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: JaniceMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]
• 5th revert: [109]
• 6th Revert [110]

• Warning – today for PAS, yesterday for PA

This is a huge mess, and there has been no engagement on any talk pages. JaniceMT knows the CCRC links should not be used based on extensive discussions on User talk:JaniceMT and talk:parental alienation. Edit warring from yesterday is continuing today on the parental alienation syndrome page, accompanied by the deletion of well-sourced materials, replacing links to news stories with inappropriate convenience links, bizarre removals of useful information [111], and inappropriate interpretations of summaries and policies [112]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I can confirm that multiple IPs and users have been editing to get references to the Canadiancrc website (often to copyrighted material) hosted there. See this blacklist report[113], and the very obvious blatant spam message at the bottom of this recent edit.[114] User:S-MorrisVP et her IPs were blocked for similar actions a week ago and the page semi-protected. This is a a bigger problem than 3RR but let's start here. --Slp1 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note the return to parental alienation which may be a 3RR violation on that page as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also an interesting comment here, that I am asking for clarification on. This may be an ANI or COIN issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Parental alienation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 19:52, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 291193193 by WLU (talk)These are all valid links to papers published in reputable publications ie Canadian Bar Assoc.oc")
2. 20:21, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 291246759 by WLU (talk) Verifiable good linked content - Stop the vandalism")
3. 20:50, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 291252520 by Slp1 (talk)undo vandalism")
4. 22:03, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO| Why do you think the Florida Bar Assoc., Canadian Bar Assoc., and ABC news, and the courts of Canada decisions are "dubious" sources?")

—Slp1 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-20T22:21:03 Ruhrfisch (talk | contribs | block) blocked JaniceMT (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring: 3rr) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

REPORTING 121.220.36.117 AS SUSPECTED SOCK PUPPET, VANDALISM, EDIT WARRING AND COI

• 121.220.36.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you will review the talk page of this person, 121.220.36.117, he does pretty much nothing else but revert Carbonne entries. I HIGHLY suspect he is a sockpuppet and the same person on the extended-range bass page who is overtly and aggressively advertising himself, with no supporting links. This person is not only uncivil (see his talk page calling someone else's header "stupid"), he is also stalking Carbonne on here, removing anything he finds about him. He has also accused ME of being Carbonne's partner, and therefore, implicating Carbonne in having something to do with the additions I added about him, which he DOES NOT. I have not added anything about Carbonne since I was suspected as having a COI (although I absolutely do not), and now some other knowledgeable contributor who I do not know - picked up the ball, and added factual information about Carbonne on the page. First, 121.220.36.117 accused me of having a COI, and now, because another editor has added factual information, he is removing valid, important information without any valid reason, except for the fact that he is stalking Carbonne. If the latest contributor who added the Carbonne info to the page forgot or did not know to add a link, I have. However,, with the spurious reason of removing Carbonne because there was no link, and other artists on the page have no links, it is clear that 121.220.36.117 's motives are very suspect. In addition, he removed information about Michael Manring, who is one of the best known Extended Range Bassists in the world. Please address this, and stop him from warring and stalking Carbonne. It is very clear he fancies himself as a competitor.

Thank you.

Here is his talk page:

Extended report
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(latest | earliest) View (newer 99) (older 99) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) * 13:44, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (rev website.) * 13:38, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar ‎ (remove this paragraph about Carbonne. No consensus for this material (see talk page) and Carbonne article was deleted as failing notability) (top) (references removed) * 13:37, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Michael Manring ‎ (reverting unsourced addition) (top) * 13:34, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (revert unsourced addition about Yves Carbonne. Please resolve existing dispute re this material.) * 12:13, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Richard Tognetti ‎ (remove personal comments from end of page) (top) * 12:01, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Australian Chamber Orchestra ‎ (reverting copyright violation lifted from http://www.aco.com.au/?url=/about) (top) (blanking) * 14:50, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (fix) (top) * 14:47, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (make these pics a gallery to repair the layout of page) * 14:43, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (revert unencyclopedic editorial comment) * 07:38, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:81.86.68.253 ‎ (as with the userpage, use a soft redirect.. IPs shouldn't be redirected to user accounts as there always remains a possibility that someone else may use it...) (top) * 07:35, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:81.86.68.253 ‎ (turn this into a soft redirect as theres no guarantee it will always and only be used by this user) (top) * 13:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery ‎ (→Mr Rent-A-Kill: revert unsourced additions that don't come from the book this para is sourced to...probably more Underbelly fiction. Please cite published sources. kthx) (top) * 13:34, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Sasha Alexander ‎ (revert external link) * 12:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) 2005 Cronulla riots ‎ (revert series of degrading edits - removal of bolding in intro, confusing language &c) * 12:33, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:SchuminWeb/Unprotected talk page ‎ (rvv) * 03:18, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery ‎ (change stupid heading) * 05:26, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (revert recent spamming by someone with a blatant conflict of interest) (references removed) * 05:24, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass ‎ (Carbonne article was deleted as not notable) (references removed) * 03:22, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar ‎ (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed) * 03:21, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass ‎ (revert spamming by Carbonne's partner.) (references removed) * 03:20, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed)

