Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sarandioti (talk | contribs)
792 edits
Line 812: Line 812:


This is your last contribution [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites&diff=297359835&oldid=296583226]], you say that this is 'rephrasing'? Actually it's a change of meaning (or how to make an npov approach pov).[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is your last contribution [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites&diff=297359835&oldid=296583226]], you say that this is 'rephrasing'? Actually it's a change of meaning (or how to make an npov approach pov).[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And you changed it back, and I didnt change it again, just added citation needed
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvanites&curid=187266&diff=297362258&oldid=297361587]
I see no problem in that. Please do not disrupt my report, if you want to talk with me, go to my talkpage.--[[User:Sarandioti|Sarandioti]] ([[User talk:Sarandioti|talk]]) 14:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!]] reported by [[User:Ghmyrtle]] (Result: page protected) ==
== [[User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!]] reported by [[User:Ghmyrtle]] (Result: page protected) ==

Revision as of 14:38, 19 June 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

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


    User:TheTennisObserver reported by Thatcher (Result: 24h each)

    Edit warring over the insertion of the text that Federer is widely considered to be the greatest tennis player ever. This has been running for several days. Other editors' behavior is also poor but this is the first clear 3RR violation I spotted, there may be more. He posts explanations to the talk page but does not participate in discussion or seek consensus. Thatcher 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-06-09T20:01:58 Redvers (talk | contribs | block) m (70,333 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Roger Federer": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) - wouldn't be my favoured solution; you may want to contact the protecting admin if you'd prefer blocks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His comment on ANI is to allow time to sort out the possible sock puppets. Hopefully someone will do that. Ordinarily I would prefer to block the individual accounts as well. Thatcher 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read ANI, unprotected, blocked, and left a note to R William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zohair9034 reported by Thatcher (Result: 24h)

    Edit warring on Roger Federer with TheTennisObserver. Same diffs, just follow the history. Thatcher 19:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected by another admin. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja</em><sup><em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247</em></sup> 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprot; block. See above William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)</rev></revisions></page></pages></query><query-continue><revisions rvstartid="296478129" /></query-continue></api>[reply]

    Discedit reported by Omar Rodriguez(Result: )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Satanist&diff=295652883&oldid=295624911 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Satanist&action=history

    Guy keeps reverting the page, mainly the tracklist. Now the tracklist layout I have chosen seems to be widely used on wikipedia and I think more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. With the grey and white lines instead of just being blank. Also put song lengths on for the songs that are available. But this guy keep reverting it. The layout should stay, and I don't see a problem with the track lengths staying because that is how long they are. I don't know why this guy has some problem with that.

    Tried asking why and disputing it with him but got no response. So?

    TJ Spyke reported by Scorpion0422 (Result: misc prot)


    Oleg Prudius
    • Previous version reverted to: [5]
    Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games
    • Previous version reverted to: [12]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning, but as his block log shows, he is well aware of 3RR (actually, considering how many times he has been blocked and still edit wars, perhaps he's not). He did also receive an edit warring warning yesterday [18]

    It's not clear cut vandalism, so it's a content dispute. Even when one assumes good faith, this user has violated 3RR on two seperate articles within 24 hours. -- Scorpion0422 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This report looks like someone trying to settle a grudge. Anyway, Seddon (talk | contribs | block) m (8,844 bytes) (Protected Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)))) and I've semi'd the other William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [19]
    • 1st revert: [20]
    • 2nd revert: [21]
    • 3rd revert: [22]
    • Previous version reverted to: [23]
    • 4th revert: [24]
    • Previous version reverted to: [25]
    • 5th revert: [26]
    • Previous version reverted to: [27]
    • 6th revert: [28]

    Note: Page history is complex and confusing, as Yamanote and Shitamachi were separate articles that were history-merged today. Of the above, reverts #1-3 were done on Yamanote, #4 on Shitamachi, and #5-6 on the new merged version, all within 24 hours, so I presume this counts as at least 5RR.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]

    User is a former admin, and I'll note this edit (see the edit summary) without further comment. Jpatokal (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump to stop this from being archived until there's a response... Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yaf reported by User:Verbal (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Gun violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 15:07, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Homicides by country */ fixing table per RfC consensus on talk page") Reverting against RfC and consensus to pre-protection version
    2. 15:16, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "fix the header before putting this column in; it is misleading to put it under "Intentional Firearm ..." header") Second revert
    3. 16:30, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "restoring RfC consensus version (see talk)") Third revert (warning placed)
    4. 16:59, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Association with Urban Areas */ identifying population density problem") Reverting tag removal
    5. 18:21, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "adding tag (see talk page)") Reverting tag removal
    • Diff of warning: here

