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:Vjmlhds reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: Stale)

Page: List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vjmlhds (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: diff

Comments:

• Stale The article has had a lot of intervening edits since this report. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Beersaur reported by User:Doc9871 (Result: declined; warned)

Page: Warlock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beersaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
Reverted by three different editors, Beersaur wants to list Charlie Sheen as a "Notable warlock", combining Sheen's media comments and his own original research ("...has played the character of warlock in the short film..."). He directed others to the talk page several times and issued a statement, but never responded there afterwards. Stopped reverting only after 3 warnings for vandalism, then scoffed at the 3RR warning with, "woo scary. 3RR, I might get blocked. How tough are you.... haha lolz". Certainly a 3RR violation and certainly not a regular contributor (with this account). Doc talk 06:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Edit-warring, but only prior to the warning, and no more edit-warring since then. Will leave very clear warning.  Sandstein  20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :> Doc talk 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Pensionero reported by User:Chech Explorer (Result: blocked 72 h)

Page: Pomaks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pensionero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:
The user tends to impose his nationalistic views on a number of articles on Wikipedia and has received many warnings on his talk page before and has even been blocked but continues to deny dialog and insist on his nationalistic views.

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Also warned of applicable arbitration cases.  Sandstein  20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Eliko reported by User:Basket of Puppies (Result: declined)

Page: Polyspermy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eliko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]
• 5th revert: [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

Eliko has already been blocked for WP:HARASSMENT and is continuing to edit-war against WP:CONSENSUS. I urge the reviewing admin to take into consideration his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and consider the spirit of 3RR over the letter of the law. Basket of Puppies 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Editor has already been blocked subsequent to their last edit revert. Piling on more blocks would not help. Note: the last two diffs reported are sequential (interrupted only by a self-revert) and count as one revert.  Sandstein  21:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Reply He is continuing to edit-war against consensus and even after being blocked. The issue is on-going and blocking would prevent further disruption. Basket of Puppies 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see that in the contributions. Can you provide a diff of edit-warring after the block?  Sandstein  21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strike my last. He made that revert previous to being blocked. He has still violated 3RR (either in spirit or in actuality) and editing against CONSENSUS, but he has not reverted post-block. Basket of Puppies 21:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Eliko's comments:

I didn't make even one revert - during the 24 hours (of 16-17 March) to which User:Basket of Puppies refers! Let me explain that:

1. The first diff belongs to 15 March, whereas the fourth and fifth diffs belong to 17 March, so where is the 24 hours needed for having violated the 3RR?
2. The second diff does not show a revert at all, because it does not revert to a previous version! On the contrary: In this new version of mine, I just improved the article according to User:Basket of Puppies' comments, as indicated on the edit summary ibid.
3. The third "revert" was self-reverted by myself, so it shouldn't be considered a "revert" - according to Wikipedia guidelines.
4. The fourth and fifth diffs - are the same diff - and show the same edit ! From 17 March at 01:17 ! Further, the edit shown by those identical diffs - does not show a revert at all, because it does not revert to a previous version! On the contrary: In this new version of mine, I just improved the article according to User:Basket of Puppies' comments, as indicated on the edit summary ibid.

• As for User:Basket of Puppies' claim that I edit "against consensus": Not at all! I've already explained on my talk page that:

Returning the chapter they had removed - is not against the consensus at all. The chapter is supported by User:(MOB)DeadMeat, and is also supported by User:Chrishatch1973, and is also supported by User:Eliko; whereas the removal of the chapter is supported by User:Basket of Puppies and is also supported by User:DragonflySixtyseven only. So which option is more consensual? Returning the chapter, or removing it?

• Further, I'm the only user who has really been discussing the issue on the article talk page! Further, I'm the only user who has been trying to "make the article better" (as Admin:Pete has suggested), not by reverting anything to a previous version - but rather by improving (again and again) the chapter that was wrongfully removed by others. Administrator:Pete agreed with me on my talk page (17 March, at 18:22).

• Further, Basket of Puppies' request has already been declined by Sandstein (see above).

