Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

70.230.203.144] reported by User:Tenebrae

Persistent vandal-only account is obsessively vandalizing Kat Von D despite editors, Cluebot and two warnings. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:98.94.204.96 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Stale)

Page: Clemson Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.94.204.96 (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] (Reported user deleted this warning before carrying out 4th revert.)
[7] (Warning issued by another user for IP sockpuppetry)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] (Reported user initiated discussion on their own Talk page after deleting 3RR warning, then performed 4th revert before continuing discussion.)

Comments: Anonymous IP user kicks off Wikipedia editing career by deleting sourced and verifiable material that was merged into this article by consensus back in 2008[9]. I reverted this deletion of content. IP user reverted, and an Undo was performed along with a vandalism warning being posted on IP user's Talk page. IP user reverted again, an Undo was performed and a second vandalism warning was posted on user's Talk page along with a 3RR warning. IP user deleted 3RR warning, and then performed yet another revert. This is a pretty clear cut case of 3RR violation by a user who clearly shows no interest in following relevant Wikipedia policy or seeking consensus for significant edits. I'd ask that the article be semi-protected in case this user should decide to use additional IPs to continue this disruptive behavior. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Seems like 2 of those reverts are corrections of the same information. Edit-warring with every other editor [10][11][12][13][14]& requesting page protection over content you snuck on here against policy doesn't make the content "notable" nor "verifiable." The necessary citations are all there. The section was inadvertently refocused back to it's original subject. Even User:Darkness Shines who you attempted to cite above, seems to agree. [15]. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This reply confirms that User:ThomasC.Wolfe is using IP socks to edit war/avoid 3RR. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't confirm anything. GarnetAndBlack mentioned it in the more lengthy edit warring section below that I had already started working on. And, realistically, I have to work and get some rest at some point. I also noticed that GarnetAndBlack is back to random reverts on the same content (with misleading edit summaries): [16][17]. Check his contributions. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Stale; this is three days old, and a block would be purely punitive at this point. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:Bittergrey (Result: )

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

• 1st revert: 21:26, 1 April 2012 WLU[18]
• 2nd revert: 01:11, 2 April 2012 WLU[19]
• 3rd revert: 11:00, 2 April 2012 WLU[20]
• 4th revert: 22:59, 2 April 2012 203.118.187.167[21] (SPI #1 result"Definitely were socks") -25 hours 33 min

In the light of NativeForeigner's comments here and here, would the closing admin please strike through the 4th revert from the 203. from the April 1st set, and given I wasn't socking and the second SPI is not yet closed, I believe the 4th revert from the April 20th set should probably be struck as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1st revert (or 5th?): 18:04, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[22]
• 2nd revert: 20:59, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[23]
• 3rd revert: 22:55, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[24]
• 4th revert: 01:48, 20 April 2012‎ 203.118.187.226[25](SPI #2 still open) -7 hours 44 min

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

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

Comments:
I know this is stale, but I wanted it on record that WLU, who reported me for making four reverts in 41 hours[28] himself made four reverts in 25 hours 33 minutes in the same conflict. He also used a sockpuppet to do so[29]. I didn't file this report before, since I was waiting for confirmation from SPI.

WLU wrote "I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in." Of course, were there any substance in his "thousands of words" he wouldn't have felt the need to resort to sockpuppetry and personal attacks. He hadn't shown any interest in this article (or several others he's fought me at) before his wikihounding campaign started over a year ago. I think it is best that he leave me and the several articles he hounded me to alone. BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: Another editor was kind enough to revert "203.118.187.167," so far the only penalty for WLU's use of sockpuppets in an edit war. Of course, when WLU hit 3RR again another IP showed up promptly to make the fourth. A second SPI was opened. I requested a 3O and it would appear that WLU doesn't want to risk the 3O seeing a version other than his own.BitterGrey (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page is now protected [30]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• If any SPI clerk wishes to make something out of that case, good for them. This 3RR complaint has merit, but it works both ways: it takes two to tango and you two are the only ones doing this dance. You should both be blocked, maybe. A third (and fourth, and fifth) opinion would be very helpful, and possibly a topic ban for both of you specifically for this article, which has been a pain since at least 2006. It is obvious that the two of you cannot come to an agreement. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I requested a 3O yesterday. A topic ban on both of us would be unfair: WLU's only involvement in this page (and all but one of the others he's fought me at) was as part of his year-long wikihounding of me. Furthermore, since using puppets is nothing new for WLU(eg.[31]), and he already has three puppets in play[32] the ONLY effect of a topic ban would be to ensure control of the article by the puppetmaster. BitterGrey (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell that directs to that long discussion on the talk page, "Fruend and Blanchard's Paedophilia article doesn't belong here". I see the two of you, I see no 3--so it seems to me there's no 3O yet. What I see is a long and tedious dispute: that you think you're right is par for the course. I'm not even saying that you're wrong, mind you--it's just that everywhere I go--your talk page, the article talk page, this edit-war thread, the SPI, the SPI archive--I see the same things, links, accusations. It's depressing. And "three puppets in play"--that's rhetorical overkill. If it's him, it's a dynamic IP, so the number is meaningless. No, the only effect of a topic ban need not be WLU's control. There are ways to prevent that, short of going to their house and smashing their laptop to bits with a diaper. I don't wish to speak for other admins, but I think we're done here. Find someone to act on or render an opinion on the SPI, maybe. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