    Also, series of personal attacks, accusations of "massive POV" editing, misrepresenting an RfC, and general WP:TE. —Verbal chat 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this user was previously reported here for breaking 3RR, but the page was then protected (See above). Verbal chat 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "1." was not a revert. It was formatting data, removing columnar data that the RfC consensus indicated should be removed, into a table format that did not ever exist previously, having been suggested during the RfC -- an RfC which I started, incidentally, to establish consensus. When the RfC consensus broke down, I tagged the sections as {{POV-section}} to identify remaining problems. Hence, "4." and "5." were likewise not reverts, the edits being simply used for identifying POV problems. Hence, the lack of "Previous version reverted to" links in this "report", since most of these edits were not actually reverts. User:Verbal is now continuing to disagree with RfC Consensus through wiki-stalking. Yaf (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2, 3 and 5 are reverts. It isn't clear to me why 1 and 4 are William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, my memory failed with 1. It isn't a revert, just unjustified page blanking. Verbal chat 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It therefore seems that this editor has been quite careful in going up to the limit twice (if not beyond on the first occasion) in recent days. I'd appreciate a note from a neutral party placed on their page, and a reminder that the second R in 3RR isn't "Right". Verbal chat 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclosure: I have plenty of experience with Yaf and involvement in 3RR sanctions, his and mine. There are megabytes of history to read, so I can save you some time by pointing to this explanation by Yaf on his talk page following his third block, that he views his revert warring technique as necessary to his POV battle on gun related articles, and that his being occasionally blocked for that revert warring is "collateral damage" in his gun advocacy work. The point here being is that Yaf explains that he fully understands that "even one revert can be viewed as 'long term edit warring'" and that "Ultimately, it's all about preventing disruption". The standard to consider here is 'long term edit warring' and whether there is a possibility to prevent further disruption. I am not convinced that preventing disruption is possible with an editor like Yaf who feels that receiving the occasional 3RR block is simply nuisance "collateral damage" in a POV war because blocks for Yaf are not a disincentive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had no intention to edit war, but instead my intention was/is to work towards an NPOV article. I never violated 3RR. Rather than work to reach consensus, Verbal lied about my edit #1, above, which clearly was not page blanking, but, rather, was per the the original consensus of the RfC that I had started and worked. Then, when this was retracted by Verbal, SaltyBoatr, long a POV warrior, even brought up ancient history from over a year ago that was unrelated to the present edits to try and admin shop until someone would block me. SaltyBoatr even awarded a "Bash YAF" award to Verbal here to encourage tag teaming editing to support his inclusion of article text that was not supported by a cite. The pertinent ongoing discussion was here. The lack of Admin understanding of the issue here is astounding, and shows a complete lack of respect for Wikipedia policy requiring editors to stick to the sources. I am deeply disappointed with the total contempt against Wikipedia goals that was shown here. Yaf (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps intention was the wrong word to use here - clearly you did edit war and as this is your fourth block for edit warring you can hardly claim to be unfamiliar with the concept. This is not about who was "right" but about discussion being the correct way to resolve your content differences. Shell babelfish 04:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, perhaps the block was unwarranted, too, as it was issued with "intention" being the basis for the block. OK. Unfortunately, as demonstrated in the pertinent ongoing discussion here, discussion has proven itself incapable of resolving the issue, as honest dialogue from both parties was needed, but clearly did not occur. The earlier attempt at dispute resolution with SaltyBoatr resulted in a failed MedCom attempt, followed by an attempt at ArbCom, which was not granted cert, to address SaltyBoatr's inability to stick to the sources. When one side fails to communicate in good faith, as demonstrated by SaltyBoatr in this discussion, which resulted in me being blocked for 48 hours, what recourse is there? I was attempting to mark the problem with a POV tag, and to work the issue. Yet, you failed even to understand the issue. Discussion ad nauseum, is not the way to resolve such issues. ArbCom sanctions would address the issue. It is worth noting that the 4 blocks for "edit warring" have all been with trying to keep this one editor to stick to the sources. My 3rd block was for a single edit, not 2rr or 3rr, but 1rr. This one was for trying to uphold Wikipedia to a higher standard, too, rather than to allow the same old editor to insert new article text that was not supported by the cite. Discussions are good, but fail when one side fails to communicate honestly or in good faith, and does not stick to the sources. I would rather be "right" than waste my time expending additional megabytes in discussions with this one editor who feigns to not understand what is being stated. I wish that there was a notice board to use to report when an editor lies about what a cite says, to implement sanctions, after dialogues such as the one noted above, much as the 3RR noticeboard. (Incidentally, in case you don't know, SaltyBoatr has multiple accounts.) Yaf (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody gives you the right to revert whenever you are unhappy with the outcome of a discussion. There is a policy on WP:Dispute resolution. While your above complaint focuses on SaltyBoatr, there were at least three other participants in the discussion. If you find that the other editors don't agree with you, you could let that point go. Another possibility is to ask an uninvolved editor to judge the outcome of the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Boatduty177177 reported by Nableezy (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [30]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]

