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:StanStun reported by User:Tariqabjotu (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 22:53, April 26 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 03:25, April 27 (as User:78.176.118.187)
• 2nd revert: 12:25, April 27 (as User:78.176.118.187)
• 3rd revert: 16:32, April 27 (as User:StanStun)
• 4th revert: 17:50, April 27 (as User:StanStun)

Earlier reverts

• 14:05, April 24 (as User:88.251.76.242)
• 22:50, April 23 (as User:88.251.96.196)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:41, April 27

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• I posted a lengthy comment providing rationale for my changes at Talk:Istanbul#Pre-Byzantium_history on April 24.
  • I have repeatedly tried to point him to the discussion on the user talk pages he uses (April 25; 15:02, April 27; 17:35, April 27) as well as in edit summaries (e.g. here). He has not responded or commented anywhere, neither on his talk pages or on the article talk page; he simply reverts.
• I have also tried meeting some of his requests. Even though, as I say to him, I had great difficulty finding English-language sources that corroborate a claim he makes (regarding Istanbul in the Copper Age), I nevertheless found a source today and added it to the article. But that still wasn't enough: he reverted all of my edits simply because he didn't like that I wrote "c. 660 BC" rather than the precise "667 BC". I explained to him why we shouldn't use exactly 667 BC -- sources give various estimates, even if there are some tertiary sources that act like 667 BC is an agreed-upon date -- and then wrote a rather lengthy footnote explaining this. But that still wasn't good enough for him, and he reverted everything without explanation (save the reference to the note in the infobox).

Comments:
I have gone to great lengths to try to talk with him about why I made certain changes to the article and why it is not acceptable to repeatedly use a Turkish-language encyclopedia as a source over English-language secondary sources, but he has not responded to any of my comments anywhere. All he does is revert. And it sure doesn't help that he jumps between IP addresses and, now, a username. Perhaps a block would encourage him to engage in some kind of dialogue. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

[[User:<69.47.181.248]] reported by [[User:<Sguffanti]] (Result: )

Page: [[:<Causes of the United States housing bubble>]] ([[Special:EditPage/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|edit]] | [[Talk:<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) User being reported: [[User:<69.47.181.248>|<69.47.181.248>]] ([[User talk:<69.47.181.248>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<69.47.181.248>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<69.47.181.248>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<69.47.181.248>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<69.47.181.248>|block user]] · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [13:45, 23 April 2010 69.47.181.248 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358398551]
• 2nd revert: [ 12:58, 26 April 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358398551]
• 3rd revert: [04:33, 27 April 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358575500]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Comments:

User:Annoynmous reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]
• 5th revert: [7]]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

The original above diffs seem to have been SNAFUed (for which I apologize), and the proper diffs are now reflected both immediately above and in the Stellar input below. The points still stand. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Diffs of canvassing by Annoynmous: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

Comments:

Comment by Epeefleche.

I think the talk page discussion and edit summaries capture the nature of the dispute. In short, a lot of "idontlikeit" deletion of RSs, without consensus support for doing so. As can be seen by his 8 prior blocks, he is an 8-degree black-belt-level edit warrior.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't violated the 3rr, so I don't know why epeefleche is bringing that up. Epeefleche has not only removed edits, he's removed NPOV tags from the article even though a final consensus hasn't been reached on the talk page. Another editor John Z agrees with my edits and yet epeefleche has continued to ignore that. The sources epeefleche mentions are far from respectable and in some cases there were better sources for the same passages and yet epeefleche insisted on having these biased sources in the article. annoynmous 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is John Z agreeing with my edits:

Well this is exactly what I afraid when I started to make edits. Instead of trying to reach a consensus on the talk page Epeefleche decided to arbitrally remove the majority of my edits and remove the tags and declare the debate over. Apparently several people on this page are confused on the purpose of tags. The point is that the tags are supposed to saty up until a mutual consensus is reached. Sense that hasn't happened removing the tags is unjustified. As for the supposed RS sources Epeefleche claims I removed, I ask again how are Sean Hannity and Bridigitte Gabriel considered respectable sources for quotes. This is especially ridiculous seeing is how there is already a New York Times article source for some of these same quotes in the article, so why are these books necessary. Also, once again how is a book that claims there was middle eastern connection to Oklahoma City considered reliable. I'm going to restore the tags and my edits, but if this type of behavior continues I'm going to simply just give up and only restore the tags and hope other editors will come along to improve the article. This type of behavior is exactly why I avoided editing, but I took the bait from Stellarkid that people would be reasonable. annoynmous 07:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Was about to shorten the lead again when I saw you did; the longer version has too much puffery. The first sentence should tell a reader what he does and is known for. It would be better not to overrely on Sugg/FAIR, to track down and use the sources that Sugg cites. I just did a little cleaning up and cutting. Article doesn't look too bad now to me, not sure if there was material Epeefleche wants restored. G'night!John Z (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So it is not I who has been violating consensus.annoynmous 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Annoymmous, you neglected to mention that you had canvassed John Z (which is not to say that this is not his honest personal opinion) however here are the diffs to that:

• april 26 "would appeciate if while I get some shut eye you could keep an eye on this article and make sure no one reverts my edits while I'm away from my computer. "
• If you know any like minded editors who feel like I do I would ask that you please notify them. April27
• If he reverts my edits again will you please try and restore them.
• Epeefleche is once again using intimidation tactics on me. He has reported me on the edit war noticeboard even though I haven't violated the 3rr. I mentioned your name in the reply if you could please speak on my behalf when you get a chance.

Also-

• attempt to canvass another user
• attempt to canvass the noticeboard

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to make this known, but here it is. I will strike it if it is not appropriate here. Stellarkid (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Furthermore, to supply some context: The Sugg/FAIR entry (which John Z suggested not be over-relied on) was one that Annoymmous was insisting on putting in.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's why I also added the criticism by Salon magazine. You neglect to mention that earlier in the article that John Z posted about discussion hed had on talk page about whether Fair was a legitimate source. The conclusion was that as long as it is stated as there opinion and put in the proper section, like a criticism section, than Fair was a legitimate source.

Yes I advocated for FAIR as a legitimate source in the criticism section. Whereas epeefleche thought that legitimate sources for quotes were Sean hannity and Bridgitte Gabriel. annoynmous 06:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I asked John Z to help me out because Epeefleche was leaving intimidating posts on my talk page about how I'd better leave the article alone or else I might be in violation of 3rr. I also asked him to protect my edits when I got tired and wanted to bed. John Z was involved on the talk page before I made any edits and had expressed the same concerns I did.

Same thing for Carolmooredc. He expressed the same sentiments I did months ago, that the article had essentially become an advertisement for emersons views. I merely asked him if he wanted to contribute.

As for the Israel/Palestine noticebaord, I was simply trying bring up what I felt was an important issue in regards to epeefleches edits for the last several months. I wasn't asking anyone to go an edit an article, all I wanted to was inform people on what I felt were biased edits.

Furthermore I don't see how this is relevant seeing is how this discussion is about whether or not I was edit warring. As I showed above I wasn't, and I might add if anyone has been engaged in consensus violation it's Epeefleche. In fact if you read the talk page you will see that I went out of my way not to edit at all because I was afraid of getting involved in an edit war. In fact Stellarkid was the one who suggested I go ahead and make some edits and that if they were reasonable there would be no reason to revert them. Well I made what I felt were some fairly reasonable edits and John Z agreed with me, but as I predicted epeefleche decided to revert them.

Further more I have asked epeefleche repeatedly about this source which he considers respectable:

^ "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005, ISBN 1595550143, accessed January 29, 2010". Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=UasfK4zQnecC&pg=PT43&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=52#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010.