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

That is all rather incoherent. Who is the anon supposed to be a sock of? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that this report must have been filed by someone who is a fan of Yves Carbonne. The IP who is being cited here for edit warring, 121.220.36.117, does not appear especially troublesome, though they have removed a couple of citations to the work of Carbonne, for instance here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne, User talk:Jodel141 and User talk:TLCbass#Your comments at WP:AN3. I hope that User:JulieSpaulding will add a comment here if she knows what is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, yes, I know quite a lot about this through some extensive investigation. What would you like to know? JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know if TLCbass has been editing under the username THSL. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This board is not the right place for sockpuppet complaints. Please file at WP:SPI and try to be as clear as possible. Under the circumstances WP:COIN could be a better choice. I caution User:TLCbass to observe WP:3RR himself. I suggest that this report be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of William M. Connolley, I think TLCbass is a little misguided as to what a sock puppet is. I think he believes 121.220.36.117 works for one of Yves Carbonne's competitors. Regarding the closing of this report, there is still a little bit of edit warring going on, possibly between Carbonne and some other musician's representatives. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:121.220.36.117 reported by User:TLCbass (Result: no vio)

• Page: Extended-range bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 121.220.36.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extended-range_bass&diff=291396322&oldid=291185871

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extended-range_bass&diff=291396322&oldid=291185871

• 1st revert: [115]
• 2nd revert: [116]
• 3rd revert: [117]
• 4th revert: [118]
• 5th revert: [119] He removed Carbonne on yet ANOTHER PAGE as part of a collaboration: It is crystal clear, he is stalking and targeting Carbonne.

121.220.36.117

• Diff of 3RR warning: [120]

You are clearly targeting Carbonne. You have removed 2 separate contributions on him by 2 unrelated editors repeatedly. You have repeatedly re-added unsupported, repetitive, promotional information about Garry Goodman, who is not a notable bassist, and who has little or no fan base anywhere on the internet, in favor of Carbonne, who has a HUGE fan base: He is the only bassist in the world to play a 12 string fretless sub-bass, with the lowest range in existence. But, it is clear that you know that and you fancy yourself as a competitor (I suspect actually, that you are a sock puppet). If you are the same person who is stalking him all over the internet, it is time to stop. The public has a right to know about his instrument and the contribution he has made to next concepts in bass development. It is clear you have a blatant conflict of interest. Stop immediately with your edit warring, and apply the same rules across the board. You are stalking Carbonne and you must stop IMMEDIATELY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR is per-article. Your 5th revert is a different article. Contiguous edits count as one, so 2 and 3 are the same. Revert 1 is before the dawn of pre-history William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many more reverts, mostly by the same person. If revert 1 counts as pre-history, it is one of several by the same person, less than a month ago. Revert 1 took place on April 28th, which is less than a month ago, and is the one in particular that clearly indicates 121.220.36.117 clearly has a conflict of interest. Thank you for your help.TruthBeTold (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me why rev1 indicates a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, if that is the primary reason for a block, I think you're probably on the wrong noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See above header JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

REPORTING User:MrStalker for edit warring and 3RR violations

We were asked to report any 3RR violations on The Sims 3. Ever since MrStalker's edits were reverted by many users for multiple reasons, he's violated this rule and the general rules on edit warring on at least 2 or 3 occasions, reverting back to his edits or removing others in what is nothing short of vandalism out of perceived anger. I warned him on it before, though obviously he sees fit to continue. In response to my warning him, he told me to "Go Fuck [my]self". Please address this as soon as possible so it does not continue. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see proof of this so-called edit warring. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Please use the report format provided. I can't see a clear technical vio from a cursory survey of the edit history - are you claiming one. OTOH [121] is clearly incivil, so I've blocked fo 12h for that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd reported by MastCell (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to: Revision by Abd as of 20:43, 11 May 2009

• 1st revert: 14:53, 21 May 2009 (series of 3 contiguous edits by Abd)
• 2nd revert: 16:50, 21 May 2009
• 3rd revert: 17:17, 21 May 2009
• 4th revert: 18:38, 21 May 2009 (partial revert, restores some contentious material removed in preceding edit

• Diff of 3RR warning: Abd is well aware of WP:3RR; curiously, he chose to warn another user about edit-warring while in the course of racking up 4RR of his own in less than 4 hours.

By way of background, Abd has been a central figure in a recent Arbitration case concerning cold fusion:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

I consider myself too involved to render an administrative verdict here, but I view this as problematic edit-warring in the context of a much larger, festering dispute. An aggravating factor is that talk-page discussion appears to be against Abd's reverts, and that he is handing out warnings about edit-warring to others while rapidly violating the rule himself. Note that Hipocrite (talk · contribs) has also edited the page heavily today; I count 3 reverts on his part, and will leave the handling to the reviewing admin. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)