    Introducing disputed terms and changing the meaning of a fully cited sentence without any discussion. I asked the user to take his concerns to the talkpage, both in edit summaries and his user talk page, editor just reverts again. Nableezy (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is now showing up reverting my edits with no explanation in a few different articles including Israeli West Bank barrier and Gaza War. Nableezy (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    three of his first four edits were reverting my sourced edits on three different pages. i smell a duck. untwirl(talk) 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Boatduty177177 (talk · contribs) is a new account; the first edit was on June 15th. It's clearly an experienced editor, though. I encountered them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League. All edits involve edit controversies over Israel-related articles. Possible sockpuppet/meatpuppet, but too early to say. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (copied from shell's talk - but if he isn't around can someone else handle this?)
    he is currently at 5 reverts in addition to those 4 (counting consecutive edits as one) on this page. please block. untwirl(talk) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't said anywhere that I was a new user. I used to edit a little on Wikipedia with my IP and I also used Wikipedia for information source for a while. Now I decided to join because I feel there are many users who are against the state of Israel who are forcing their opinion on this encyclopedia, that is supposedly neutral and fair. For example, the user untwirl that is reporting me for a 5th edit and that is wrong because the last one I was adding things not reverting, and in spite of him not having anything to do personally with me on the article, he is only supporting the other users who appear to be against the state of Israel. For example, this user untwirl is having an revert war on Hamas where he is trying to impose anti-Israeli point of view. So the way I see things is that those users not care about the good of this encyclopedia. They only care to support one another and drive away any other users who disagree with them, one by one. It is easy for me to stop editing on Wikipedia as Boatduty177177, but I can always go back to using different IP addresses. If this is the goal of all those users ganging up against me, please tell me. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NoFortunateSon reported by MastCell (Result: 24h)




    New account, promoting the use of water ionizers (subject of significant spamming in the past), rapidly violating 3RR despite numerous other editors objecting to the material in question on the talk page. Busily accusing everyone else of edit-warring ([36], [37], etc) while racking up his reverts. Numerous notes and warnings on User Talk:NoFortunateSon have gone unheeded. MastCell Talk 05:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.61.156.4 reported by Socrates2008 (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]


    2009-06-16T08:23:01 Wangi (talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.61.156.4 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 98.194.124.102 reported by Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 72h)

    == 98.194.124.102 reported by Supreme Deliciousness


    These are only today:

    Stephan Rosti
    Omar Sharif
    Hala gorani


    I and many others have given him the 3rr warning, he have removed them: He was blocked here by an administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=292355651&oldid=292340029

    I have given him 5 edit warnings today and 1 yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.194.124.102&action=history


    User 98.194.124.102 has removed my sources in the articles above and replaced them with no sourced material. I have provided references to everything while he keeps deleting them, on the Stephan Rosti I had a link from imdb showing he is Italian, he replaced it with a link to arabic wikipedia, as if this is some kind of source.

    In the Hala Gorani article he removed that she is Syrian-American and he removed her Syrian roots in the biography section although I clearly stated to him that there was a reference where she said: "my roots are 100% Syrian" "I visit Syria frequently. I was there last month for work. I also went to my hometown of Aleppo and slept in my grandmother’s house. I love visiting Syria."

    In the Omar Sharif article I had a source showing both his parents are Syrians, he removed that link and claimed that he might be Palestinian or Greek or Lebanese and had no source, instead he linked to a book on amazon.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Faustian and User:Ward3001 reported by user:jmh649 (Result:Page Protected )

    User:Faustian

    My placing a warning on Faustian talk page: [[61]]

    An inappropriate warning placed on my page by User:Ward3001: [[62]]

    User:Ward3001

    These two users are attempting to sensor content from Wikipedia: [[64]]

    Excellent work has been done by User:Xeno to address this issue: [[65]]

    --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems to be an extension of the dispute that I reviewed - I determined that consensus held the true inkblot image should be in the top of the article. Now it seems that some users want to add all the images to the article and Faustian/Ward (among others) are objecting (likely from an harm-prevention argument as has been used throughout the debate). I am recusing from action against individual users however I may elect to apply full protection if the edit war continues. –xenotalk 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me address a lie made by Doc James: I made one revert. I have not edit warred. Doc James, on the other hand, added images without consensus, and then reverted their removal twice. I'll let an admin decide if that is edit warring. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell nobody violated 3RR, Ward3001 had just the one revert, and if edit warring in general is being reported the list of people involved would be longer. Probably best for everyone to just walk away and discuss, with page protection if necessary, but as of yet no individual can be singled out as worse than others. DreamGuy (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to your "lie made by Doc James" I have only ever said you made one revert. So I am not sure were the lie part comes in?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One revert does not constitute edit warring. Read policy. The lie is making an edit warring report when I did not edit war. If anyone edit warred, it was you. You made one edit without consensus, and then reverted twice. Ward3001 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boksi reported by User:Bosonic_dressing (Result:No violation )

    Boksi (talk · contribs)

    Diffs:

    Notice of 3RR warning: [71] (also see various edit comments and article talk page)

    Comment This user continues to restore a prior map of the territory, in place of a map recently created/added by me to be consistent with other European locator maps (e.g., Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland). A discussion on the talk page is taking place, which I was not involved in initially, but there seems to be a consensus (or at least strong opinion) developing to somehow note Kosovo on the map; there has been no cited objection about the style of the map I recently added. Strictly speaking, one link provided (*) is not a revert and another (**) was a correction of a botched revert; nonetheless, this editor has reverted without any comment or edit summaries despite repeated warnings (see notice and my edit comments) It is also interesting to note that the perpetrator is Serbian, as a glance at their user page will reveal in prominence. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GHcool reported by DePiep (Result: No violation; all editors asked to use talk page)


    • Previous version reverted to: [72]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [76]

    - Discussion on Talk was started soon after the second revert, some hours before the third. No or unexplitive editsummaries. -DePiep (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation: Although there appears to be a multilateral edit-war in progress, no one editor appears to be out front in terms of violating 3RR. GHcool is at 3 reverts. There appears to be at least some discussion on the talk page; I would strongly encourage that path. If the edit-warring continues, I'll protect the page and/or block specific editors who persist in edit-warring over this. MastCell Talk 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RE by reporter User:DePiep on this judgement:
    Request an (admin-)review of this conclusion (A better way? Talk please).