True, requesting a 3O and getting one are different things, but I think my request shows good faith. Also in good faith, I've made do with only one position per conflict. In contrast, WLU's position in this conflict changed last week (he'd "been reading the article wrong for a very long time.") and again in December. Oh, and you might find hammers or almost anything else to be more useful for smashing laptops, Drmies :) BitterGrey (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A hammer would work better, yes. And I'm not denying your effort in starting that 3O. The article needs help and attention from people who aren't you two, I'm afraid. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"people who aren't you two"? I'm hurt. If it weren't for me, the paraphilic infantilism article would be like the diaper fetishism article. (Well, worse actually, since the latter borrowed from the former back in 2007.) There is, however, an ongoing ownership issue that needs to be taken care of. BitterGrey (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who looked into 203.118.187.167, .43, and .209 to look into .226 as well. BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Given NativeForeigner's comment here, the "definitely were socks" comment is now incorrect and all 203. edits are essentially irrelevant. Though there is edit warring, there is no 3RR violation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU attempting to close or modify my requests, as he's tried here[33][34], is typical. After he wikihounded me me to Sexology, he marked the resulting ELN discussion "resolved" not once(@500 words) but twice(@3K words) before accepting that I was right. BitterGrey (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My request seems reasonable since NativeForeigner has said in three places that his initial statement of "definitely a sock" is in fact wrong (here, here and here). It seems like common sense to make the section reflect NativeForeigner's actual, current conclusions and take out or strike through the 4th revert(s) rather than leave up an old and misleading summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review the difference between a "request" and an edit[35], as well as between 'probability' and "fact". NativeForeigner has now gone both ways on SPI #1, from "definitely" socks to "probably" not. Even before this, WLU wrote "NativeForeigner's comment is a single person's opinion that is not definitive". Let's see what becomes of SPI #2. BitterGrey (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it as fundamentally dishonest not to note that the person who initially made the assessment has since substantially changed their mind to say the opposite of what is said above. Changing it to "probably not a sock" is fine with me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nmate reported by User:Samofi (Result: No action)

Page: Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 1st set: [36]
• 2nd set: [37]
• 3rd set: [38]
• 4th set: [39]
• 5th set: [40]

Comments:

User:Nmate doesnt assume a good faith and he is often involved in edit warring and national disputes. He is also placed under editing restriction at WP:DIGWUREN. Its question if his behavior is an apport for Wikipedia. --Samofi (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nmate is also deleting User:Koertefa 's talk page comments without his permission, thus breaking WP:TPO: [41]

Nmate does not adhere to WP:SPIRIT ("Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.") and most of his activity is represented by reverts and reports.

He is also gaming the system by deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia. He speculates the fact that anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban.

He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users, like uncontroversial page moves [42][43]. Both of these moves were later re-instated by administrators: [44] [45]