Eliko (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:71.203.85.14 reported by User:Tom Morris (Result: 72h)

Page: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.203.85.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

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

• Already blocked ~Amatulić (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments: The revert warring is obvious if you look at the article history. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:ComtesseDeMingrélie reported by User:Maunus (Result: No violation)

Page: Mingrelians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

User:ComtesseDeMingrelie is just coming out of a 31 block for editwarring and is at it again... ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• This is not a 3rr report but an editwarring report. This user came straight out of a 31 hour block for reverting five and four times on two different articles and continued reversion. I think there is every basis for action here - it shows that he has not taken the editwarring policy to heart during his previous block. I think you should reconsider here.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• You did not provide sufficient sources and that is why I reverted it. Linking to a website did not help us identify concrete evidence in any way. In this regard, you were edit warring as much as I. Providing these links while excluding what I wrote on talk pages is unfair and you know that.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Arguni reverted twice and I reverted twice. You reverted three times removing sourced content in the face of two disagreeing editors. That is editwarring. I personally don't care one little bit about who is or isn't a mingrelian, but I do care about the way in which you try to enforce your personal viewpoint through editwarring. That is not acceptable and if you do not realise that you have to discuss instead of revert you will end up being blocked for a lot longer than 31 hrs.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible that your and Arguni's initial edits do not need to be discussed before being made but my reverts do? Throwing something in and then hoping that discussions are going to drag on does not help. When he saw that his edits were disputed (and being reverted is a clear sign of that), instead of reverting it back he was supposed to be the one opening the discussion as he was the one who initiated the change.You are playing with double standards and just because you are an administrator do not think that I am going to swallow this bias or any of your threats.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result:1 week)

Page: Mexican-American War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [36] (final revert of en dashes that had been restored after an earlier edit)
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion at Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move

Comments:

Pmanderson is on a crusade against the en dash. Regardless of what one feels about it, it should be discussed at the MOS page.

The edit summaries and comments on the talk page indicate he is editing in bad faith. For example, "Revert Original Research. This is not English - and the Manual of Style does not support it." All three points are false, and Pmanderson is obviously intelligent enough to understand that: The en dash is supported by RSs, as Pmanderson has admitted; it obviously is English; and it obviously is supported by the MOS (despite the fact that Pmanderson has misrepresented the MOS on this point), as the reason for the recent page move was that WP:TITLE takes precedence over WP:MOS. There was no conclusion that the MOS should be suspended for this article because of the move. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. You are arguing over whether this should read "Mexican-American War" or "Mexican—American War"? Where is Jonathan Swift when you need him most... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not. ;-> Actually, Kwami is arguing. There was a closed Move Request on the matter, and Kwami wishes to reverse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My first edit is not a revert; it is an effort to secure one spelling of "Mexican-American War" in the article; a novel state of the text. That spelling is the one established by the recently closed Move Request, at Talk:Mexican-American War#Requested move which Kwami would like to overturn.

Kwami's edits are all like this one, they are exact reversions; they break the consistency of spelling, contrary to MOS:CONSISTENCY; they reintroduce from 1846—48, a construction explicitly against WP:ENDASH.

In short, Kwami, having pressed 3RR to its elastic limit, is now coming here to settle a style dispute. In the process, he has neared vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The first edit was a revert. The only legitimate point Pmanderson makes is that I reverted corrections to the article. He was so quick to re-revert that there was an edit conflict when I tried to restore them. (Funny how he complains that violates ENDASH when he has edit warred to violate ENDASH.) — kwami (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? What edit am I reverting to?

