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

User:81.138.10.158 and user:68.9.22.155 reported by - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } (Result: semi)

• Three-revert rule violation on Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.138.10.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC User:81.138.10.158:

1. 09:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312496516 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
2. 07:58, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312581560 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
3. 08:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312935640 by WBardwin (talk)")
4. 13:15, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313182880 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
5. 13:27, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313184689 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
6. 13:35, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185362 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
7. 13:45, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186318 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
8. 13:48, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187862 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
9. 13:51, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188295 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
10. 13:54, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188701 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
11. 14:07, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313189058 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
12. 14:23, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
13. 14:25, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313193379 by Simon Dodd (talk)")
14. 14:28, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")
15. 14:31, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")

And user:68.9.22.155:

1. 02:11, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312241174 by 82.2.31.240 (talk)")
2. 02:17, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "TRUTH WILL OUT!")
3. 00:33, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 13:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312556481 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
5. 20:54, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 01:25, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "input poems")
7. 14:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "seven trees")
8. 15:16, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
9. 13:08, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Truth to the fore, again. Getting tired of this.")
10. 13:24, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313183655 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
11. 13:29, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185038 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
12. 13:36, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186101 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13. 13:47, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187600 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
14. 13:50, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187985 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
15. 13:53, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188404 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
16. 13:55, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188907 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")

Aqwis (talk | contribs | block) m (3,987 bytes) (Protected Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)))) should do you William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that this is an unregistered SPA, and since the article has been semi-protected, further action would be WP:BUROcratic. That only holds only if we make some dubious assumptions. For instance: that the parties don't register an account to circumvent the protection (3RR applies per person not per account, as you know). That this really is an SPA, and 3RR violations trigger a topic-specific block (they don't, as you know). Or that 3RR confers discretion to block or not. Users can be blocked for edit warring at the discretion of an admin; once 3RR is violated, however, the response is defined in mandatory--not permissive--language.

More importantly, my understanding is that admins impose escalating consequences based on a user's block log. Short-circuiting 3RR here therefore has real bite, because behavior that should merit a block will not be in the record for a future admin to consider in determining how to respond to a future violation.

The appropriate response to the filing of a report here identifying a flagrant violation of 3RR is application of the consequences mandatated by 3RR. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative not punitive. But I've met you half way and blocked one of them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Ninetyone (Result: No action)

Page: Gordon Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2009-09-20T11:03:40 (UTC) (original edit)

Note by a third party:This edit by Paladin R.T. (talk · contribs) who created the disputed category on the same date is not the original edit. The filer misleads the previous edit.Caspian blue 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 2009-09-20T11:12:36 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 2009-09-22T09:28:16 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 2009-09-22T19:06:58 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 2009-09-22T19:14:45 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2009-09-22T19:20:46

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gordon_Brown#Category:Half-blind_people

