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:Nemonoman reported by User:ConcernedVancouverite (Result: 1 week)

Page: Don E. Stevens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nemonoman (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: I stepped away from editing any articles related to the edit in question, because the articles related to this topic are being defended by a group of very passionate editors that do not appear to be engaging in discussion and calling my well cited additions vandalism. But this editor continues to edit war with other editors on the page, and has now passed the 3RR mark after being told by an admin that they were at the 3 mark already.

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mann jess reported by 81.107.150.246 (Result: No action)

Hello. I am an internationally recognized scholar in the field of comparative religion who has been invited to speak by the United Nations and the International Association for the Study of the History of Religions. I have made many edits to this encyclopedia to the best of my ability particularly in the sphere of interfaith understanding. Unfortunately much of my recent work is being destroyed by someone who seems to be a militant 'atheist activist'. This is User:Mann jess. Some of the articles in question include Theism, Privatio Boni, Idolatry and others in the sphere of Buddhism (an area where my work has been highly praised by leading scholars in the field). The User is making it very difficult for proper good faith edits to remain because he is automatically reverting any work that is done to improve various articles. I would beg someone to look at the recent history of the Theism article and its discussion page there where a consensus has been reached that the current article does not accord with the accepted scholarly definition of theism. This is the definition you will find in the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religion, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and other recognized reliable authorities. Unfortunately, User:Mann jess is reverting all good faith edits for what reason I have no idea. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For reference, here are all of the diffs of changes made by 81.107.150.246 (talk) that have been reverted by User:Mann jess:

Peter Power (crisis management specialist)

• change 1

Privatio Boni

• change 1

Buddha-nature

• change 1
• change 2 - "restored recent edits. User: Mann jess has been vandalising other articles in the religious studies wiki projects."

Idolatry

• change 1

Theism

• change 1, part 1 - "added templates for improvement"
• change 1, part 2
• change 2
• change 3

Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

81.107.150.246, from what I can tell, Mann jess hasn't violated any Wikipedia policies, such as 3RR in reverting your edits. Also, Man jess has provided rationales in the form of edit summaries for the reversions. It appears that Man jess is attempting to engage you in communication on the article talk pages, as the foundation of contentent on Wikipedia is a consensus among editors. Please remember that even experts do not own the subjects in which they are experts. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the rationales do not accord with universally accepted standards of international scholarship and academic consensus. If you have an article whose main body does not contain one iota of information that could be found in any common definiton of any reputable encyclopedia and completely deviates from the topic then you have an article that is in serious need of revision. Hence the templates. The need for revision of this article had already been announced by another user on the discussion page back in April who actually posted information from scholarly sources to show that what he was saying was true. I am simply following up what this editor had tried to draw people's attention to. As it stands this article does not accord with the universally accepted definition that can be found in any reputable source. If you do not want wikipedia to be a reputable source for scholars then so be it but I myself try to do my best to make wikipedia authoritative. I am interested in improving human knowledge. It is to be greatly regretted that you are turning away people who have something of value to offer. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For starters, the "other user" that you refer to appears to be you based on the IP addresses used and the editing habits. Secondly, as it says right at the top of this page, "do not continue a dispute on this page", which is exactly what you are trying to do; this is not content dispute resolution. Thirdly, please read the definition of edit warring at the top of this page and try to understand that what you have reported here is a content dispute, not an edit war. Finally, please go read WP:OWN as it's quite clear that you do not understand it based on the above diatribe. It says: "No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: declined)

Page: Neo-Victorian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Corset (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already discussed at:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22Publisher.22_on_a_Weebly_site
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#.22Unconstructive.3F.22

User is performing a bulk removal of all links (across many articles) that reference Weebly, justified on the basis of WP:ELNO re: blogs. User contribs history is the simplest way to see this.

However in this case, the link isn't a blog, it's a publisher's site to a book (the "blog problem" just isn't credible here). The book in question is listed under Further reading from some articles related to neo-Victoriana and corsetry. I've reverted this deletion, seeing it as the collateral damage that arises when such simplistic edits are applied wholesale. The editor has now deleted the same link three times tonight from these two articles, despite there being on-going live discussion relating to it.

Since this, several post facto reasons have been given for the deletion (the original deletion was very obviously for a URL that matched Weebly, no more than this). When raised at RS/N, there was little support for any of these reasons.