As for the rest of this: it is a confession that when I restored his reversion, and began a discussion, he did not follow BRD; but reverted twice more immediately. (For anybody who is interested in ENDASH, see the linked move discussion; WP:DASH does not support a dash here - outside Kwami's imagination; WP:HYPHEN 3 indicates a hyphen. I am therefore - as the move shows - defending WP:DASH against a small group of wilfull editors, who would like to make it say something it does not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the only point of interest here is that I do not intend to revert again. If Kwami performs a fourth revert, or tag-teams to do so, I will consider whether I wish to come back here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I make a modest proposal? Since there seems little possibility of reaching a compromise here, Wikipedia should instead have two articles: one on the Mexican-American War and another on the Mexican—American War. Let the readers decide for themselves which article they prefer... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• The first edit is indeed a (partial) revert to this, in which Enric Naval changed to hyphens (later, these were reverted to en-dashes by Tony1). Regardless of whether that one is or is not a revert, this is; it reverts this. Though it falls outside the 24-hour limit for 3RR, with Pmanderson's history of edit warring blocks, he should really know better than to even approach it. It is on these grounds that I'm blocking Pmanderson for 1 week. If he had no history, I'd take his statement that he intends not to revert again as enough, but with all the edit warring blocks already, I'm not willing to accept his statement.
• @kwami: I can't really see how your use of rollback in this dispute was justified, so unless I've missed something, please don't in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. You didn't miss anything. I get annoyed by editors who play stupid in disputes, but I should follow the proper procedure regardless. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: First, I'd like to invite AndyTheGrump to join me in holding a seance to retrieve Jonathan Swift from whatever mild (if justice exists) climes he may be enjoying these days. Second, isn't a one-week block a little disproportionate to the offense? Heimstern Läufer points out that the 3RR case here is far from straightforward (one is partial, there are intervening parties, one is outside the 24-hour period), and the content issue is a few punctuation marks, not funny things John Seigenthaler does with gerbils on the steps of the faux Parthenon. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Bad decision, Heimstern. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, I would agree if not for Pmanderson's long history of blocks for edit warring. That is the justification for length of this block.

Seb az, bothering to explain why would be appreciated. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that both were warring and kwami is pretty much gaming the system by being able to count to 3. At your discretion, you should block both or none. If nothing else, WP:BOOMERANG should be given some sorta consideration, esp. when you look at the corresponding talk page. Have you read it? Anderson's revert was 3 hours ago, so your assumption that s/he won't stick to the promise sounds more like jailing the usual suspects. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I considered blocking both. kwami's lack of a history of blocks for edit warring plays into my decision not to, as does the fact that Pmanderson is fighting a himself vs. everyone else edit war here: others have also reverted to the en-dash version, only Pmanderson has reverted to the hyphen version. And again, it's really the history that matters here. Arbcom has again and again affirmed recidivism as a principle for sanctioning editors. Yes, I read the talk, and I saw nothing there that convinced me any different. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert, but only because I was waiting for the second RM to close. It was Tony1 who first reverted[41], against the closing of the first RM. Kwami restored Tony1's removal of hyphens when his RM was still ongoing, which I find to be incorrect. (But, anyways, everyone should have waited until the RM(s) closed). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami and Pmanderson have a history of butting heads. Both are knowledgable, but come from different perspectives (generally, linguistics vs. philology). There are inequities of power because kwami is an admin. Anyone who's worked professionally in publishing knows that it's impossible to arrive at a one-size-fits-all stylebook; The New Yorker MOS is quite different from that of The New York Times, and internal challenges to even the best thought-out stylebook will always arise. WP used to deal with this by permitting variants to coexist, as long as they could be justified by a legitimate school of usage. Top-down rules with rigid enforcement are contrary to WP's original spirit, and it must be difficult for long-time editors to adjust to this. The 3RR is shaky, the content issue is trivial, and therefore a block of one week is excessive. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about 3RR being shaky, and, believing the block was about that, initially opposed it (see PMA's talk page). But now I understand that the block is ultimately about PMA engaging in yet another edit war. Until he learns to avoid edit warring when he's in a conflict, I don't see any remedy besides blocking. Do you? And as I said on his talk page, since one-week blocks have proven to be insufficient in the past, I doubt one week will be long enough this time. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Faraon24 reported by User:Patrick Rogel (Result: decline)

Page: Adam Skorek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Faraon24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]

Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Declined No edits since actually being informed of WP:3RR; simply linking the policy in an edit summary might be considered sufficient since Faraon24 was clearly expecting their own edit summaries to be read, but a relatively green user should not be expected to realize the importance of those three little characters.

Patrick Rogel: you started the talkpage discussion, but you might have done more to encourage the debate to move there. It takes two to edit war.

