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:SISPCM reported by Nmate (talk) (Result: )

Page: John Hunyadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1][2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

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

1. 12:21, 17 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424218857 by Hobartimus (talk)")
2. 19:17, 17 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424563560 by Hobartimus (talk)")
3. 13:33, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424676474 by Nmate (talk)")
4. 15:08, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424696708 by Nmate (talk)")

Comments:
Yesterday, I found myself in an edit war with the user I am reporting here. And albeit ,technically, there was no violation of 3RR going on there, the user has been consecutively made as many as 4 reverts, remainig out of 24 hour timeframe, which is officially imposed by the 3RR rule without having started any discussion on the talk page of the John Hunyadi article, while I expressed my intention on the talk page of this user that I want to discuss edits instead of edit warring. But of course I can't do that on my own. Also, It is important to note that user:Hobartimus ,who too made some reverts there, is also willing to discuss edits as his active presence on the talk page of this article speaks for itself --Nmate (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The above user is lying. He never attempted to settle the issue in a civic manner, he simply reverted to the un-encyclopedic and contentious edit made by an anon. IP. User Hobartismus is part of a group of three Hungarian editors (together with user:Fakirbakir and User:Hobartimus) imposing their POV using mutual support, hectoring Romanian, Slovak, Serbian and other users with debased tactics like unjustified accusations in edit summaries, threatening and harassment. SISPCM (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the above user, SISPCM is acting as a proxy for the banned user:Iaaasi, editing on his behalf. He might be a straight up sock of the banned user, or might be a simple meatpuppet. The above comment is even written in the usual style of Iaaasi who has a severe case of hatred against Hungarians. Please note this recent communication with the banned user which indicates further off-wiki communication. [4]. Hobartimus (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A few recent edits of the banned user:Iaaasi are as follows [5] [6], please compare against the edits in the report. More information on the banned editor Iaaasi here[7] Hobartimus (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

SISPCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also removing sourced contents in Aryan wiki page. It is not the first time. He has already been banned for this a few months ago.Rajkris (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: )

Page: Fractional-reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrewedwardjudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

previous revert: 21:39, 18 April 2011

• 1st revert: 22:11, 18 April 2011
• 2nd revert: 14:33, 19 April 2011
• 3rd revert: 21:57, 19 April 2011
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:

Unfortunately, after 2 recent blocks for exceeding 3RR, this editor still doesn't seem to understand that edit warring is not an acceptable approach. Only 3 reverts are listed here in the past 24 hours, but I think the pattern of this editor relying on reverting his new material into the article and deleting long-standing material while caring little for achieving talk page consensus is pretty clear. He has even taken to niggling over the archive settings on the talk page: [11]. This editor's approach is getting fairly out-of-hand. BigK HeX (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Adotrde reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: )

Page: Robb Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 09:06, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Speaking and networking */ restoring info with citation")
2. 10:20, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424832589 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) What? Read about Streaming Faith -- most definitely relaible and notable")
3. 10:37, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424835602 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) "Revert-wars do not help build consensus" Before reverting, please post on the talk page...sthg I have been doing.")
4. 14:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "added two new refs from City News Singapore (one refs him as speaking to business group, one includes info on talking to govs) / added one new ref from The Christian Post")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12], [13]

Comments:

• These edits amount to an on-going effort to peddle the notion that Thompson is an advisor to business and government leaders. I have added {{fv}} to the source originally provided for this claim and have made a case that alternatives provided do not satisfy WP:RS. The fourth removal of {{fv}} subsequent to a 3RR notice today puts this editor into >3RR territory, and a block is warranted to reinforce the message that the talk page -- not repeated edits -- should be used to form consensus for this sort of change.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I changed the sources; I didn't believe I was reverting. Just because one editor disagrees with me on whether a source is reliable or not (one of which is KTBN-TV and the other Streaming Faith (the world's largest online faith based broadcasting portal)). OK, the editor disagreed on both of those sources, so to save ourselves from ongoing back and forth, I researched and found new sources and instead of "no citation given" which Nomoskedasticity added, I replaced them with the new citations. I've been referencing everything I was doing on the talk page. I really don't see what I did wrong? If I was simply reverting him, I understand, but I wasn't. I only undid him once (without editing the article) because I felt my sources were genuine and he didn't discuss it on the talk page (I asked him to discuss it on the talk page in my edit summary when reverting). Adotrde (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:LevenBoy reported by Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs (Result: )