The suggestion of spam has been raised. Whilst the book was originally cited on four articles, I would myself see it as tenuous and somewhat excessive to have it on two of these - enough to remove it, but not even enough to issue a spam warning (and I remove a lot of spam). It is highly relevant to Neo-Victorian though, and also relevant to Corset.

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

3rr refers to reverting more than 3 times. I've have removed the link three times from Neo-Victorian, reverting twice; and in a separate article, I have only removed the link from twice, reverting once. That's two reverts at the most in the same page (3rr is applied to one page), and three total (even if 3rr was pan-article). The discussion at RS/N has just found additional reasons, not replacement reasons to remove the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, you've reverted just as much as I have, so if I'm guilty of violating 3rr, so are you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Declined for now. Feel free to update or re-report if edit warring on either side of the issue continues. --slakr^\ talk / 03:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:FreemanSA reported by User:Objectively (Result: indefblocked as a sock)

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

Previous version reverted to: 16:48, 10 August 2011

• 1st revert: 18:51, 10 August 2011 (Undid revision 444090704 by Kudzu1 (talk))
• 2nd revert: 02:09, 11 August 2011
• 3rd revert: 16:32, 11 August 2011 (Stop giving too much credibility ro rumors proved wrong)
• 4th revert: 19:22, 11 August 2011 (Undid revision 444295661 by Objectively (talk))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:09, 11 August 2011 (→Khamis Gaddafi: keep reverting and it will get you blocked)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:12, 11 August 2011 (→Regarding the latest claims of Khamis' death: lets try to keep it neutral)

Comments:

The user has a clear side in the ongoing Libyan conflict, and is bringing their POV to this and a variety of articles on the subject. Other users have criticized the user with their reverting edits summaries: "Tisk tisk tisk, POV pushing in its rawest form", and "we compromise: keep tenses consistent, militia≠NLA, "hostile" is a contentious term, "totally" is **nowhere** in the source", and "based largely on UNconfirmed loyalists claims, Because most have not been partially confirmed. But then again, what should i expect from the libyan government's official mouthpiece on wikipedia. Go drink some nescafe." Looking for some assistance here!--Objectively (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Warned While you mentioned the concept of edit warring in one comment, no one ever explicitly explained WP:3RR. I'm going to do so now. If the user continues edit warring after a clear warning, you can let me know on my talk page and I'll block. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that helps, but at the moment, the user seems not to have taken the message. Their latest revert:

• 5th revert: 12:55, 12 August 2011 (Undid revision 444317399 by Kudzu1 (talk) WP:NPOV)

They also responded to you on their talk page, accusing me of both "crying" and being "a troll".--Objectively (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I now have reason to believe that the user is using a sockpuppet to try to avoid 3RR. The most recent revert on the article comes from User:Archeopteryx5, which seems to have been created just today, and has edited two of the articles User:FreemanSA was most active on. Additionally, the edit summary (listed below) has the same grammatical style of their previous comments.

• 6th revert: 17:50, 12 August 2011 (Precedent version more neutral and closer to reality as at the moment the appearance of Khamis show that the rumor was not founded.)

Thanks for your help! Objectively (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note Sockpuppetry case filed here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note I have now blocked FreemanSA (talk · contribs) and Archeopterix5 (talk · contribs) indefinitely as socks of Geromasis (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:William Bradshaw reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Declined)

Page: Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 21:07, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "re-adding information on personal life per consensus on talk page and BLP noticeboard")
2. 21:11, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444332999 by Off2riorob (talk) - you have stated on the talk page that you want someone to add the info other than you.")
3. 23:33, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "revert attribution of a quote given in 2011 to a source published in 2010. afterelton is a reliable source in general but it is OBVIOUSLY a reliable source for a quote that IT PUBLISHED.")
4. 23:36, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "added citation to afterelton back to the quote from afterelton")
5. 23:40, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444352565 by Off2riorob (talk) - reverted disruptive edit")
6. 00:23, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "given the long and documented history of actors careers suffering because of being gay (start with William Haines and go forward) lack of effect on evans is reasonable to include")

• Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• First, adding information to an article based on the consensus that I believed had developed on the talk page should not be held against me. The third edit was to repair an edit that incorrectly attributed a quote made in 2011 to a source published in 2010. I don't see how that can be held against me either. The final edit had nothing to do with the disputed source and was by the way made in violation of the consensus on the talk page. The other edits were related to an editor who has been disrupting this article for days and has been reported for doing so. I've apologized for being a hothead about the article and have voluntarily stepped away from it. I've offered to stop editing the article altogether except for vandalism if another editor agrees to do the same. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I originally blocked here for 24h; however, as has been pointed out and which I didn't realise at the time, the editor was not warned until after the 4th/5th/6th (depending on how many edits you believe are reverts) edit. (At least four are clear reverts). Therefore I have unblocked the user; however I have not declined this report, especially given that the user's reply to the 3RR warning was this ("Bullshit"). I am leaving this open for another admin to look at. I have cleared the autoblock. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• (ec) Recommend letting the associated ANI thread take its course and let user off with a warning considering he is new and likely didn't realize (and wasn't warned until late) that he ran afoul.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Declined Discussion currently underway at Wikipedia:ANI#User_dispute_assistance_request -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Luckyguyinoh reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9] 9 August
• 2nd revert: [10] 9 August
• 3rd revert: [11] 10 August
• 4th revert: [12] 12 August
• 5th revert: [13] 12 August

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

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

Comments:

--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:67.188.201.99 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: )

Page: Barney Glaser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.188.201.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

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

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

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

Comments:
IP has not responded to comment on article talk page, their talk page or on discussion on BLPN. All edits without edit summaries and seems purely interested in reverting information about a specific matter. The editor's history is telling. Ravensfire (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 h This IP has a long history of removing material without explanation, and thus the next block should be longer. I'm watching the page, but the last drama evolved when I was offline. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:IownKudzu reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Indef)

Page: Alliance of Yemeni Tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2011 Western Saharan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suzanne Bonamici (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002-present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Brad Avakian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gdeim Izik protest camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IownKudzu (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 article talk page: [diff]

Comments: There's no point doing the whole diffs thing. There's no good place to start. It's blatantly obvious this user is a sockpuppet created to give me a hard time by reverting my edits and vandalizing a whole ton of pages on which I've been active. If someone can please take care of this, that'd be great. Thanks.

User blocked by Favonian. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Quigley (Result: Indef)

Page: Pure blood theory in Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kuebie (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28] Also refused multiple suggestions to self-revert after 3RR [29][30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments: Kuebie was blocked in May for move-warring on the same article, which was his fifth block for such behavior.

I reverted 3 three edits from you and Benlisquare. Check again. Instead of silencing me, maybe you can actually participate in the discussion about content of the article. Kuebie (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first revert was of Hkwon and 212.183.128.45, so you made four reverts in total. I've been trying to discuss the edits with you; coaxing you to start a discussion before reverting, but you refuse to self-revert and discuss and instead speak tendentiously about people "silencing" each other. I would have rather liked it if you didn't "silently" (without responding to my warnings or invitations to discussion) revert four different users four times. Quigley (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked indef. Kuebie has resumed edit-warring on the same dispute that led to his one-month block last May. It does not make sense to let him continue to edit this article when he repeatedly shows he is unwilling to accept consensus. He was previously indeffed back in February 2010 as 'a single purpose account dedicated to pushing an agenda', but the block was lifted. Nothing he has done since February 2010 seems to disprove that statement. His talk page is one long catalog of warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:76.186.76.133 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: 24h)

Page: List of One Piece episodes (season 14) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.186.76.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:
I tried to talk this user into adding reliable sources for the air dates on the IP's user page and posted a discussion on the article talk page. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to resolve the issue, the IP continued to add the unsourced air dates back into the article without explanation and has not responded to comment on article talk page and their talk page. I understand that edit warring is really disruptive to the project. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note - A textbook example of edit-warring. This is an obvious SPA just reverting away (with no communication on their part - always a bad sign), and they need a timeout. Doc talk 04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Should we block this SPA if it is absolutely necessary? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A block for edit-warring/failure to communicate before reverting should earn a 24-hour block so they don't keep at it in the short term (remember: preventative, not punitive ;P). This one doesn't seem too prolific under this IP, but it could certainly be a "castaway" from a vandal who hops around. I've seen a few of those. Anything similar to other articles come to mind? Doc talk 04:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. One example of this IP hopper's target article is List of One Piece episodes (season 13), in which the ip in question restored the unsourced air dates before I moved the rest to the season 14 episode list in the series. If you check the user's contribution page, the IP has done the exact same edits on the season 13 episode list before this. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The differences can be found here and here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Daniel Case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Omen1229 reported by User:Nmate (Result: 31h)

