Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Belchfire (talk | contribs)
4,207 edits
No edit summary
Belchfire
Line 723: Line 723:
This purportedly brand new user insists that his interpretation of policy trumps the consensus of 3 other editors. He is also doing his best to force in the same material at [[Randall L. Stephenson]].
This purportedly brand new user insists that his interpretation of policy trumps the consensus of 3 other editors. He is also doing his best to force in the same material at [[Randall L. Stephenson]].
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

And it should be noted that the one bringing this up never went to the TALK page but TAG teamed to edit without talk. I asked for page protection in hopes someone would TALK. But looking at Belchfires warning history and BAN history shows he is a edit warrior that just keeps attacking until get gets his way. --[[User:AmherstApple|AmherstApple]] ([[User talk:AmherstApple|talk]]) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:44, 10 January 2013

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:Reyk reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Declined )

    Page: Template:Arguments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Template talk:Arguments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Reyk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    • 1st revert: [2] 2013-01-01
    • 2nd revert: [3] 2013-01-01
    • 3rd revert: [4] 2013-01-05
    • 4th revert: [5] 2013-01-05


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

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

    Comments: From the beginning of this dispute on Template:Arguments, this user has yet to respond to my initial edit comment.  The user frequently does not provide edit comments.  A review of the talk page discussion, the edit history of the template page, and the edit history of the talk page, shows that the user stipulates that he will not participate in discussion, including, "I will not be sucked into this...argument. The material stays."  At one point the user formally withdrew from the discussion and it appeared to be over; but now he insists that since he is being trolled, he can revert both the Template page and the Template talk page and there is no need to reopen the talk page discussion.
    Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm hearing the sweet sounds of a WP:BOOMERANG flying through the room here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarek, Your edit comment states, "what was that football player's name again?"  How is that edit comment related to this discussion?  Also, please review the diffs at WT:ATA#History of TMBS if you have not done so.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What we know after 24 hours is that your viewpoint has not been sustained by the regular admins working here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The ruling that declines to provide sanctions has suggested the benefit of a third opinion.  Sarek, will you provide such an opinion, or initiate a request at WP:3O?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep... a13ean (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably a mistake to dignify this vexatious complaint with a response, but for the benefit of those playing along at home here is the background. I am a major contributor to the essay WP:MUSTBESOURCES, which Unscintillating disapproves of. Links to it in WP:ATA and Template:Arguments existed for over a year without challenge. After I dismissed one of Unscintillating's irrelevant quibbles in a way that did not allow any follow-up trolling, he went around the same day to remove them. I consider this behaviour to be petty and peevish, and I just reverted him because I have no intention of getting drawn into an argument with him. In any case, it is futile to try to discuss anything with Unscintillating because these are the kinds of responses he gives people who disagree with him: example 1, example 2, example 3.

    This seems to be the origin of Unscintillating's grudge against me; this exchange seems to have festering in his mind ever since. I make no secret that I think Unscintillating is trying to troll me. I don't think he should remove material from other pages as retribution for the grudge he holds me. I do not think he should unilaterally close discussions he's involved in in his own favour, particularly not with such a self-serving and dishonest rationale, or call me a vandal for objecting. And now I see he's admin shopping: User_talk:King_of_Hearts#request_for_opinion.

    I request that this meritless complaint be closed, and I will consider asking for an interaction ban on Unscintillating commenting on me or WP:MUSTBESOURCES, broadly construed. Reyk YO! 04:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reyk, it appears to me that your edits are showing a pattern of [hubris].  Your belief that your essay "was spun out because it was long enough to constitute a stand-alone essay" is incorrect as documented at WT:ATA#History of TMBS, and consistent with a hubris-type of issue.  What might help is more effort put into fact checking.  No one has called you a vandal, you choose from your own ideation to bring paranoic words into this discussion such as troll, grudge, self-serving, dishonest, vandal, and admin shopping.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked you to leave me alone. Please stop talking about me or to me. Stop following me around to "flag" my comments with your irrelevant twaddle about my edit summaries. Stop inserting your old grievance about "undermining" the banning policy into unrelated discussions; everyone you've asked has told you you're wrong about it anyway. If you have a problem with WP:MUSTBESOURCES, MfD it now or forever hold your peace. I now consider these matters closed. If you hassle me again, I will ask for that interaction ban and I will almost certainly get it. Reyk YO! 03:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined: The link was added more than 1 year ago. It remained in the template for all that time with no comment whatsoever. Following a kerfuffle with Reyk, Unscintillating removed it. This could have been good faith tracking down of what Unscintillating perceived to be a problem, or it could have been being pointy and stalky. Either way, the status quo was the inclusion of the link. As such, Reyk was merely restoring the status quo. At no point did Reyk cross 3RR. Thus, the default assumption is that Unscintillating is the one guilty of edit warring, not Reyk. Since Unscintillating also didn't cross 3RR, and hasn't revered since this was submitted, I won't boomerang this back on him, but at this point it is up to Unscintillating to establish that there has been a change in consensus to remove the link. If one cannot be reached among the two editors themselves, Unscintillating should pursue dispute resolution, with WP:3O probably being a good first step (unless xe thinks the linked essay is so egregious that it ought to be taken to MfD). If Unscintillating continues to remove the links, that could be grounds for an edit warring block for xyr. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.209.163.197 reported by User:charles35 (Result: Semi-protected one week)