Faraon24: you made calls for discussion in your edit summaries, but appear not to have posted to Talk:Adam Skorek recently. When it was clear that your edit summaries were not sufficient to make your point, it would have been better to expand upon your reasoning at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gold Hat reported by User:Chzz (Result: SNAFU)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page: User talk:My76Strat (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gold Hat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

Diff of related warning: [53]

Comments:

User_talk:Amalthea#Jack_Merridew

 Chzz  ►  12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have all been sorted out; Block 2497342 targeting Gold Hat blocked by Elen of the Roads for 2011-03-19T01:04:12Z starting at 2011-03-18T13:04:12Z because Violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]: At [[User_talk:My76Strat]] and in a completely [[WP:LAME]] argument Flags: NOCREATE AUTOBLOCK ALLOWUSERTALK

So, IDK. Have a cup of tea, or something. All good.  Chzz  ►  13:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For reference, User talk:Elen of the Roads#Jack Merridew/Gold Hat. Closing this. Amalthea 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Timbouctou reported by 78.1.99.215 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (Result: protected)

Page: Poglavnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Timbouctou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Timbouctou is constantly reverting the Poglavnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) removing sourced statements and inserting WP:OR , weasel words and other unsourced nonsense etc.

• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56]

• Page protected - 2/0 (cont.) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GiovBag reported by User:IANVS (Result: protected)

Page: Argentines of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: GiovBag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Many reverts since yestarday (see), against more than 3 other editors: Last major reverts:

• [57]
• [58]
• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]

He made more than 3 reverts after beign warned:

• [63]

User holds his "rights" to mass contested changes on a discussion at talk page, in which he gained no consensus: Talk:Argentines_of_European_descent#Neutrality

He's been remainded of 3RR ta talk page, also: [64]

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected

GiovBag, if other editors find your explanations unconvincing, please seek additional input as outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Repeatedly insisting that your preferred version of the article is the only correct one is not acceptable. If Wikipedia were run on a punitive rather than preventative model, you would be blocked for edit warring. Remember: there is no deadline for completion, so the article can afford to wait while consensus develops.

IANVS, the article history indicates that this report was ripe several hours ago at least. Part of due diligence in closing these reports is to determine whether there is a version of the article that has consensus and to examine the edits of all parties. Please do not refer to the good faith contributions of your fellow volunteers as vandalism. Reverting vandalism is an exception to WP:3RR, but your edits here do not qualify. If Wikipedia were run on a punitive rather than preventative model, you would be blocked for edit warring. Please also remember to notify the other user when you make a report such as this one. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:passionless reported by User:mbz1 (Result: Warned)

Page: Stoning murder of Israeli teens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: passionless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [65]
• 2nd revert: [66]
• 3rd revert: [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments:

user:passionless just returned from indefinite block and right away started edit warring on the article that is under 1RR as all articles related to I/P conflict. More than that user:Passionless is limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 September 2011. Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 does not seem to understand that my three edits made within 10 minutes without a major edit by anyone inbetween them is considered a single edit. Passionless -Talk 03:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:REVERT, and did not find anything about 10 minutes. Besides it was more like 17 minutes difference, and you yourself edited other pages in between your reverts. So I do believe you made 3 reverts and did violate your own and the article editing restriction. You made your last the third revert after I asked you to stop --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I responded to your message on my talk page in the middle of my edits!...and the last edit took longer than norm cause of a major edit conflict- I too was going to fix grammar. Passionless -Talk 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody forced you to make this third revert 17 minutes after you made the first one, and after I warned you, and you responded. There were quite a few edits made to the article between your reverts. Besides in at least two of your reverts you reverted info supported by a few wp:rs. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[socky post snipped]

The above user has one edit and it is to this page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The above user is a sock of a banned user, who has not a slightest idea what it is talking about, and now it is blocked. I reverted it.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've warned User:Passionless. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Warned by Gwen Gale. I would have blocked if I had seen this first, so let that fact reinforce Gwen's warning. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Daizus (Result: )

Page: Bogdan I of Moldavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

This article has an over-sized footnote on the theories of some Hungarian authors. I found that presented with undue-weight. Borsoka keeps removing the "undue weight" inline tag, without addressing the objections. Daizus (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE from uninvolved editor: The first edit shown above was made on 1st March.
On 18th March Borsoka made an edit (the article hadn't been edited for more than two weeks (!) before this one) and three reverts.
Daizus similarly reverted three times, but he forgot to report himself.
Besides, Borsoka DID engage in a lengthy discussion on the talk page, Daizus simply didn't accept her answer. That's what he calls "without addressing the objections". Squash Racket (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)