Relevant for Nmate's battleground mentality is his request for deletion of a cooperation board: [46] Bzg1920 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users" means that he is a self-confessed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi, therefore; my reverts do not fall under the 3RR rule.--Nmate (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you only broke the the "rule of common sense". Deleting parts of a civilized talk page discussion is far from being constructive. Koertefa knew very well who I am: [47], but unlike you he is preocupated in improving articles, not in annihilating other users. To quote from him: "My experience with (the sockpuppets of) Iaaasi so far is that he is a reasonable editor with whom you can argue with based on sources" Bzg1920 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The rule is that ALL edits made by socks of a banned user may be reverted on sight, and 3RR/1RR will not apply in those cases. That's why we enact bans - heck, we can delete their article on site, even if they're useful. Common sense is that a banned user is supposed to be smart enough to know that banned means banned; period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edits of banned users may be reverted even if they are helpful (it is not against the formal rules). But unfortunately this is not in the interest of the readers, who need articles of a quality as high as possible. So according to you it is against commons sense that I improved some articles? Bzg1920 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I am not placed under 1RR. I was under editing-restriction in 2008, which means that any administrator may imposed upon me what they see fit under Digwurren, but there is no such recent case, however.--Nmate (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)::::::I think Nmate should wait for official results of investigation. 2 sockpuppets of Iaaasi were marked as my socks (I had lessons in that time at university, so it was a surprise: [48]). Its not normal reactions from him, it looks like an obsession. He found a lot of sock puppets, I agree , but he also scandalized an innocent people with his fast reactions. I am asking, is this normal, civilized behavior? --Samofi (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I will report you to the Arbitration Comitee if I have time, Samofi.--Nmate (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you threaten me? Look, your reactions are not normal according to WP:EQ. You broken a lot of rules of principles of Wikipedia etiquette. I dont see that he would be confirmed sock of Iaaasi [49]. You continue with your batlleground mentality [50]. You could just a wait for confirmation that he is a sock puppet. --Samofi (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet. Read what is written above.--Nmate (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite the rule what says that? Hypothetically he can be a new user who makes a provocations.. In my opinion, you should wait for official confirmation. --Samofi (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here? User Nmate is deleting other people comments? Again a new problem with this user? I don`t know who Bzg1920 is, he can be a sock-puppet as any other user could be until a check user is beign done( this is not an accusation ) but I am 1000% sure that Koertefa isn`t any sock. Why are his comments being removed????Adrian (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted verified user comments: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. I don`t know who Bzg1920 is but Koertefa is a verified user and in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring. Also Nmate`s WP:DIGWUREN restriction [57]. Also this user had 2 arbitration enforcement in 2011.Adrian (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting. On the other hand, I am not placed under editing restriction in that saense that I am not allowed to make reverts, as I mentioned above.--Nmate (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that User:Bzg1920 is a sock of any kind please file a report about that and if proven THEN delete his comments only, while leaving the verified user`s(Koertefa) comments. Adrian (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet, read what is written above.--Nmate (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

? He confirmed? (That doesn`t imply to delete Koertefa`s comments also). Where? Adrian (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand?--Nmate (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess. I don`t understand anything, especially the part where User:Bzg1920 admitted that is a sock of any banned user and when User:Koertefa gave you permission to delete his comments, 7 times in a row after several arbitration enforcements on your account.Adrian (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users, like uncontroversial page moves" [58] Go elsewhere, Iadrian yu. What you do is quite disgusting--Nmate (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

He admitted that supports banned user`s contributions, a constructive approach would be to explaining User:Bzg1920 that this actions are against wikipedia policies and not creating a new battle. I guess we know who is block-shopping here. Even if this user is really a sock of any kind, that still doesn`t explain why did you removed Koertefa`s comments 7 times in a row or any other comments on the talk page?Adrian (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In your dream, Iadrian yu, go elsewhere.--Nmate (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I try to keep it short: (i) Bzg1920 is of course an admitted sock of Iaaasi (his ban is another topic, I do not want to discuss it here, but I think that Iaaasi is a reasonable editor who made some mistakes); (ii) Nmate acted in good faith with his reverts, he thought that it was the right thing to do. I do not blame him and retroactively I give my permission to him for removing those messages of mine. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: No action against Nmate; checkuser confirms that these were valid removals of a banned user's edits. Reporter blocked for long-standing pattern of breaches of a topic ban. All editors involved are admonished to avoid battleground attitude and avoid acting in an enabling role for long-term sockpuppeters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:El duderino (Result: stale)

Page: No Country for Old Men (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

• 1st revert: [60] 12:33, 20 April 2012
• 2nd revert: [61] 13:50, 20 April 2012‎
• 3rd revert: [62] 18:23, 20 April 2012
• 4th revert: [63] 19:58, 20 April 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st request/warning [64] then Template [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66] + follow-up comments at Talk:No_Country_for_Old_Men_(film)#nearly_universal