    • The 3R:
    1st edit: "(cur) (prev) 00:55, 16 June 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (15,686 bytes) (rv - The picture depicts the ad hominem appeal to emotion described in this article) (undo)"
    2nd edit: "(cur) (prev) 06:45, 16 June 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (15,733 bytes) (rv - WP:CENSOR) (undo)"
    3rd edit: "(cur) (prev) 16:31, 16 June 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (15,935 bytes) (restored illustration of the fallacy) (undo)"

    That's 3R by GHcool within 16 hrs. 3RR applicable. A block if we'd stop here.

    • "There appears to be at least some discussion on [talk]": No. I started the talk on this at 0800 hrs, after GHcool's 2nd revert. No move by any of the involved editors, deleters nor inserters. The discussion is on other subjects and sections (and going well, thank you).
    • "multilateral edit-war": I did not find this at WP:3RR as an argument or weighing factor, please explain.
    • WP:3RR#Exeptions does not point to this way of solving.
    • "all editors asked to [talk]" Well, inserters (I saw 2) did not Talk and did not write any serious editsummary. Deleters (I saw 2) did extensive editsummary or started talk. A 'please all cool down' is -- I don't know now. Offensive to constructive editors/not even/not in 3RR?
    • And, on personal motivations (not an argument): it takes a lot of energy to compose such a report (all the links, and probably a diff would be better than a link somewhere, but alas). It is not pleasant to read a rejection on, I'd say, new and vague grounds. This does not invite me to report a --to me-- clear cut and dried case again. Of course this is not an argument pro or con, but it supports this request to review this No Violence-judgement. -DePiep (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation Concur with MastCell. Users may be blocked for violating the 3-revert-rule or persistent edit-warring. I cannot find evidence of either by GHCool nor has any such evidence been presented. CIreland (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh?

    first revert: "00:55, 16 June 2009 GHcool",
    third revert: "16:31, 16 June 2009 GHcool" (see above and links).
    Inbetween: 15.36 hrs. WP:3RR says: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, (...)". Please explain: what do I not see? -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You arent seeing the more than three reverts. You have 3, not 4. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nableezy, at last. Feel fooled by this I-know-3-is-max-user. Might be beack here on the "persistent edit-warring"-entrance. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad taste. I discovered that Nableezy (admin above who answered clear and correctly) is also involved in multiple edits with both deleting editors in this topic. Makes me feel creepy: is there a following, an admin included? Why not an unrelated admin? -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Axamir reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24h)

    1. 15 June, 20:00
    2. 15 June, 20:27
    3. 16 June, 19:45
    4. 16 June, 20:41

    Stubborn nationist edit-warring to monopolise an article with a single national POV, denying even the existence of a notable territorial dispute. Long-term problem with this user, who has edit-warred on the same article for over a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    66.67.66.55 reported by 24.176.191.234 (Result: 48h)

    First, I am not very good at all this. So I'm trying to give all the info needed. User66.67.66.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned repeatedly about 3RR violations in changing Lindsay Monroe to the uncited Lindsay Messer and the other vandalism in CSI: New York, List of CSI: NY characters, and possibly using other IP's in episode summaries and other CSI: NY character pages such as Danny Messer and Aiden Burn.

    This has been reported, nothing has been done. If you check this user's history, I believe you will find they repeatedly violate 3RR and should be blocked, preferebly for more than 24 hours.

    Thank you for your time. Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - 48 hours for edit warring. This IP was blocked in May for vandalism and his talk page is full of warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Polaron reported by User:doncram (Result: No violation)

    • Page: Various NRHP historic district articles in Connecticut
    • Explanation: In 5-10 separate articles over several months, Polaron has edit warred to wipe out new articles I have created on NRHP-listed historic districts in Connecticut. Some of these resolved okay eventually.

    Recently I have had cause to create new articles on CT NRHP historic districts in this area, and to forestall edit warring, I opened explicit discussion about those cases centrally at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut.

    On a similar matter of names for NRHP articles in CT, i had already opened discussion with Polaron at User talk:Polaron#CT NRHP errors and redirects, in which I noted our disagreement in perspective and that I would try to create central discussion and call for others' input. I posted neutral notices calling wp:NRHP and wp:Connecticut editors to comment, and they have been commenting about both types of matters (names of CT NRHP articles, and articles for CT NRHP historic districts separate from articles about villages in which they may be included). Polaron has participated tersely in discussion, but has primarily or supplementarily acted by wiping out the separate articles and redirecting. In most or all recent cases, this is after I had opened and requested discussion at the central forum. He has repeated his edits after I reverted with explanations. I provide diffs for a number of Polaron's edit warring edits at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#question about edit warring and process