I removed it because I would think it would be absurd to consider such a source RS.

annoynmous 21:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

1. 1st revert: By the way this is Stellarkid, not me.
2. 2nd revert: [2] Once again this isn't me, it's an editor named Welsh making some minor cleanup edits.
3. 3rd revert: [3] Again not me, this is John Z making some minor edits.
4. 4th revert: [4]John Z again, not me.
5. 5th revert:

Epeefleche it seems has rather deceptively stuctured these edits. In this first two for some reason he put's himself as the previous version when it wasn't. only one of the edits baove was actually made by me.

The first edit isn't a revert, It's stellarkid making some edits after mine. He didn't revert my edits. The second edit isn't a revert either, it's an editor named Welsh making some minor cleanup edits after I made some more edits. The other two edits are edits John Z made after I reverted epeefleche's revert of my edits. John Z agreed with my edits in that regard and all he was doing was removing the advertisement tag which he felt had been solved by my edits

I don't if it's due to error or dishonesty on epeefleches part, but I would suggest that before any admin makes a decision that thet should look at the actual page to see the true context of the edits. annoynmous 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see that it appears that you are correct about these edits. Somehow these do not seem to be the correct diffs. I just did try to check them and here is what I find along with your edit summaries. All of these were done on the 27th. I only get 4, not 5.

1. [20] "once gain restored edits that have been agreed to by 2 editors on talk page"
2. [21] "Have given several reasons why tag is approprite. Please stop removing until consensus is reached."
3. [22] "restored tags and edits. Please to not abritrally remove or revert until consensus reached)
4. [23] removed material

Stellarkid (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But that last one isn't a revert. I was simply trying to properly format Richard Clarkes picture in relation to the passage that mentioned him. I restored the section that I took out right after that. I removed and then put back things several times in an attempt to get his picture in the right position. So don't characterize that as a revert when it wasn't. annoynmous 04:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Further more how can it be a 3rr when I'm reverting myself. I reverted the removal of my edits and then I went on to make some more edits. Any way you slice it I didn't violate the 3rr. annoynmous 04:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I might add that the order of these edits is wrong. The 3rd edit is the first edit. Then the 4th. Then the 2nd and then the 1st. The 4th wasn't a revert of anything, it was some additional edits I made in an attempt to format a picture. In the trial and error process I took stuff out and then put it back in.annoynmous 04:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to address this issue of canvassing. First off neither John Z or Carelmoore DC qualify as mere random editors. John Z contributed to the talk page before I ever posted on his talk page. He agreed with my edits and I asked him to protect them from reverts when I went to bed. I also asked him to help me with intimidating posts left on my talk page by epeefleche.

I posted two messages on The Israel/palestine messageboard. The first was about the articles on Emerson and Sami Al-Arian. Carelmooredc had objected to edits epeefleche made on the Al-Arian article before and I asked him if he wanted to contribute. He agreed with me that the article was biased, but said he didn't want to get involved just yet. I then added tags to both articles.

After that I looked at some more edits epeefleche had made and in my opinion they were just as biased as the two artcles listed above. I then posted these concerns on the messageboard in the hopes that other editors would want to contribute to these articles. I never advocated any action against epeeflech personally or made any attributions about his motives. I simply wanted to start a discussion among like minded people about what I felt were biased edits. As I explained on the page, the problem sometimes is that you get left alone fighting for change on certain articles because other editors aren't aware of what's going on at certain articles. I simply wanted to alert people on a specific noticeboard dealing with certain issues with what I felt were biased edits. annoynmous 06:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Declined I don't see how a block will help matters here. There was no "canvassing". Annoynmous complained to someone, perhaps someone they trust (people do that all the time in content disputes), and it is up to him to ignore the complaint. Not going to block over that. The fourth revert is not a valid revert because it was consecutive with the third. They're both considered one revert. No block here. -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Samkamangar reported by User:Fiftytwo thirty (Result: 12 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]
• 5th revert: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Comments:

I think that the edit summaries have made it crystal clear that this user needs to stop reverting my additions here and also a few times at various articles that I have requested speedy deletions on. This user seems to be set on advertising this company, and has created many copyright violations and has made this article very spam-ish. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of twelve hours -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:209.244.42.199/User:209.244.42.199 reported by User:Jonny2x4 (Result: semi-protected)

Page: Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 209.244.42.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (anonymous user who also used the IP numbers 209.244.187.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 209.244.187.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link

Comments:

• I have tried to cooperate with this IP user and he refuses to even justify his edits. Judging from his editing history, he seems to have a history of uncooperative behavior with other users.. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Result Semi-protected for 4 days by Tariqabjotu

User:Nmate reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result: )

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

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

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

Comments:
Repeated removal of the sourced material and also ignoration of the consensus on the disussion board by the Nmate. --EllsworthSK (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthfulPerson AKA User:207.29.40.2 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: )

Page: Coffee Party USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also uses the IP 207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Previous version reverted to: Insertion of: "Can this pickle get more fans than Nickleback?"

• 1st revert: 17:50, 27 April 2010
• 2nd revert: 19:05, 27 April 2010
• 3rd revert: 21:32, 27 April 2010
• 4th revert: 13:33, 28 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning diff - this editor has numerous previous Edit Warring and Disruptive Editing warnings, on both of his talk pages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Coffee_Party_USA - His combative stance is demonstrated in almost every talk page sub-section, and other editors have actually requested that he calm down, refrain from making personal attacks, and cease using article talk pages as forums. He specifically asked me, and other editors, not to address him anymore.

Comments:
This edit confirms 207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs) and TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs) are the same editor.

UPDATE: Now this is just getting weird. A previously uninvolved editor is now edit warring to remove a warning from TruthfulPerson's talk page. Please see this and this. I'm not sure if this is a sock or meat puppet, but his actions are certainly not helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to point out wiki etiquette, but shouldn't you have advised TruthfulPerson of this conversation on his/her talk page? It could have gone a long way to inform other editors of the situation, and maybe that user could have formed a defense. I've seen you BOTH go back a forth and you [Xenophrenic] issuing 3RR warnings is quite, ironic. You can't blame me for spotting an abuse of warning templates, right? MookieG (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I issued you the general {{subst:uw-3rr}} (Template:Uw-3rr).

In this DIFF I advised you of your three reverts all today as per your request. You did three reverts of another editor's standardized warning to User talk:TruthfulPerson. If you had a problem with the warning, you should have left a message on both editor's talkpage and brought the issue here to WP:ANI. --Morenooso (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

First, this is not WP:AN/I. Second, I understand WP:3RR. What point are you trying to make? I am truly confused. MookieG (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, we are talking about Xenophrenic's use of the 3RR warning template. I was not aware that he posted a grievance here beforehand. I was going by the one revert [witnessed by me] that TruthfulPerson made to Coffee Party USA today. MookieG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mine was a typo. You did three separate reverts of a standardized warning left by another editor to the indicated talkpage. On your talkpage and even here, you don't seem to understand that each are separate actions. You claim they are a single revert of disputed content. Unfortunately, they occurred as at three separate times because you chose to make a revert and the system logged each as a revert. This indicates you don't understand 3RR because they all occurred today. --Morenooso (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE READ MY TALK PAGE. I was talking about TruthfulPerson's three edits only counting as only one revert [which is true]. All this other bullshit about me and what you think is after the fact. I do not dispute making three valid reverts of what I believed to be abuse of warning templates. What part of this are you not getting? MookieG (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to shout by using caps. Second, you don't need throw a BS flag. I am not sure what reverts you are talking about re: TruthfulPerson. If TruthfulPerson did three reverts, that is another matter. However, you did three reverts. You don't get to say, "Wait, time-out. That was one revert." And it is not to you to do those reverts anyway. If you had a problem with them, leave a message on both talkpages and take it to the appropriate noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought this section was titled User:TruthfulPerson AKA User:207.29.40.2 reported by User:Xenophrenic. Clearly I am the one that is confused. MookieG (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, TruthfulPerson and Xenophrenic are the "matter"s here. Also, I am so sick of clarifying to you. I hope you're just busting my balls. MookieG (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And you became part of the mix with your three reverts. No one is doing what you suggest. You are not showing comprehension or good faith. --Morenooso (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What are we talking about? MookieG (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that I'm not in violation of the three revert rule, right? MookieG (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. That is why you received the general warning. Again, you fail to read all and understand generalized warning templates as explained to you. And, that was explained to you on your talkpage in this DIFF. Another revert before 17:50z will put you over 3RR. And, if you understand what was said here and your talkpage, you should realize you don't do that type revert. You're driving yourself down in a spiral. Relax, take a break and get some air. --Morenooso (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you dense? It's not a personal attack as much as an honest question. I've told you over, and over again that I fully understand the 3RR, I also know how to post diffs [unlike you]. I need no warning from you. I was merely enforcing a clear [at that time] abuse of warning templates. Where you factor into this, I have no idea. MookieG (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after all actions today, I do consider it a WP:NPA. Comment on actions not users. And you deserved a 3RR advice for your actions. This will be my final on the "clarifications" are going on and on. --Morenooso (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, what are you waiting for? There is wiggle room for sensical editors when referring to the nonsensical. MookieG (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:70.127.202.77 reported by User:Splatterhouse5 (Result: No violation)