Comments:
I attempted to engage User:Ring Cinema at the talk page a few days ago [67] to no avail. Today he proceeded to edit war with a 3rd editor. I politely asked him to stop [68]. He replied on my talkpage [69] that he wasn't edit warring despite already reaching 3 reverts within 6 hours at that point. His 4th revert just happened in the past 15min or so. While attempting a compromise wording, I have asked him to self-revert. El duderino (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• There may have been a technical violation by Ring here, but he was editing towards a consensus obtained at the Film Project. The crux of that debate is that review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus i.e. they quantify the number of positive reviews by counting them and assigning a score. In view of that, descriptors (such as "critical acclaim") that qualify rather than quantify critical reception could be construed as non-neutral and original research, so we have started to use language that basically just count the number of positive/negative reviews. Ring perhaps should have reported this at the Film project rather than reverting, but given the fact he violated by removing "against consensus" terminology it would be harsh to block him for it, since he wasn't taking undertaking solely unilateral action. My suggestion is that the disputed text is simply removed for the time-being and get some third party input. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved and objective observer checking in. I have to agree that there is no editwarring taking place, just the usual back-and-forth of the editing process. Although not involved in the particular issues, I do note that User:Ring Cinema is a long-standing, experienced member of the project and you simply do not template the regulars as in WP:DTTR, especially when there is an established record of the user making substantial contributions to the article and to many others in the WP:Film group. IMHO, there is no need for this action, and as a converse, I would recommend the editor who initiated this action, should withdraw it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

• Stale This is a 3RR violation, but it appears the primary involved editors have worked out a consensus and no reverts have occurred for a day. A block here would be punitive. Kuru (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this will be taken by User:Ring Cinema as vindication of his tendentious editing. Where was he working towards a consensus? I understand your points there, Betty, but he never once invoked the Film Project and kept insisting on a grammatically awkward construction despite every other editor there disagreeing -- and I believe that there is no exception in the three-revert rule for "editing towards consensus" anyway. He merely stopped reverting when faced with this 3RR report. In fact, when I attempted a 2nd compromise, he accused me of "changing the subject" (which I assume he meant switching positions, a maneuver he actually took without fully realizing it, perhaps). He has been blocked before so he is well aware of the bright line 3RR. I maintain that despite the above AGF he was in fact edit warring and he has shown no sign of letting up. He continued to argue semantics at the talk page until I gave up. Another editor noticed a similar pattern at The Godfather (film) article -- and notified me at my talkpage [70] -- so I have serious doubt about his contributions to the film project, especially in terms of working with others. I was afraid that this would go Stale because, I presume, it happened on a Friday night and got overlooked or ignored for just long enough. I believe he will continue to treat other editors in a passive-aggressively hostile manner. El duderino ^(abides) 23:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Flogging a dead horse. Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

^Can't see the forest for the trees. Seems like this mare (user:RC's TE) still has legs [71]. El duderino ^(abides) 23:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ndg.2010 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Knights Templar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ndg.2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:SudoGhost#Knights Templar Article Link

Comments:
Single-purpose account is edit warring to insert their link, which fails WP:ELNO. - SudoGhost 04:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four reverts in 24hrs, was warned. Kuru (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.239.128.44 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)

Page: The Passion of the Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.239.128.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]
• 3rd revert: [81]
• 4th revert: [82]
• 5th revert: [83]
• 6th revert: [84]
• 7th revert: [85]
• 8th revert: [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Many reverts over time, no attempts to talk, was warned. Kuru (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Omer123hussain reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: no action)

Page: Muhammad Iqbal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omer123hussain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:

He has now self reverted[96] so this may be closed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kuru (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Anupam reported by User:Aprock (Result: page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert, 15:37, 21 April 2012: [98]
• 2nt revert, 15:51, 21 April 2012: [99]
• 3rd revert, 05:12, 22 April 2012: [100]
• 4th revert, 05:17, 22 April 2012: [101]
• 5th revert, 16:25, 22 April 2012: [102]

Diff of warning:

11:42, 22 April 2012 [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

15:59, 22 April 2012 [104]

Previous warnings: [105] [106] [107]

Comments:

Anupam has reverted Atheism four times in 16 hours, and five times in 25 hours. The final revert occurring after a notice on his talk page, and his participation on the talk page discussing his reverts.