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring in the past: last unblock was advanced after he gave his word not to do so in the future...! ninety:one 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First edit is from Revision as of 12:12, 20 September 2009 which is over two days ago, there was plenty of discussion going on all of it instigated by me, the discussion is over a catagory that I have nominated for deletion. I had a warning left on my talkpage and have made no edits to the article since then and have left the disputed catagory in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the discussion for deletion regarding the catagory for deletion that I started [1] Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should "assume good faith" or think "plain vandalism" if someone creates a category "half-blind people" and then five minutes later goes ahead and attaches it to the article on the British Prime Minister (even if the man has lost sight in one eye). This is what happened here. JN466 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• comment This seems to fall under WP:BLP exemption.-Caspian blue 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I formatted the report since the timeline is very important to judge whether Off2riorob violated 3RR or not. However, I see no 3RR violation because the first revert occurred on two days ago, and the alleged "original version" is incorrectly prsented since the disputed category was created and inserted by Paladin R.T. (talk · contribs) on Sep.20. I'm not sure as to why the filer did not add the timeline because without the timestamp, Off2riorob seemingly violated 3RR (edit warred though for removing potentially BLP material). If Ninetyone (talk · contribs) believed Off2riorob violated 3RR, then why the 3RR warning was given after the last revert? Bad faith filing.--Caspian blue 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • One more disturbing thing to me is that Rrius (talk · contribs) also clearly reverted 3 times just like Off2riorob, but why Ninetyone did not report Rrius to here or give him 3RR warning? Ninetyone reverted one time which shares the view of Rrius.--Caspian blue 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I gave Rrius a 3RR waring for the fairness.--Caspian blue 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • For "the fairness"? Ridiculous. Off2riorob was reverting to protect his version. He directed people to the talk page, but did not actually address the points raised there, which is his modus operandi. He has a history of asserting that edits he wants to get rid of violate BLP, which after the number of times I have seen it from him suggests he is gaming the system. What's more, his history of blocks for edit warring suggest the warning was needed. I have no such history. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You were also edit warring to keep your favorite version which currently remains. I don't know how rich his history may be, however, he did not violate 3RR, but reverted 3 times so did you. If somebody exploits his block history to win a content dispute, then he/she is the one "gaming the system".--Caspian blue 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• This should be concluded with no action. The edit is the inclusion of a category, and a discussion is happening at the talk page including Off2riorob, Ninetyone, and me. As far as I can tell, the impetus for this report was Ninetyone's false belief that Off2riorob had violated 3RR, which he had not because the first revert happened more than 24 hours before the last. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't anybody start accusing me of anything. I thought better of "filing a report", but then I checked Rob's form and saw the assurance given in the last unblock, and though this was worth raising. I don't give a toss about who did what, or when when, it's the fact that Rob gave an explicit assurance not to edit war, which he seems to have gone back on, that caused me to bring this here. Now to address the smokescreen that's been laid: the wording "In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to." is very confusing; what I linked to was the version from before all the reverting took place - and I don't have a clue what the second part is supposed to mean. And here's a hint: straight out accusing someone of a "bad faith filing" shows just as much bad faith on the accusers part. And you don't give out warnings "for the fairness" either... ninety:one 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm. you have had a plenty of time to sharply say like that not only at CfD but here, but no time for checking the timestamp of the report? :-P That is a requirement for 3RR report of which you might be aware of. Your attitude unfortunately does not change my judgment on your filing. Caspian blue 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like both Rrius and Off2riorob were edit warring. No opinion on whether blocks are necessary or useful right now (if they have stopped and are now discussing things, as Rrius claims), but they were both edit warring when this was filed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No action - The parties were edit-warring but neither one exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. Last revert was over 18 hours ago. I suggest that the issue be closed here unless the parties start reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If Off2riorob has been edit-warring, they have broken the promise on the grounds of which they were unblocked. I have been involved in an editing dispute with the editor at Jimmy Wales, but I suggest a second look at this editor's recent history.  Skomorokh  22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 12 h)

Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MessiniaGreece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 23 September, 12:53–13:08 (several consecutive edits, reinstating the same series of edits from 7 September [2])
2. 24 September, 11:19–11:39 (same series of edits)
3. 24 September, 11:43–12:27 (partially same series)
4. 24 September, 13:35–13:42 (partially same series, reinstating non-standard POV naming of "FYROM" for the fourth time, against Arbcom-imposed 1RR)

• Single-article user who refuses to discuss – no talk page activity, no edit summaries, just stubborn reverts.
• 3RR violation as well as violation of Arbcom-imposed 1RR on Macedonia naming issue per ARBMAC2 and WP:NCMAC. (Note that my own reverts were exempt from the naming-related 1RR, because they restored the consensus version of WP:NCMAC. I made two reverts including other content, and a third that was restricted solely to enforcing the naming guideline.)
• 1RR warning given before the 3rd and 4th revert, here: [3]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

12 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Keysanger reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: )

Page: War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Keysanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• • I was trying to post a Neutrality Warning in the page, but Keysanger reverted that twice.
  • I also tried to include the fact that Chile declared war on Bolivia first, which official documents demonstrate, but he reverted that also (once).
  • Lastly, I tried to mix sources and create a more neutral and less aggressive statement in the "Peru" section of the consequences of the war subtopic. Of course, Keysanger reverted that as well and claimed it to be "Vandalism."

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]
• 3rd revert: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

• We, as in me, User:Likeminas, User:Dentren, attempted to mediate a peaceful solution to the edit war by creating a chart of what we saw as problems. We did not even get half-way through the list, and Keysanger began to massively edit the article based on his own POV. This 29 August 2009 version was the one that was being worked on by me, Likeminas, Dentren, and Keysanger prior to this last user taking wwnership of the article. If an administrator could please revert the article back to this version, it would be greatly appreciated. The information in this previous article is more neutral, and much more factual. The current version by Keysanger is pro-Chilean, anti-Peruvian, non-neutral, and contains erroneous information.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, here is a proof of the discontent of some editors with the actions of Keysanger: [9].--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  

• Another Comment: Keysanger has been warned about the 3RR, but he has deleted the warning: [10]. I'm notifying this in order to demonstrate that the user knows what he has done.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka reported by jersey_emt (Result: 1 week )

Page: Glock pistol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]
• 5th revert: [16]
• 6th revert: [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

After making a good-faith edit, Koalorka has reverted my edit a total of four times, in violation of 3RR. Koalorka did not make any attempt to resolve the issue before reverting. After repeatedly asking Koalorka to refrain from reverting a good-faith edit without first reaching consensus on the discussion page, threatening me, and calling me a vandal, I am reporting this negative behavior.