    He has not explicitly reached 3RR limits, but in the context I believe his recent actions are clearly wp:disruptive and dismissive of the consensus process. Administrator comment at the central discussion area, and as you judge to be appropriate directly with Polaron, would be appreciated. doncram (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Doncram is the only party that seems to be against my merges and continually reverts me. It takes two parties to edit war so whatever applies to me also applies to him. --Polaron | Talk 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result- No violation. It looks to me that Polaron's side of the debate may be winning more support at User talk:Polaron#CT NRHP errors and redirects. All participants in that debate seem to be knowledgable and well-intentioned. Doncram, if you don't agree that Polaron's view has consensus, why not find an uninvolved person to close the discussion? EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was returning to note, before edit conflict here: I previously reasoned with Polaron at User talk:Polaron#Editing practices and Talk pages linked thereto. I notice also some disputes about Polaron's edit behavior mentioned at User Talk:Polaron#Alleged changes and User talk:Polaron#Rollback ability disabled and User talk:Polaron#Metro etc and User talk:Polaron#Edit war and User talk:Polaron#LUCPOL edit warring in no particular order. In my recent effort to create a central discussion about CT NRHP issues, I was and am honestly trying to uncover good information for building the wikipedia. I am getting frustrated with Polaron's ways, despite my best efforts. This argument above, that his and my edits are equally warring, is annoying.
    So, is that it, no action? I am not very familiar with process and practice here. I think that at least some direction to Polaron should be given. Please note, in the discussion at the CT NRHP talkpage, there are many separate open matters and I am open to them being settled in various ways. It is fine with me if Polaron's original view prevails in a given case. What i object to is Polaron's edit warring elsewhere that both undermines the discussion and is seeking to win by edit warring rather than discussion. doncram (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There wasn't a very strong case for edit warring presented in this report. You need to give a lot of diffs, and show that the person has no intention of following consensus. Consider opening an RFC if you think no progress is being made in a particular case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The edit warring continues, with now this edit of the Georgetwon Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) article by Polaron
    How many diffs do you need? Here is a set of diffs that I tried to include here by previous mention of discussion section (edited down somewhat from discussion:
    For the Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) article, Polaron initially redirected in this first redirect, then repeated in this diff, then repeated today.
    Also I noted that Polaron today edited to create Southport Historic District (Connecticut) as a competing similar name to redirect to his preferred target, apparently trying to get readers to bypass the Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) article
    For the Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) Polaron, redirected to his preferred target, by this edit today. That in fact struck out the a merger proposal request that was supposedly under discussion. Polaron's previous edits to remove this article are this reversion, and this reversion.
    There is now, at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut#question about edit warring and process, some comment by Orlady that she agrees there is edit warring, but, as I comment there, I think some differential evaluation by an administrator about who is playing by the rules and trying to build, would be warranted and helpful. doncram (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read Orlady's comment, at 02:44 on 17 June, it says that both of you are in an edit war and you *both* risk being sanctioned. This is a content dispute. You are an experienced editor and you know about WP:Dispute resolution. Open an WP:RFC and frame a specific question about one of the historic districts, for example Georgetown. Since Polaron has commented in this discussion, he should consider himself notified that he also risks sanctions if the two of you continue to revert without getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.242.184.16 reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 24h)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: It is obvious from this edit summary that IP is aware of 3RR.
    • Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]
    Hi I'm the IP against whom the complaint has been made, and I would make the following points.
    • I am not in breach of 3RR, because one of the diffs cited by Vision Thing above relates to a different section of text to the other three. I understand how 3RR works, and that whether there has been a technical breach is not the only thing to be considered, but I simply make the point.
    • There is an edit war scenario in the article. An admin (KrakatoaKatie) is aware and has said she will keep an eye on it.
    • Other editors involved, including me, have asked Vision Thing to explain and discuss his edits in talk, but he declines to do so. He did, a while ago, make some minor objections (which IMO do not justify deleting a whole paragraph of text). I indicated a willingness to compromise but he has not responded. I would suggest that the best thing for all concerned would be for Vision Thing to engage in the discussion on the talk page, and not just keep making unexplained or (IMO) poorly justified deletions of text.
    • A ban would affect users of a number of big UK-based ISPs.
    • I deny being an SPA, but would suggest in any case that that would be something to deal with separately.
    Many thanks. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - 24 hours. There are four genuine reverts here within a one-day period. I still advise User:Vision Thing to make more use of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Profsherman reported by User:Paul H. (Result:31 hours)

    There is an edit war going on at Robert Sarmast, where User:Profsherman deletes material documented by peer-reviewed research in sources that are footnoted as being "conjecture". He / she also insists on posting material that has been demonstrated to be completely false that either lacks any source at all or any credible source. The only citation that he lists is a 1975 article that has been completely and utterly discredited and refuted by literally several dozen peer-reviewed articles in the 34 years since it was published.Paul H. (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Profsherman's input at the article in question is entirely unsourced and is only editorial commentary and not encyclopedic content in any interpretation of that term.