Page: Resident Evil Gaiden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.127.202.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:

I should note that User:70.127.202.77 has also edited using the name User:NewsBot01, but after being blocked for violating username policy he's just been editing without logging in.

I've tried to discuss this on the talk page, initiated dispute resolution under User:Prime_Blue's recommendation, and finally edited the page to a neutral version until consensus is reached. User:70.127.202.77 continues to insert his theory into the article and fraudulently lists "sources" that don't even mention the information they allegedly support. At this point, I don't believe he's interested in discussion (other than personal attacks), he's simply and inexplicably determined to see his theory promoted in some way in the article, no matter the cost.

You may also want to look at the history [41] of his talk page, where he removes warnings placed by other users and swears at them. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're an ass. You know that? Prime Blue made the original revision until you started to remove them. He has said NOTHING about allowing a "neutral version", hence I reverted your edits.

[42]

[43]

And using my previous account username (which was a mistake) and my reverting warnings (which is allowed if you would kindly check the rules) as a demeaning character analysis is ridiculous. You should be blocked, not me. However, If an ADMINISTRATOR says that there should be a "neutral version", than I'll stop reverting edits. And if an administrator wants to block me, that's fine.--70.127.202.77 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• No violation. Edits spread across multiple days. Please discuss issues on talkpage before persisting in reverting. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:24.69.78.165, User:24.69.86.188, User:24.69.83.19, User:24.69.231.92, reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )

Page: Deborah Kara Unger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:
24.69.78.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.69.86.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.69.83.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.69.231.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]
• 5th revert: [49]
• 6th revert: [50]
• 7th revert: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[52]
[53]
[54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:

Editor hasn't violated 3RR but has persisted in altering sourced content over a period of three months on the basis that he knows the source is wrong because he went to school with the subject. I don't think he's a vandal and could be correct because there are several birth dates out there for this actress, but all the reliable sources I can find state the later date, so obviously that's the one the article has gone with. Tried to explain to him that the date has to be sourced but he just ignores me. Betty Logan (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:The Cat and the Owl reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: )

Page: Polyphonic song of Epirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: The Cat and the Owl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

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

Comments:
Judging by the history of the article The Cat and the Owl (talk · contribs) hadn't edited the article since at least a year ago, but yesterday he was "invited" by Athenean (talk · contribs) to edit [61] and he reverted the article to Athenean's preferred version. Later he was edit-warring with TinaTrendelina (talk · contribs), who has been warned that if edit-warring is continued reports will be initiated. After breaching 3RR The Cat and the Owl asked from Athenean to revert to his version.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)