In fact, my edit was supported by an additional user ([20]) -- anonymous, yes, so not as much weight, but still supported -- further indicating that Koalorka is reverting my edit out of spite.

I request that my edit be added, and the page be protected from being again reverted by Koalorka unless a consensus is reached against my edit on the page's discussion.

Jersey emt (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User being reported: jersey_emt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like the disruptive editor beat me to it. I guess there is no point to starting a new section. I'll let the admins review the edit history of the affected page. I'll just state that the editor who has no knowledge of previous experience editing anything related to firearms on Wikipedia has decided that a shiny image of a new Glock appeals to the new user aesthetically, and therefore decided to engage me in an edit war, generating a wall of useless text on the discussion page and generally wasting everyone's time, because he didn't get what he wanted. I apologize for inciting the fire here, but I have no tolerance for degrading consistency or quality standards in well-developed articles to appease some random editor's tastes. Koalorka (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Even after one user agreed with my edit on the article's discussion page, and a different user re-applied my edit, also agreeing with it [21], Koalorka has, now for the 5th time, reverted my good-faith edit to improve the flow of the article [22]. In addition, Koalorka has made the untrue (and irrelevant) claim that I have 'no knowledge of previous experience editing anything related to firearms', and has labeled me as another user's sock puppet (on top of labeling me as a vandal, and 'wasting his time').

Clearly, Koalorka is continuing to be disruptive and completely unable to handle anyone disagreeing with him. It seems to me that Koalorka believes that he 'owns' the article, and that anyone that disagrees with him is automatically wrong. Koalorka has a long history of blocks due to similar behavior in the past. He flips out when anyone makes edits that he disagrees with, making personal attacks and reverting changes without any discussion. The ability to successfully collaborate with others is a required skill on Wikipedia, and he has repeatedly proven himself unable to do so.

I have also further investigated Koalorka's claim that the issue of which 'generation' of Glock pistol should be the lead image had already been previously discussed and a consensus reached. I found no evidence of this; the change was made by him with no discussion (and therefore, no consensus) [23]. Jersey emt (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A different user has re-applied my edit, also agreeing with it[24]. Koalorka has yet again reverted the edit (and labeling that user as a sock -- but that user has no relation to me), now for the 6th time. [25]. Finally, the page has been protected, unfortunately it was done so right after the 6th reversion of my edit that was supported by 4 users (myself included).

After 6 reversions by Koalorka of an edit supported by 4 different users, I think it is made quite clear that, (a) my edit was made in good faith one, (b) my edit is an improvement to the article, with a more logical layout, and (c) Koalorka's behavior is a personal attack and his reversions were made in bad faith. Jersey emt (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Koalorka for one week. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Erik Ernst reported by User:Coolcaesar (Result: Blocked as a sock/meatpuppet)

Page: Law of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Erik Ernst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:12, 22 September 2009

• 1st revert: Revision as of 23:28, 24 September 2009.
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:59, 24 September 2009
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:19, 25 September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 00:24, 25 September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 23:54, 24 September 2009

Comments:

We're having problems with User:Zephram Stark (banned four years by ArbCom for POV pushing and racist remarks and permanently banned by SlimVirgin after repeated violations), his sockpuppets, and various friends of his who have been vandalizing the Law of the United States article. See his blog entry urging his friends to join him in such vandalism. User:Fuhghettaboutit already imposed semi-protection, which brought the anon IPs and newer sockpuppets under control but we're having problems with friends of Zephram's like User:Erik Ernst who do not understand Wikipedia policies. I request a temporary block on User:Erik Ernst for a few days and full protection for Law of the United States for a few weeks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked as a sock or meatpuppet. Black Kite 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert reported by User:Granitethighs (Result: malformed report)