    Base: [80]

    Warning to stop adding editorial content: [88]

    Warning of 3RR: [89]

    This user is clearly engaged in an edit war as the reverts are within seconds of removing the unscientific content. He/She is engaging in no discussion on the Talk page nor is there even the minimum justification in an edit summary. (Taivo (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    I find it curious that User:Profsherman claims to be the source and owner of a figure, Atlantis_City_wall.jpg that is officially part of Sarmast's "Discovery of Atlantis" web page and a very personal photograph of Robert Sarmast. Both suggest that he or she might be closely affiliated, i.e. Sarmast's personal staff, with Robert Sarmast in some manner and the edit war might be a direct result of a major conflict of interest concerning the Robert Sarmast article.Paul H. (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In reading Profsherman's edits they sound more like worshipful adoration than NPOV description. (Read the Biography section, which is entirely Profsherman's contribution, for a taste of the adoration.) (Taivo (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Hopefully this editor will start responding on his talk page or the article's talk page - given what I've seen looking at the Difs, I'm not going to bet on a sudden change in behaviour. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help :) (Taivo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    User:SallyFord reported by User:Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    • 1st revert: diff
    • 2nd revert: diff
    • 3rd revert: diff (user then self-reverted and began nitpicking article)
    • 4th revert: diff
    • 5th revert: diff
    • 6th revert: diff

    As noted in the the dispute attempt thread for larger issues. With the issue of Naruto, user added the OR statement that the character was Japanese. This was removed. She continued reverting multiple other editors, arguing that because she is color-blind, it needed specification (that he is blond is already in the article). At her third revert, she self-reverted then began finding new things to nitpick in the article, tagging the lead with a {{fact}} tag, then edit warring over its removal. Then edit warring over the spelling of blond/blonde. While she technically did no more than 3 specific reverts, as a whole, it is a clear pattern of edit warring that can also be seen in her activities on Anime Pulse and Honey in the Rock. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't clear why #1 is a revert. #2 is. #3, as you say, is self-reverted and hence irrelevant. Why is #4 a revert? #5 and #6 are reverts. You have found 3R William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    #1 is a reverting of the removal of her adding "with blond hair"[90] she just didn't put back in "Japanese". #3 is only somewhat irrelevant as she only self-reverted because that value isn't supported by the template. #4 shows a continuing tendency to just edit war, by randomly adding {{fact}} tags to the lead after other editors continued removing the blond thing (a pattern shown in the other edits noted above). While she hasn't done 4 exact reverts, she has continued reverting repeatedly rather than discussing (despite the on-going on in the project), and basically descending to nitpicking when she was unable to get her way on having the lead state the character was Japanese and blond. Basically a pattern of edit warring behavior, also supported by the other two articles and the edits there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, she is continuing to act in an edit war manner. She changed a phrase in one part. Three editors have disagreed with her rewording, but she continues reverting rather than discussing. She also used a mildly uncivil edit summary during these edits[91], continues making accusations that the 5-6 editors who disagree with her are "power tripping" and leaving insults in edit summaries[92][93], making false claims about non-existent new policies (see thread), and some summaries seems to indicate she thinks this is all a fun game[94]. In the discussion, she posted a Japanese phrase which had nothing to do with the discussion and consistently declines to sign her posts.[95] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The C of E reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 48h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [96]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [103]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Neither editors have made any attempt at discourse on the talk page

    User:MusicInTheHouse is also involved in this edit war but has said they will stop after notice of 3 RR warning given but The C of E reverted after notification, thats why I have started with them.BigDuncTalk 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24.15.125.234 (Result: Already blocked)

    24.15.125.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edit warring on Recent African origin of modern humans, and Multiregional origin of modern humans Probably the same as

    recent blanking [104] Wapondaponda (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result- 24.15.125.234 (talk · contribs) is already blocked by another admin. Multiregional origin of modern humans has been fully protected by Rodhullandemu. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Q102josh reported by User:Drmargi (Result: 24h each)

    User:Q102josh has engaged in a series of edit wars at various ER-related pages, principally John Carter (ER), Luka Kovac, ER: Season 9 and now ER: Season 15. He refuses to seek consensus or acknowledge any requests he not revert edits and instead engage in discussion to reach consensus. His edit warring and failure to seek consensus have been discussed repeatedly on his talk page, but he rarely responds to posts there except to tell another editor how/why they are wrong with regard to his edits and/or behavior. User:Jerkov initially attempted to work with him; I entered the process when he began making petty edits to the Luka Kovac page. Part of the problem is his seeming belief that he knows all about ER and his lack of understanding of WP:OR as well as the consensus process. User:Arcayne has recently taken an interest, and we three agree his actions demand attention.

    Recently Qjosh102 requested temporary protection for three pages: John Carter, ER (season 9) and ER: Season 8. We hoped the two-week protection period would bring the warring to a close. Instead, he used the time to find minor bits of dialogue he feels support his postion, all taken out of context, and resumed edit warring once the protection expired. He has now requested the indefinite protection from Luka Kovac be removed for the purpose of resuming an edit war to remove one word. Examination of the histories of these pages, and the lack of any participation in discussion on their corresponding discussion page or responses to posts on his own will make clear that his actions are as described, and that some sort of sanction is in order. Drmargi (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on John Carter appears to have begun here:

    [105]

    Throughout User: Jerkov attempts to get User:Q102josh to engage in consensus building, but gets no response. I joined the fray in an attempt to add another voice and get the war ended - I'm not even particularly interested in this character and had not done any meaningful editing to the page prior to this time. The war stops during the page protection, but Q102josh immediately resumes, ignoring warnings by three editors, as soon as protection is off. Some of the problem arises from Q102josh's not understanding how a medical resident becomes an attending physician. He assumes it's an automatic change in title (such as from intern to resident) rather than a job title that comes with a position for which a physician is hired.