Page: Magyarization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Omen1229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 20:59, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444261935 by Hobartimus Definitely related to the topic of the article. Please do not delete References. Matica slovenská is not fascist organization. Your original research?")
2. 08:08, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444378527 by Hobartimus Please do not delete neutral sources, it shows extreme POV")
3. 08:16, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444405527 by Nmate Please discuss on the talk page first what is "far from NPOV". Please do not delete neutral sources, it shows extreme POV")
4. 13:00, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "MS is public-law cultural and scientific institution. Your Original research about fascism is not important here.")

• Diff of warning: [39]

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

Comments:
Within a period of 24 hour, Omen1229 made at least 4 reverts on the article Magyarization ,even though 3 users expressed concern that the source(s) he added to the article is not credible. There is an ongoing disussion on the talk page of the article to resolve this situation as linked above. The 4th revert was the restoration of the status of what was before the article was edited by User:CoolKoon [41]->[42] --Nmate (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this user Omen1229's good faith at editing articles is questionable (to say at least), which's evidenced (amongst others) by his insistence on sources published my Matica Slovenská. This Matica Slovenská is an organization in Slovakia with spreading history falsifications as one of its main goals. The historians supported by MS are the strongest supporters of various Slovak historical myths (overused by politicians as well) and the books/papers published by MS are usually highly unscientific, lack any reliable sources (or they use other MS sources respectively i.e. the nationalist historians only quote each other) and usually reek of nationalism (especially strong anti-Hungarian sentiments). In short, sources published by MS are heavily POVish materials and try to serve rumors (and "common sense BS") as scientific data. Omen1229 however seems to dispute this, because either he fails to assume good faith, doesn't even pretend to present a NPOV, or neither. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation. There is a suggestion that Omen129 is making edits from a Slovak nationalist point of view. A complaint was previously made at ANI about this editor having an anti-Hungarian user page, though the slur (if there is one) is not completely clear. I am also notifying Omer1229 of the possible sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 reported by User:Davidandkimbenton (Result: Submitter warned)

Page: Genital wart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

We have had discussions on the talk page where user's asked specifically for more images which were less advanced. I provided a link to those as requested by other users. Images that were not found anywhere else or on the WIKI, I feel that these images add to the overall value of the page and have had other users thank me for adding them. Jmh649 has not read the entire discussion page and seen the request for more images, or just does not care.

Davidandkimbenton (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has repeated added links to his own website. If he would like to contribute to Wikipedia I would suggest that he add images to Wikimedia Commons. He would need to owns the copyright of course. Per WP:ELNO Wikipedia is not a collect of external links. I have suggested that the user start a discussion at WT:MED if he wishes a further opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Submitter is warned about spam. The four reverts he lists above extend back to 2010. The history shows he repeatedly tries to insert links to what appears to be his own website. As Jmh649 points out, the photos may be submitted to Commons, provided he owns the copyrights. Addition of a link to http://www.hpv-genitalwarts.com or to http://genitalwartshelp.com to medical articles is probably not going to be accepted and may lead to sanctions under our WP:SPAM policy. These web sites have no listed owner and there is no way to check the copyright of their images. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Edsonbradley reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]
• 5th revert: [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Comments:
Edsonbradley apparently feels that he must "clear up the damaged reputation of the lovely Mrs. Herbert Shipman" by adding a large amount of unreferenced original research into the article, and has continued to edit-war to retain his version. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edsonbradley has admitted a conflict of interest (but still provides no sources) in this edit. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Edsonbradley reported by User:Velella (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

1. 19:18, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444648294 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
2. 19:27, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
3. 19:30, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
4. 19:37, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
5. 19:55, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notes */")
6. 19:57, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")

— Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

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

Comments: I have come into this as a by-stander editor - I have no knowledge of Carey Mansion or either editor involved. Unable to provide mediation on article talk page without some knowledge of facts. Original reverting editor simply sought supporting refs and notes that in edit summaries.

User:REGICUAZA reported by User:BalticPat22 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]
• 5th revert: [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

I have sent a comment to the user's personal page and on the discussion board of the article, Mariah Carey. This user has had a history of vandalism and violating the three-revert rule. They have been warned before, but have made no visible effort to change. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)