Page: Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
For over a year now there has been a collaborative editing effort to bring the Sustainability article to GA or FA status. Throughout this period editor Skipsievert has refused to collaborate in editing, confronting each editor in turn. He has constantly accused the collaborative editing as being a team of people colluding against him despite constant invitations for additional editors from all concerned. He also has concerns about the article that he has expressed innumerable times and these, in turn, have been addressed many times by the editors who have reached consensus on the way to proceed, a consensus which has not been accepted by him. This has, in effect, constituted a pattern of tendentious editing for a long time. There have also been many accusations of current editors driving off potential new editors, being uncivil etc. when it it is not apparent to Skipsievert that he is in fact the incitor and perpetrator. The latest edits on the Sustainability page are, to my mind just not acceptable. The article is at present of a high standard, aiming for GA at least and possibly FA. Aden and Skip have been suspected of at least tandem editing and possibly sock puppetry (see enquiry). Both are editing the Lead which has been worked on by a team of editors extensively. This is provocative to say the least. The editing is not IMO constructive in any way. I understand that editing is “ongoing” and that “ownership” is always an issue but the review process of the article has taken over a year by a team working together, with the exception of Skip who has constantly created difficulties. Unfortunately, IMO the article can only deteriorate under this sort of editing. This might seem a relatively minor issue but in the context of over a year's conflict the matter just has to be resolved - reading the last 2-3 talk pages and most recent archive will illustrate the situation - but almost any archive will demonstrate the editing battles and pattern of behaviour. Granitethighs 10:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Malformed report - please provide diffs etc. Black Kite 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:AnnaFabiano (Result: Both parties warned)

Page: Prizren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tadija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and diff

Comments:
This user was trying to make changes without a discussion on matters that are more complex. The references used were from a biased source and from forums. Other sources added today cannot be verified, and the user did not quote any part from the text as it is standard in such discussed issues. Furthermore the user did not discuss constructively in the discussion page before making the changes. Anna Comnena (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both parties warned. You have both gone well past the point that you should have taken this to a wider forum. See WP:Dispute resolution, and be aware that WP:Third opinion is easy to use. The Serbian reference that Tadija insists upon seems to go to a non-working URL, and the cited book shares an ISBN with an unrelated one. This suggests a problem with the reference. If either party continues to revert without getting support from at least one other person, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jdorney reported by User:Domer48 (Result: nothing)

Page: Kilmichael Ambush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jdorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

As an established Editor they are aware of WP:3RR.

Diff were it was tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page.

Additional Comments:

This editor is also edit warring on: Page: Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Adding information which is blatantly incorrect from even a cursory reading of the articles on the persons named in the edit. The most obvious being John Mitchel and Charles Gavan Duffy. The information which was added was copy and pasted by an IP from this web site.

Page: Charles Gavan Duffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 1st revert: [34]

The exact same information was added to the Charles Gavan Duffy which even contradicts the additions they replaced.

• No violstion - 3RR not exceeded in 24h period. Also, the creator of this report has reverted just as many times on Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848. Articles will be protected if edit-warring continues, please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.

The information was clearly unsourced and biased. Therefore I did not violate the the three-revert rule. Having pointed out that the information was unsourced and incorrect to again add it back is obvious vandalism. To point an editor to WP:PROVEIT and they still add it back is Edit warring is a behavior.

Edit warring is a behavior, typically explemified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. No effort was made at all to check or support the information suggesting that it was correct when obviously it was not.

I'll accept the decision by Black Kite, but not their conclusions. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: deleted (per GFDL concerns), redirected and protected)

Page: Bulbasaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: multiple

No one has broken 3RR. On the other hand, all editors involved have been here for some time, and should know better than to edit war.

On the one camp, undoing the redirect, we have

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

• 06:10, 12 September 2009
• 06:41, 24 September 2009
• 14:36, 25 September 2009

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

• 15:09, 24 September 2009
• 02:54, 25 September 2009

There's an earlier pass at this by Peregrine Fisher, but it is blocked by an intervening delete. It happened sometime shortly before 23:49, 11 September 2009

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

• 16:16, 25 September 2009
• 17:25, 25 September 2009

In the other camp, installing the redirect we have

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

• 01:08, 12 September 2009

• Bws2cool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 18:12, 24 September 2009

• Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 13:00, 12 September 2009
• 13:00, 12 September 2009
• 00:36, 24 September 2009
• 09:36, 24 September 2009
• 03:17, 25 September 2009
• 15:33, 25 September 2009
• 17:00, 25 September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Bulbasaur
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Bulby
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 24#Bulbasaur_move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 24#Bulbasaur, the Weakest Link Pokémon

Comments:
This is a slow edit war, without a specific 3RR violation.

I'm well known for disliking the article in question, so one needs to take that into account when reading my take. I think that Kung Fu Man, Artichoker, and Bws2cool are being quite reasonable in pointing at the consensus with WikiProject Pokemon that having the article in project space to be repaired, and think that's a reasonable strategy. In spite of that, the number of redirects that Kung Fu Man has performed disturbs me. Peregrine Fisher at least recognizes the existence of the consensus at WikiProject Pokemon, and has discussed it at the project talk space. He seems to feel comfortable proceeding anyway.