    Similarly, although not nearly as heated, the edit war on Luka Kovac begins here:

    [106]

    He began by removing one of the character's positions, then changing it from the correct term to one that is used as shorthand in dialogue. This is the basic problem here. He hears dialogue and assumes that's correct terminology. He also doesn't understand uses of titles and descriptors for many of these medical positions, and persists in removing Physician from the job title Attending Physician because he sees it as redundant with the character's job description, when what we have is two uses of the same word. IN both cases, it's small stuff that could easily be resolved with consensus building. Instead, he requested the page protection from this page be removed. it was denied once, so he requested it again and by luck-of-the-draw, got an admin who removed it, allowing him to resume another edit war.

    Similar issues on the ER season pages:

    Season 15: [107]

    He begins editing based on his perceptions of one actor's status on the show, long after consensus was reached on the main article page regarding the actor's status, necessitating this page be consistent with the main article.

    Season 9: [108]

    This begins with his WP:OR description of Carter as "acting Chief Resident" something that never happened. By definition, a Chief Resident extends his/her residency in order to take the position and remains under the employment of the medical school. He cannot also be an attending physician, and in the story, we never hear any dialogue suggesting the character has ended his residency and been hired, just that he cannot get an attending postion. Again, here's a place where discussion and consensus building is the only route to solving the problem. User:Jerkov tries, repeatedly, to get him to do so, and as before, I enter the discussion as a means of adding a voice to press the issue.

    Season 8: [[109]

    Again, WP:OR as Q102josh attempts to describe Carter as an attending during Season 8 based on no evidence. There is no foundation for this edit, and the character was not hired as an attending physician during the season. Q102josh's (erroneous) OR argument is that it's an automatic change of title and we're back to edit warring. As with the others, the only solution is consensus building, something in which he refuses to engage.

    The persistent edits and lack of any willingness to work within the WP guidelines is pervasive across the diffs provided. Jerkov, I and and two impartial editors have tried to engage him in consensus building, including adding warnings to his talk page with no result. Drmargi (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmargi has basically claimed ownership of all the ER pages. With regard to the John Carter page, until about a month ago there was a general consensus. User:Jerkov initially started reverting the page and i only reverted back, but has since seems to have backed off. User:Drmargi keeps reverting edits on multiple pages claiming he is right but offering no support other than his opinion. With regard to the carter pages, the dialogue in the show itself proves his theory wrong but he obviously feels his opinion trumps the writers of the show and he continually reverts back despite all of the evidence that shows his opinion is wrong. Additionally he engaged in an edit war with me on the Luka Kovac page over one word that would be redundant and inconsistent with all of the other character pages. Examining the histories of these pages would show that a consensus was met before User:Drmargi started making edits.Q102josh (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt User:Q102josh sees it that way, and I could certainly make a comparable claim of ownership of him were I inclined to. I've never claimed anything, just attempted to add a voice requesting he stop warring and seek consensus. Ownership of a page is easy to throw around but hard to prove which is why I chose not to make that assertion in his case. As for consensus prior to his edits, nothing in the edit history suggests this is the case, and he has willfully ignored a significant number of requests he engage in consensus-building. Drmargi (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine there must be some reason why Drmargi thinks she is immune from 3RR, but I've no diea what that reason might be. So you both get 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.3.245.128 reported by User:124.185.196.182 (Result: Semi)

    • Previous version reverted to: [110]

    User insists on reverting to a POV version of the lead section. It's been explained to him why his edit is unconstructive on the talk page, and why his edit is also largely irrelevant (his main point seems to be "ethnic group" needs to be mentioned in the lead, and it already is). I've also broken 3RR myself, but I think my actions are not block worthy, since I was reverting POV vandalism, but if this isn't the case, then block me as well.

    Regards, 124.185.196.182 (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S, it seems another editor has become involved as well, but has not broken 3RR. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.P.S, other user has now reverted more than 3 times as well. The reported user has reverted 11 times now, with no signs of stopping, and has posted several racist/xenophobic personal attacks on user talk pages (though, written in a language other than English).124.185.196.182 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has now noticed this report, and he has reset his IP, Its is now 78.3.240.245 (talk · contribs) - he even responded on his previous talk page - [122]. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Semiprotected by User:Dekimasu. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Bombing of Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RutgerH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 17:07, 17 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Signficance in context")
    2. 06:31, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297033896 by Bidgee (talk)")
    3. 07:50, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297114776 by Bidgee (talk) You don't own this article")
    4. 08:26, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297118847 by Bidgee (talk)Get a consensus for revert or take action as suggested")
    • Diff of warning: here

    The user refuses to keep the long standing version by adding what they want and refuse to stop reverting and keep discussing[141]. The user is also making threats in a tempt to scare me[142].