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

---

Page: Peter Edwards (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 16:54, 12 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423690701 by HighKing (talk)POV removal of disputed term")
2. 18:24, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423854197 by HighKing (talk)")
3. 16:18, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424599137 by Eliaspalmer (talk)Revert obvious sock")
4. 16:11, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424731315 by HighKing (talk)nope, definitely a sock, and a POV pushing one at that")
5. 16:30, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424877474 by Snowded (talk)Revert. I thought you'd given up on this, but clearly you like the disruption")

• Diff of warning: here

---

Page: Neil Robertson (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Time reported: 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 20:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424911661 by SmackBot (talk)")
2. 20:41, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424910621 by Domer48 (talk)See Talk")
3. 20:51, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424913340 by Armbrust (talk)It doesn't match the surce - do I need to spell it out in words of one syllable? see Talk (and UK & I is not better)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: LemonMonday another SPA account who edits in tandem with LevenBoy is now up to six reverts on the same article, three within in the last 24 hours together with some failures of WP:AGF on the talk page. The behaviour of these two really needs some admin attention--Snowded ^TALK 06:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: User:Snowded also appears to be a battling warrior on this matter, having several reverts under his belt on this article but carefully avoiding 4 reverts in 24 hours. LemonMonday Talk 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't it weird what a small wiki-world it is? No offense about the autopatrolled mess, Armbrust, seriously :> LevenBoy has only one goal: to insert the term British Isles in as many articles as possible. I'm quite familiar with this editor, and this is a SPA account if there ever was one. I suspect there are others involved, and this goes back a long way. Even if there isn't a technical 3RR violation (I see only 3 reverts vs. the usual 4 required to file a report), LevenBoy is acting disruptively as usual. Doc talk 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptively eh! I suggest you check the facts here - carefully, like none of the anti British Isles POV pushers have done. I mean it! Check the edit history of that article, check the text in the article and how it matches the reference that I'm proposing, and check how the other reference being offfered does not match the text of the article, but do it carefully, it's a bit unclear in parts. However, you will see I'm tyotally correct in my assertions and the other editors are simply desparate to do anything not to include the term "British Isles". LevenBoy (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot rightly call other editors "POV pushers" when you engage in the exact same behavior. There are two sides to this coin and you know it. Why can you simply not move beyond this narrowest of topics and edit constructively? I have always wondered that... Doc talk 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant, but did you study the detail of this case, including the article Talk page? If so, what is your conclusion, because I'm getting to the point of thinking that some of the contributiors at that page are being less than sincere. LevenBoy (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Serial edit warrior and SPA account, works in tandem with another SPA LemonMonday (see edit history of the pages referenced above. Issues appear minor but consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour, rarely engages with content. Aggressive comments and accusations against other editors are also par for the course. --Snowded ^TALK 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please address the issue of the discussion rather than proffering your opinions as per the above. I would also welocme your view on the facts of this matter as described at the Talk page, where, I'm sure you know I'm right. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's about the "bigger picture" LevenBoy. You are an edit-warrior, you are a SPA, and any specifics of any case with you inevitably boil down to your reverting other editors on the British Isles issue. No matter how much time you take off. I am shocked you have lasted as long as you have. Seriously. Doc talk 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on! You're just miffed because you were blown out on that stupid sock report you filed where you thought me and TritonRocker were the same person. LevenBoy (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really: we all make mistakes. But you continue to make the same ones time and again. You cannot get beyond edit-warring to make your point, and it's disruptive. Doc talk 22:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And your comments on the facts of the matter - the real matter that is, concerning the bastardisation of a source text? LevenBoy (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The issue here is a behavioral one. In general you edit war rather than use the talk page. It was behavioral evidence that resulted in the sock report on Triton Rocker and also on Lemon Monday. OK it was shown that you were not using the same IP address but there was more than enough justification for the report. While the immediate issue is 3rr, there is a strong argument for a topic ban--Snowded ^TALK 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well actually no, it's 2RR if you look at the facts (yes, try it some time). Two of the "reverts" were actaully a single one due to the intended revert having been superseded by a bot. LevenBoy (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's called "gaming the system". I think your disruption far exceeds your constructive content, and your guerrilla warfare tactics are tiresome and predictable. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Doc talk 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Gaming the system includes things like PRODing articles simply because they contain the words "British Isles". One could, perhaps, level the same accusation against you - you're more concerned with admin stuff like this. Anyway, what about the discussion in hand. What is your view on the assertiong being made at the talk page? LevenBoy (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with this thread. Hopefully the closing admin will see this for what it is and make the correct decision. This has gone on for far too long. Doc talk 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that an SPI be done on the LevenBoy & LemonMonday accounts as possible socks of User:MidnightBlueMan. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you crawl back under your slimey little stone. Every time there's any issue such as this up you pop with your stupid suggestions about SPI or whatever other idiotic thing comes into your mind. Why not try addressing the matter in hand for a change? Try commenting on my assertions at the Talk page in question, since no-one else has bothered to do so yet, merely being content, like you, to bang on about SPIs, SPAs and other such irrelevances. LevenBoy (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this lame fight over inclusion/exclusion of British Isles across Wikipedia, should be ended with blocks to accounts that begin adding or deleting BI in articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I agree. There are few, if any, editors trying to add it, but a veritable army, well a platoon at least, of them trying to get rid of it. And sorry about the slimey stone stuff, but you can be most annoying at times. LevenBoy (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I'v suggseted a compromise to the above issue at User talk:Ged UK#No personal attacks ? Maybe we wait to see what he thinks. If the compromise is accepted we can all move on unscathed. LemonMonday Talk 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:201.241.42.51 reported by RA0808 (talk) (Result: )