DreamFocus and Colonel Warden, on the other hand, are not discussing at all: they simply are undoing the redirect. Colonel Warden also cut and pasted the contents of the project space article without attribution, causing GFDL problems.

Since the content of the article is safe and sound at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur, which is the only copy with a valid attribution history, my recommendation is to delete the article in mainspace, install the redirect, protect the redirect, and only undo it when a consensus to restore the article to mainspace can be demonstrated. Whether blocks or warnings need to be issued, and to whom, I leave to people who are a bit more detached.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yup - attribution history is wrong, so deleted. If the article returns from projectspace at some point, then someone can do a history merge if the editors concerned here really want to have a rather WP:LAME edit-war preserved for ever. In the meantime, consensus at the relevant Project was clear, and so I have recreated the article as a redirect to preserve the links, and protected it so that people can't continue embarrassing themselves. Black Kite 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• What nonsense is this? I discussed it on the talk page of the article, where it should be discussed. What you have are some aggressive people determined to destroy an article, without proper consensus. And now Black Kite has deleted the article, history and all, without a proper AFD, and then locked a redirect there. On the talk page Peregrine Fisher found a notable media mention of the character, a biography of the fictional character, at IGN! That would clearly establish notability. If you disagree, take it to the AFD and do things properly. Dream Focus 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. Deletion of the mainspace article is quite improper as there have been two AFDs for it already and it was Kept on both occasions. And it has been a Featured Article and so does not merit peremptory deletion. As for other details, a proper attribution was made in the edit summary to the fork created by the Pokemon project. As the article has been developed further with additional sourced material, it would be best to merge the forked versions and allow development to continue. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Black Kite has responded to these concerns with further steps. See the RfC: "Bulbasaur - to redirect or not". Please take any continuing discussion to the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:gu1dry reported by User:119.173.81.176 (Result: Both parties warned)

Page: Subaru Impreza WRX STI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: gu1dry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGu1dry

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:

This stemmed from a content dispute, when I realised that we were both in danger of violating the 3RR, I put a message on the user's talk page suggesting that we both back off and leave the topic alone, so we could avoid edit warring.

I did not try to argue that my edit was correct on his talk page as this could be seen as trying to provoke the user into another revert, my priority was for us to both calm down and prevent an edit war from happening.

The user must be very aware of the potential of a block being given for edit warring, as they were blocked ten days ago for edit warring.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both parties warned. I do not see four reverts in 24 hours, but repeated back-and-forth on the same point (automatic transmission) over an extended period could easily draw a block for edit warring. The sources appear to differ on whether an automatic transmission can be ordered, and the matter needs to be worked out on Talk before any more reverts happen. Citing both of the conflicting sources is an option for the editors to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kelly A. Siebecke reported by User:JoyDiamond (Result: No violation )

Page: Charles Karel Bouley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kelly A. Siebecke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]
• 5th revert: [47]
• 6th revert: [48]
• 7th revert: [49]

Although not of her stature, would Cher's name be replaced with Sarkisian?? Charles Karel Bouley is commonly know as "Karel" and only uses his full name when writing i.e. Advocate and Huffington Post. Repeating "Fired" NINE times ,including sources is redundant and unnecessary. Bill O'Reilly himself said that this was the second time Karel had been a pinhead. Will find source. More later...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] After extensive searching on Wiki sites I cannot find how to post a warning. Please help! I don't know how speak in symbols, am willing to learn. I attempted to read filing dispute pages and became even MORE dyslexic!I need a real personn to assist me.

Yes I have sincerely tried to resolve this edit war My talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoyDiamond. Kelly Riebecke's talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_A._Siebecke Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]. <No matter what I say or do, I am personally attacked in many ways violating Wiki standards.>

Comments:
As you will see on my talk page I have been warned, I don't believe these warning were justified as I have stated on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. I am NOT going to change anything, however incorrect, until an intervention with a real person. Are you that person? JoyDiamond (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Those edits all seem to have been made without any other edits inbetween, I don't think that is classed as edit warring. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No action That's correct, no violation of 3RR here, sequential edits count as one revert ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) However I have protected the page fo a short time to force discussion. One side's edits (using the obituary as the source) don't actually back up the statement, whilst the other side (JoyDiamond) is using an unreliable source to back up their version. Neither is particularly useful. Please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 09:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox reported by User:Ronhjones (Result:72 hrs )

Page: Quantum mysticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]