    —Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:YellowMonkey. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.234.135.47 reported by User:Jimmy Lavoie (Result: 24h)

    An IP user is adding content on the article, as everybody explain him on the talkpage why it's wrong. He seems to do politics (as we can see by his messages on the talkpage) and doesn't want to understand anything. I did not revert him at the very last as it seems to be an edit warring. He interpret what the government says and add it in the introduction. Well, I hope you can do something against a non collaborating user. It seems to have started on June 9, but he uses different IPs with the same range. Hope you can look at that. Thanks a lot, Jimmy Lavoietalk 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for 3RR violation. The second IP mentioned, 76.226.179.1, has not been active since June 11 so there is no reason to block it. Semiprotection is not needed unless block evasion occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ObiWan353 reported by User:PassionoftheDamon (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [143]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [148]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

    PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    USER:SOPHIAN reported by User:Wapondaponda (Result: 48h)

    • Warnings
    1. [154]
    2. [155]

    Other

    Moved Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe to Recent North African and Near eastern Admixture in Europe [156] Somewhat absurd behavior, the user has requested for adminship after only 40 edits Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SOPHIAN and solicited support[157]. The user also used the move feature to change user name [158]. In just one day the user has been welcoming over 100 new users with the five pillars [159][160]. Ok, that may be courtesy, but the user says he is trying to become famous or popular.[161] I admit that I have edit warred with the user, but the behavior is just too absurd to take very seriously. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - 48 hours for edit warring. Wapondaponda also made a large number of reverts, if it were not for the rather eccentric behavior of SOPHIAN, they would also have been sanctioned. In future, you should report at once and leave the article temporarily in a bad state if necessary. SOPHIAN is very close to a block for disruptive editing, so I'm looking forward to their speedy reform. They can put off their application for adminship for a little longer. SOPHIAN does not seem to be a brand-new editor. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wapondaponda reported by USER:SOPHIAN (Result: No action, see other report)

    Would not stop reverting edits (Broke the 3RR ). 23:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Infact he went beyond that see how many reverts he did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wapondaponda he even used popups at times sometime that I did not do SOPHIAN (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Result- No action, see report above. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roddna reported by Best O Fortuna (Result:)

    Edit warring of the article: Monte Montgomery. The only article that User:Roddna has ever edited is this one. Account only setup to push point-of-view and personal agenda. Always changes external link, and keeps removing disputed live CD, Live at the Caravan Of Dreams (the artist didn't want it come out, but legally had to let it). Another user had left a message on the article's talk page, and yet another user added said CD in discography. Since then there has been a edit war to either keep the CD in or out. This user will not discus it, just reverts to what they want, right or wrong. I would like someone to get some communication from this user, and if failing that to block their account and give the article low-level protection for one month. Please help. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • 15:46, 18 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎ (Undid revision 297098051 by Best O Fortuna (talk)) (top)
    • 15:04, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
    • 15:04, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
    • 15:03, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
    • 15:02, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
    • 15:02, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
    • 15:00, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→Live albums)
    • 21:01, 9 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎
    • 20:35, 9 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
    • 20:34, 9 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
    • 20:08, 9 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
    • 21:12, 18 May 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎
    • 18:18, 10 July 2008 - Monte Montgomery ‎
    • Repeated removal of:
    • Live at the Caravan Of Dreams
    • Repeated push of user's preferred website:


    User:Athenean reported by User:Sarandioti

    Continuous edit warring in different articles

    Sarandë [[162]] [[163]] [[164]] history log: [[165]]


    Cham Albanians [[166]] [[167]] [[168]]


    Pelasgians [[169]] [[170]]

    Gjirokaster unjustified removal of IPA: [[171]] [[172]]

    removal of alternative names in various islands, nationalist POV-pushing: [[173]] [[174]] [[175]] [[176]] [[177]] [[178]] [[179]] --Sarandioti (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user Sarandioti is a newcomer in wiki (ca. 2 weeks), however he has been blocked 3 times. His third block has been just expired and still continues an aggressive activity on specific topics. His contributions are very characteristic of a low level nationalistic activity.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You were also blocked for that issue Alexikoua, so accusing others for the same actions you have been blocked, is a bit impolite. But here we are not talking about me or you(we got blocked and we probably deserved it), but for Athenean. Facts are facts, and his edits show what he's been doing all these days. --Sarandioti (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is your last contribution [[180]], you say that this is 'rephrasing'? Actually it's a change of meaning (or how to make an npov approach pov).Alexikoua (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And you changed it back, and I didnt change it again, just added citation needed [181] I see no problem in that. Please do not disrupt my report, if you want to talk with me, go to my talkpage.--Sarandioti (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: page protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [182]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Multiple repeat offender

    Clearly disruptive editor, with numerous attempts to remedy his behaviour having been ignored. Previous blocks of 2 weeks (20 April 2009) and 1 month (11 May 2009) have failed to have any effect. Longer block now required. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is being baited by a tag team of editors intent on not allowing his referenced edit. No rational explantion is given by them for their actions. LevenBoy (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    LevenBoy's comment shows a flagrant disregard for the facts, as can be confirmed at Talk:British Isles. There is no consensus for including AVDL's proposal - indeed, a strong consensus opposed (or, at least, failing to understand the need for it). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't just a case of one editor edit-warring against consensus (which is unclear). I've protected the page to allow the involved editors to discuss the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HAl reported by User:HAl (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [189]


    user:Hal is trying to slant this article as fully pro-Microsoft, when the article cited clearly states in the first paragraph "Microsoft is joining other industry titans such as Apple Computer, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Sony, Sharp and Samsung that have recently taken steps to eliminate their use of polyvinyl chloride plastics, otherwise known as PVC or vinyl, in the packaging of their products."

    He is also trying to continuously re-insert information, that when the sources are checked, is not supported.


    In this case, it is not 3RR, however user:HAl is edit warring.

    Scientus (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=297366894"