Page: Scott Adams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 201.241.42.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 02:44, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "vandalism removed")
2. 11:53, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Unfounded.")
3. 19:45, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:SOAP")
4. 20:01, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:SOAPBOX WP:NOT#NEWS")
5. 21:32, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:SOAPBOX")
6. 21:43, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:SOAPBOX")
7. 21:53, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424923570 by AlexReynolds WP:NOT#NEWS WP:SOAPBOX")
8. 21:58, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
9. 22:02, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
10. 22:05, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
11. 22:08, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
12. 22:11, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
13. 22:21, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
14. 22:24, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
15. 22:36, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
16. 22:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")
17. 22:44, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL")

—RA0808 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Salvio giuliano.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:DeadSend4 reported by [[User:Tenebrae (Result: )

Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:DeadSend4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: starting here (05:17, 16 April 2011) with six straight reverts of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, ending here (08:55, 16 April 2011)
• 2nd revert: here (20:00, 16 April 2011) reverting User:Nymf
• 3rd revert: starting here (21:15, 16 April 2011) with two straight reverts of User:Crohnie, ending here (21:24, 16 April 2011)
• 4th revert: starting here (23:02, 16 April 2011) with five straight reverts of User:Nymf through here (21:49, 17 April 2011)

This editor also is the subject of a Wikiequette Alert signed onto by multiple editors here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Note: I would have, but this editor has threatened me with harassment if I add anything more to his talk page. ("if you post on my page I'm only gonna come back and make you whine again.") See his abusive posts headed "Your continous attempts at blocking my edits for no reason other than having no life? Or your personal distaste for Kidman?"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I and other editors all have tried. Please see the four posts beginning with "Edit summaries" on the editor's talk page.

Comments: This editor has moments ago made a second 3RR vio, on April 19. He exhibits abusive, uncivil behavior including partially all-caps rants, and insults and demeans other editors. Several editors are concerned about this, as evidenced by his running roughshod all over the page for days, making largely the same edits as the blocked sock User:Jane his wife. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:DeadSend4 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )

Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DeadSend4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: last of 8 straight revisions (02:17, 19 April 2011) to [[User:Tenebrae]
• 2nd revert: revised (19:06, 19 April 2011) User:Crohnie
• 3rd revert: last of 25 straight revisions (21:45, 19 April 2011) to [[User:Tenebrae]
• 4th revert: revised (00:07, 20 April 2011) [[User:Tenebrae]

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

See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above

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

See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
User:DeadSend4, aside from being uncivil, indeed borderline abusive, at his latest talk-page comments here, is apparently attempting to evade his block (See Nicole Kidman history here) through anon IP 24.92.19.152, which, despite this being its one-and-only edit, makes the same wholesale reversion that DeadSend4 has been making.

Another of the multiple editors he is warring with, User:Crohnie, also noted this at the above talk-page post. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:68.99.91.135 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

Page: Nanuet, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.99.91.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See contribs. TwoThree (third added since posting this) edits today, but this same edit pattern goes back to November and has been reverted by a number of independent editors.

The IP editor persistently adds the same para of text to the same article. It's not an unreasonable edit at first sight, but it makes three claims that should be, but aren't, referenced. As it has been regularly reverted by others, it needs a reference before it can be added, per standard policy.

I came to this editor's contribs through POV statements (similarly repetitive) on an unrelated article. As it's an IP, then it may not be the same editor.