Most of the reversion is being done piecemeal, rather than automated reverts, hence there are a lot of edits for the page in a very short period of time - Total of 37 edits just today, and 13 yesterday. There are a similar number of edits on the talk page, but I don't think that there is much agreement in the content of the page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: []

Comments:

I have not done any reversion on this page. User:Lightbound has tried repeatedly to try to steer the page to a good version, and is not really succeeding.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this report, as I do not know diffs well enough yet to have made it myself. I was going to just give up on the article. I prefer to handle things at the lowest level, but User:Likebox has had problems with another user, User:OMCV, whom I came to aid through a posting on a portal page. The article was in "general distress" and in need of more editors. I came to assist and found that the article is written like an essay that argues that the term "quantum mysticism" is to be used as in the derisive sense. I did research on this, new subject to me, and found that quantum mysticism is an actual practice that has been in existence at least since 1993. I discussed changes on the talk page in an attempt to actually document this practice, report its claims, and facts. It is my opinion that Likebox is not going to simply give up the "old notion" of this articles previous state. I even went as far as trying to rename the article, simply because the contents do not match the topic of what quantum mysticism is. I would love to add content, but I am afraid that may be futile, since this person has dominated it. Thanks again, Ronhjones, as I appreciate someone looking out and see that I am just trying to do right by Wikipedia. I am unsure how many other editors have been dissuaded by this type of intimidation. Perhaps this will bring his actions to light. --68.51.237.91 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this is my comment above, I am using the beta and secure sever log in and it logged me out of Wiki when I clicked to this page from the https namespace. I had to log in by non SSL means to be able to sign! --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been only slightly involved in this wiki article, giving a "third opinon" and being involved in some minor discussions on the talk page. I more or less support Likebox' point of view as far as the content of the article is concerned. About editing the article, my experience here on wikipedia is that two editors with such different views on the focus of the articles cannot intensively edit the article at the same time without one or both of them violating 3RR. This doesn't have to be "edit warring".

I think locking the article pending a consensus reached on the talk page is the best way forward. An alternative approach could be that everyone agrees that one editor, say, Lightbound will be the only one who edits for, say, a week. Others editors (in this case Likebox) only give their comments on the talk page. This is the format that I recently tried with another editor on the entropy page. I had severe differences of opinion on the focus of that article with that editor. In that case this approach did not work because it turned out that the other editor did not understand the topic at all. But in principle, this could have worked had the other editor at least understood the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I must add that two users now have edited my user page. Not my talk page, but the user page itself. I can not help but feel this is related. One of the users was just created recently, User:Xobekil and I believe may be a sock-puppet or somehow related. I do not wish to edit the article for two weeks. I will just give up entirely. I think it is an injustice to wikipedia, though, that an article is to be used as a debate page and not written about the subject itself. I have also begun 3rd option and am attempting to use dispute resolution. I am quickly running out of steam, though. If it is going to be this difficult to document what the article means, perhaps I am not meant for wikipedia. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit by User:Xobekil on mass energy equivalence, and if you look at what I reverted, you see that User:Xobekil is unlikely to be a "copy" of likebox. Also, the edit you reverted wasn't insulting. You can't call that "vandalism". Look at the edit history of my user page to see real examples of vandalism. Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User has a history of edit warring and the page concerned was recently locked due to this editor and another edit warring. Blocked for 72 hours. Vsmith (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:I Pakapshem (Result: )

Page: Souliotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]
• 5th revert: [60]
• 6th revert: [61]

Consecutive 3rrs on two days, uncivil and uncompromising behavior in talk page, masked by false statements of compromise being reached in order to do reverts. Refuses to acknowledge me and other editors when discussing, deeming us not contributors. This can be seen in the talk page of the article.

--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporter is blocked and I'm looking at fixing things anyway. Moreschi (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:99.255.196.199 reported by User:Shoemaker's Holiday (Result: 36h)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 99.255.196.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62] and [63]

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65][66] (the result of these two diffs is the version he reverts to here out)
• 3rd revert: [67]
• 4th revert: [68] (I warned him about 3RR at this point.
• 5th revert: [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:99.255.196.199#WP:3RR (among others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Acupuncture#Evidence_of_effectiveness Comments:

Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 06:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do something. The IP is continuing to edit war. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 36h by User:Orderinchaos. Black Kite 09:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

86.162.69.86 reported by Clovis Sangrail (Result: 1 week)

Page: Brothel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.162.69.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nil, they're both irrational [diff]

There's two users that are reverting everything the other does (Multiple articles). The other is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elockid I think they both need a rest. They've even just started arguing on my talk page. Both claim the other is a sockpuppet. Apologies if I've messed the formatting up here

It might be worth trying to sort this one quickly, they're making a bit of a mess..