Comment - User:Anupam is a decent contributor for almost six years with a block free record. I will investigate the diffs - but is it not possible to allow the user to self revert or to receive a warning note without the desire/need to remove their editing privileges? - Youreallycan 19:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I have reverted at the atheism article but these reverts as you will see, are for two different issues. To lump two reverts for one issue and three for another is unfair, especially when the reverting editor acknowledged that there was a misunderstanding due to a confusion of the url in the reference (see here). Before inserting the material in the article, I discussed the issue here on 22 April. Moreover, I discussed the reason for my revert here, which was accepted by the reverting user (the problem, being that the url of the reference was incorrect). For one issue, I reverted twice and that issue was resolved. For another issue, I reverted three times but never crossed 3RR. I also did not receive a warning regarding 3RR for this article, only a notice about the proper use of the rollback feature. If I am found to be incorrect, instead of blocking me, as I have never been blocked before, I will humbly apologize here for my actions before the reviewing administrator and make a commitment to take care in the future. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• - I am still investigating the diffs, but the complainant User:Aprock appears to have been uninvolved in the article prior to this report and he did not give a warning, or a request to revert at all , he simply reported the user without any warning. - as per Anupam's comments about the diffs there seems to me to be nothing worthy of any restrictive administrative action in this report.Youreallycan 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the report is invalid.Justice007 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not hard to believe considering you've reverted the page to Anupam's version (four minutes after you posted here) without going to the talk page. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Make that twice. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is an ongoing edit war with multiple users including new users not mentioned here - I have requested full protection of the article diff - Youreallycan 20:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Full protection, given the talk page discussions thus far, will likely lead to more filibustering (and the need for popcorn). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh. You what? - filibustering ? Give over. Its more like a primary playground here - meh! and u - pop corn trash Youreallycan 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the popcorn. I'll bring an assortment of the usual suspects... Raisinets, Milk Duds, Crunchy Frog, Albatross, Wolf's Nipple Chips, etc. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• In light of the editor's experience and his warning to another editor at the time of the 4th revert (05:17, 22 April 2012 [108]), the "did not receive a warning" defense seems a bit of a quibble (possibly even a herring in scarlet). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ArtifexMayhem, am I restoring the same content in "my fourth revert" that I am in my first or second revert? I encourage you to please answer the question honestly. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I haven't looked at this one yet, but the current policy is "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". Reviewing this now; may take a bit since there is a partisan cluster to wade through, but it might be helpful for you to review WP:EW and self-evaluate your actions. Kuru (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Protected the page for 24 hours to allow the discussion to progress. There seems to be quite a few people reverting. I've ignored the misuse of the revert permission as the editor has already acknowledged this was a mistake. Kuru (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, it seems you are looking into the history, so let me point out Anupam was reported on wp:Ani page for WP:OWN and edit warring done on Militant atheism page, when it existed; which I think wasted hundreds of hours of WP community. I agree that Anupam is otherwise decent editor, but his edits in atheism related articles have not been done in NPOV. He strongly pushes in POV citing some WP policy, so it is not possible to assume good faith from his side, when he edits atheism articles. Being a conservapedia editor he edits and tries to wp:own atheism articles the way conservapedia articles are. Abhishikt (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Kuru, thanks for directing me to the appropriate policy page. I was under the impression that 3RR applied to the same content being restored or deleted, not to different segments of the article (which was the case here). I now understand that reverts include removing or deleting content from the article in general and I apologize for reverting and admit that I made an honest mistake. I've taken the time to further discuss the issue on the talk page of the article and hope that others will comment there. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:86.28.143.134 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: 48h)

Page: Car classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.28.143.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 16:35, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 17:41, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 19:09, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488683260 by CZmarlin (talk)")

• Diff of warning: April 22, 2012

This action also seems to be a continuation of the identical edits to this article that were previously conducted by 81.101.26.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : Revision as of 08:21, April 15, 2012.

—CZmarlin (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

4. Revision as of 03:01, April 23, 2012 (edit summary: "")

— CZmarlin (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours. Edit warring and use of multiple IPs in an edit war (cf WP:SOCK). EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Xmike920 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Xmike920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]

Previous reverts in a similar vein: [113], [114], [115] and [116]. Recent edits have removed references, despite discussion by other editors on the article talkpage explaining why the NCSTAR report is favored [117] in lieu of the 9/11 report, which apparently what Xmike920 is trying to insert. Similar pattern at American Airlines Flight 11, but no 3RR at this point.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118], [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

No response by Xmike920 on the talkpage or on his talkpage, despite several attempts. Much the same thing happened this time last year. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 14:28, 21:40, 21:46, and 22:15. One more revert at 23:40 after being cleared warned at 22:33. Kuru (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ProfJustice reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ProfJustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is when he first added the material to the article: [121]

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

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

Comments:
This article has a 1RR warning with no time expiration. I gave the user a warning on his talk page to self revert. He didn't heed the warning which can be seen here [126]. This user had a previous issue with the same article less than a week ago as can be seen in this diff [127]. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 23:05 and 22:58 are clearly reverting to edits the same editor made earlier in the day. Warned previously about the 1RR on that article, and about that specific incident. Editor removed the warnings from his talk page, so presumably he was aware of the problem. Kuru (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Aemathisphd reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [128]

• 1st revert: [129]
• 2nd revert: [130]
• 3rd revert: [131]
• 4th revert: [132]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

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

Comments:

Although these reverts have been made by a registered account and IPs, these are clearly the same account; I have submitted an SPI. The article is actually covered by a one-revert rule, although the user dores not appear to have been formally notified of this. RolandR (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)