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

There has been no communication from this editor, by either edit summary, response to warning templates, or through talk pages.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Sam Degelia reported by User:Nkgal (Result: )

Page: Charles Harrelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sam Degelia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: 19:34, 16 April 2011
• 2nd revert: 17:51, 19 April 2011
• 3rd revert: 14:02, 20 April 2011
• 4th revert: 15:39, 20 April 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:28, 20 April 2011

Comments:

This user has had a periodic edit war on this article since February 2009, and was blocked for it in April 2009, but returned in 2010 and again this month. User:Kww, an admin, semi-protected the page since the user was switching between their login and their IP address, though they've continued to edit the talk page using their IP address. The user has been trying to refocus a section on a tertiary character by citing a file they uploaded to the Commons. I've been trying to remove that citation, explaining Wikipedia can't be used to cite itself. The file they uploaded has been already deleted twice for copyright violations. The user has had no edits on other articles, or even in other sections of this one article. Given their username, there's also a strong possibility that they have a conflict of interest. Looking for a little help!--Nkgal (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tgandz reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: User indef blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [16]

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

Comments:

Palestinian people, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction.

Please read this editor's edit summaries to get a sense of where her/his head is. Consideration should be given to a long-term, possible indef, block. Frankly, I would have done it myself were I not involved. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that User:Tgandz was indef-blocked while I typed this notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dimestore reported by User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [20]

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]
• 5th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments: Editor has been warned about edit warring, but has continued. No attempt has been made to reach a consensus. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment Editor claims not to have read the 3RR warning before making final revert. Inexperienced editor, so is probably unaware of WP policies. A block may not be necessary, a note from an admin may be sufficient. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE: This was my reply to Catfish Jim's message to me regarding the edit war:

'"Hi,

thanks for your e-mail. I just saw it. I changed the sentence again but if it is reverted, I'll avoid the edit war. I already put the explanation in the talk page, otherwise I'll just appeal to place a POV tag on the article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimestore (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)"'

If the understanding was that I changed it AFTER reading the message, then it is wrong. I had changed it PRIOR to reading his message, which is why I had wrote "I just saw it," meaning I had just seen the warning AFTER I made the final edit to correct the POV sentence that is threatening the neutrality of the Kent Hovind article. A warning is not necessary. A consensus has not been reached because nobody has made any replies to my explanations in the talk page. I am willing to reach consensus. Those, however, who wish to push a POV statement and present it as fact are not. I have presented my case to both WP:RSN and WP:NPOV to dispute the contentious sentence.Dimestore (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Interferometrist reported by User:86.183.175.94

Interferometometrist keeps reverting the article Vacuum Tube to incude an invalid definitionn of a term.

Last reversion here: here

I have requested a citation that the term is as he claims here

His reaction is to simply delete the tag here

I am perfectly entitled to challenge material added where it is incorrect. I am also perfectly entitled to remove unsourced material. Interferometrist has sought to effectively prevent my challenging his inaccurate information by getting the article protected so that I can't challenge him. This seems to be an abuse of the protection of articles. It isn't there to prevent invalid information being challenged. 86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And the citation neded tag has once more been deleted here claiming that no citation is needed. This goes against WP:VERIFY

86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article's talk page that Interferometrist has been referring to. Instead of trying to get Interferometrist sanctioned for edit warring (which you're also guilty of if they are), you should keep on discussing it on the article's talk page. Also, Interferometrist, by what I see, did not protect the page or request its protection. It was done by another editor. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the user/pagelinks for convenience, by the way.

• 86.183.175.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Interferometrist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vacuum tube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Zakhalesh (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. But I was just about to request the page protection (actually I should have done so a while back when we had another edit war over terminology) when someone with less patience for this crap went ahead and did the obvious thing. As far as no {CN} being needed, I invited reactions on the talk page. Anyone can thus reinstate it (but if it's done by DieSwartzPunkt I will revert that too, as he well knows). Interferometrist (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

== User:68.194.239.60 reported by User:XLR8TION

Anonymous user (IP address of 68.194.239.60) is causing problems on several articles including Puerto Rican people, Dominican immigration to Puerto Rico‎, and Puerto Ricans in the United States‎. User is apparent sockpuppet of banned editor User:Afrodr. Others editors such as User:SamEV have reverted edits and and have pointed the fact that user is posting unbased claims with no concrete evidence. I require some help here on what to do as I have reverted an article three times, but do not want to cross the 3RR rule. Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)