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Please read up on Nangparbat. Please also my talk page. User: AdjustShift agrees that I was indeed reverting edits by a banned user which 3RR is not included in.

Please also note that 86.162.69.86 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for being a sock of Nangparbat. Block Log. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked I've already blocked 86.162.69.86 for 1 week. 86.162.69.86 is a sock of Nangparbat. Elockid was reverting the edits of a banned user, so there is no need to take any action against Elockid. AdjustShift (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:118.93.41.107 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Scrubs (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 118.93.41.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80] 11 minutes after being warned

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours AdjustShift (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:79.78.6.136 and User:79.78.7.164 reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Tayong Dalawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 79.78.6.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 79.78.7.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

For: 79.78.6.136

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

For: 79.78.7.164

• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]
• 4th revert: [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments: This user has already used foul language in his edit summaries and - as 79.78.6.136 - claims I am a sockpuppet of banned user GMAFan per this diff. User has yet to explain his edits and even continued the harassment at the Tambayan Philippines talk page and at my personal talk page per recent history.

I recommend rangeblocks on edits from this 79.78.XXX.XXX range if such vandalism persists. Thank you. -Eaglestorm (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours AdjustShift (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ephestion reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31h)

Page: Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ephestion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• previous version: 14:33

1. 14:52
2. 15:38
3. 15:46

• Revert-warring about "Macedonia" naming, against Arbcom-imposed 1RR as per WP:ARBMAC2
• Warning and explanation: User talk:Ephestion#Macedonia

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked 31h by J.delanoy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:70.126.138.78 reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: 31h)

Page: Fear (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.126.138.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

• 1st revert: [91]
• 2nd revert: [92]
• 3rd revert: [93]
• 4th revert: [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 31 hours for edit warring and incivility. The IP undid his last revert here, but he has been warring on other film articles and leaving edit summaries such as "State a good reason to revert something you idiot". Elsewhere, edit summaries like 'Asshole' and 'The fuck'. If this keeps up, there may be a longer block in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sposer reported by User:Nableezy (Result: No action)

Page: 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Sposer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98]
• 3rd revert: [99]
• 4th revert: [100] of this removal
• 5th revert: [101] again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Reverts_over_Al_Aharam

Comments:

Started as an issue with al-Ahram being used as a source. This has been discussed at both the article talk page and the RS/N with uninvolved editors agreeing that the source is a reliable source as a major news organization. Repeatedly removing the source then trying to poison the well using synthesis by adding criticism of the paper that nobody has related to the topic of the article. nableezy - 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I misunderstood that my first edit was a revert. The last two edits were not a revert, but adding a clarification. I was about to self revert the second revert anyway, but somebody already did. I put multiple notices on the talk page, but all people did was revert. I am no longer watching that page. Sposer (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Sposer went over 3RR but has declared that he will no longer edit the article. Unless he changes his mind, no admin action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire edit warring reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: Page Protected )

Page: Persian Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Alefbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Akhilleus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104] by User:Alefbe
• 2nd revert: [105] by User:Alefbe
• 3rd revert: [106] by User:Akhilleus

Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring. Page use to exist. It has, since August, been edited out of existence. Three polls have taken place with one an official RfC. Each time, the vast majority have stated that they oppose a reduction in size of the page to either a disambiguation or a redirect. Each time, the consensus was ignored and the page redirected. Alefbe and Akhilleus are constantly edit warring it out of existence without any consensus to make such a change. The page is a top priority page and a high priority page in two different WikiProjects. Akhilleus, an admin, knows not to edit war and knows that there has been edit warring on the page. Alefbe has also been told. This is part of an on going request for Arbitration in which allegations of admin abuse including Akhilleus on this very page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, that was my first ever edit to Persian Empire, so I'm surprised to see that I'm "constantly edit warring". And this post doesn't make any sense unless Ottava is alleging that Alefbe and I are sockpuppets. If that's what he's saying, I hope he will open a case at WP:SPI! --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The history of the page makes it clear that there has been constant edit warring. One revert in such a position is contributing to edit warring. Akhilleus's close talk page relationship with Folantin, Dbachmann, and Alefbe show that they are part of a reverting group that avoids the definition of 3RR by taking turns. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ottava Rima: I have done 2 reverts on Sep. 25 and Sep. 27. So what? Those 2 reverts are backed by the discussion in the talk page. The relevant discussion shows that my 2 recent edits are backed by most of the users who have recently commented on that talk page. Alefbe (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR, this is an edit warring report. Edit warring does not have a limit and can be once a day if necessary. You have been edit warring without any consensus or justification for a very long time. The talk page also makes it clear that you have fabricated consensus - the majority of people do not support your claims, recent or old. There have been two straw polls and an RfC which all say that your actions are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima appears to be forum-shopping in an effort to take ownership of the article in question. In the last couple of days he's been all over WP:ANI and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, and now this, which appears to be a frivolous report. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So, the definition of "ownership" means being a participant in an RfC and Straw polls in which over 10 people have stated so far that they want the page to exist and only 5 people saying that they don't? And then there is clear edit warring on the page? Bugs, at least look before you speak. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a long term content dispute, everyone needs to calm down and form consensus on the talk page one more time. Baseball Bugs, your comment is not helpful, please refrain from making such comments. Page protected. Prodego ^talk 03:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protection was the right move. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Focak reported by User:Inter-man (Result: )

Page: Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Focak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [111]

Comments:
He removes the information based on official data (the number of inhabitants of city) from official page of city and Statistical Offices, he on the basis of colloquial data about metropolitan area. Exist are many sources about metropolitan area representing different of numbers (from 4 to 5 million). The number of inhabitants of city is one, official data. Officialy in city of Barcelona lives 1,615,908 peoples. He believes that (colloquial term) "the metropolitan area" shows that the city is great, official figures (about the number of inhabitants of city) do not interest him. He four times he delete information from article. It is 4RR. Inter-man (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf. (Second report, Result: )

Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MessiniaGreece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent slow edit warring and breach of Arbcom-imposed 1RR:

1. 26 Septemer 12:15
2. 27 September 12:04

• Continuing a slow revert-war over several days. Was already blocked for both a 3RR violation and simultaneous breach of Arbcom-imposed Macedonia naming 1RR three days ago (see #User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 12 h) above, still on this page). Has now repeated the same reverts twice. Single-purpose account, obvious nationalist POV motivation, refuses any discussion, gives no reasons even in edit summaries, just slowly repeats the same series of edits over and over again. Repeated warning given here: [112]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:Lisa for third time (Result:)

Page: Chronology of the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 02:35, 13 September 2009 [113] Sorry Lisa, that's a pretty poor-quality version, very unscholarly, not like the present one.
• 2nd revert: 22:22, 13 September 2009 [114] rv to the sourced version - Lisa, you need to be less emotional about this and more constructive.
• 3rd revert: 01:02, 14 September 2009 [115] Lisa, there's obviously no consensus,, since I don't agree with you.
• 4th revert: 05:53, 14 September 2009 [116] Consensus is when everyone agrees, and we don't - so let's stick with the version that has reliable sources.
• 3RR warning: 13:30, 14 September 2009 [117]
• Report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:35, 14 September 2009 [118]
• 31 hour block: 05:59, 15 September 2009 [119]
• 31 hours later: 12:59, 16 September 2009
• 5th revert: 10:02, 17 September 2009 [120] rv to the version with reliable sources.
• 6th revert: 23:53, 17 September 2009 [121] Sorry Lisa, but I hope someday you'll understand how necessary this is to me :)
• Report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:12, 18 September 2009 [122]
• 31 hour block: 00:20, 19 September 2009 [123]
• 7th revert: 11:54, 26 September 2009 [124] Since there's a consensus for this version (me, Cush, dab) we'll take it as the default, ok?

PiCo's rationale:

• 09:59, 17 September 2009 [125]
• 11:29, 17 September 2009 [126]

Comments:
Can PiCo be blocked from this article? This is the seventh time he's reverted it to the version that he created, unilaterally, after deleting the entire article. The very first edit on the article after he was banned a second time for edit warring on it, and it's a complete revert. Again. -Lisa (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Have to side with Lisa on this. There are suffient editors involved to constitute a true content dispute, but PiCo's methodology of wholesale deletion of notable and verifiable information is wreaking havoc. I've taken great pains to invite PiCo to ADD notable and verifiable information without DELETING notable and verifiable contributions from other editors -- to no avail. This shouldn't even be an edit war, since "our side" is welcoming of collaborative additions from "his side." We value what he can add, but deleting the work of others is pure and simple edit warring.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:89.216.192.29 reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: )

Page: Template:Prizren
Template:Đakovica User being reported: 89.216.192.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Đakovica

• 1st revert: [127]
• 2nd revert: [128]
• 3rd revert: [129]
• 4th revert: [130]

Prizren

• 1st revert: [131]
• 2nd revert: [132]
• 3rd revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134]