    Page: Eleutherococcus senticosus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.209.163.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [8]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning): [13]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

    Comments: IP will likely try to focus on my claim that cannabis does not cause a withdrawal syndrome. For the purposes of this discussion, I retract that claim. My reasons for reverting his/her edits is because they were original research. The withdrawal claim occurred a week ago, before I reverted any of the IP's edits.Charles35 (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. The only reason I'm not immediately blocking the IP for edit-warring is because the warning of edit-warring was left on the article talk page, not on the IP's talk page, so it's not clear to me they saw it before their last revert. However, I have left a comment on the IP's talk page explaining to them that to avoid a block, they need to comply with certain conditions. I will wait for their response.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP did not revert and has not responded to your comment on his or her talk page. Charles35 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Helllloooo??? Deli nk reverted the original research, and the IP came along and reverted it right back. Is anyone going to do something about this? He didn't agree to bbb23's terms... Can someone at least semi-protect the page? Charles35 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Huysmanii reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 6 January 2013 UTC


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. 28bytes (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boljom reported by User:Zad68 (Result: Indef block for disruption and edit warring )

    Note this is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR.

    Page: Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Timeline of Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Boljom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [17]


    Please just see the user's contribs, Special:Contributions/Boljom


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article Talk page, Talk:Sun_Myung_Moon and RSN discussion Wikipedia:RSN#Obituaries_and_Sun_Myung_Moon.

    Comments:

    This recently-created SPA exists only to whitewash the Moon bio and related pages. No real engagement on the WP:RS points raised on article Talk page. Slow edit-warring to remove well-sourced information against consensus of at least five other editors. To be effective, this will require a multi-day block--review the spacing of the reverts in the editor's history. Zad68 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of Indefinite. Dreadstar ☥ 17:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alohamesamis reported by User:Viriditas (Result: 1 month)

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


    Previous version reverted to: December 10, 2012


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:37, 6 January 2013

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

    Comments:

    I am not a troll. Calling me a troll is a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. The fact that Allthestrongbowintheworld disagrees with me does not make his version the consensus version.14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    Going from your date of January3rd [22][23][24][25][26] So he is also editwarring. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When warned about edit warring at 21:37, 6 January by User:Theroadislong, the response by Alohamesamis was to revert again at 22:01, 6 January 2013. He did not even use the talk page first. That behavior is called edit warring. Allthestrongbowintheworld is not edit warring. Alohamesamis is repeatedly restoring a version not supported by the sources and Allthestrongbowintheworld is removing this unsourced material with an explanation on the talk page. That's entirely appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I added sourced material, not unsourced. Allthestrongbowintheworld was repeatedly removing sourced material. Alohamesamis (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But he did comment on the talk page, he started a section at 21:28, 6 January[27] which is before the revert you cite above. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Please try to pay closer attention to what is being said. Perhaps numbers will help you: 1) Alohamesamis was warned by Theroadislong at 21:37, 6 January about edit warring.[28] 2) The very next subsequent edit by Alohamesamis made after the warning he received is to revert again at 22:01.[29] He did not go straight back to the talk page where a discussion was already underway as you observed. His action after the warning was to revert. So he ignored the warning. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He has used the talk page, and was first to do so. He has not violated 3RR. This report is a waste of time. Both editors have the same number of reverts in the same timespan. So either both are editwarring or neither are. I have posted on the article talk page and will try to mediate the dispute. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, a "mediator" should be considered to be neutral in the dispute in question. That doesn't seem to be the case here, you seem to be be bending over backwards to excuse the behavior of Alohamesamis. I rather think you should butt out and let an uninvolved admin deal with this. Alohamesamis was already blocked for edit warring on this very article, and came off the 2 week block to continue the same behavior. The fault here is clear, despite Darkness Shines' attempt to cloud the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkness Shines, he was warned and ignored the warning by going straight back to reverting, not to the talk page. If you look at his user page history you'll discover that this is a game for him. It's basically a revert-only account used for edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not "a game" for me, nor is my account a "revert-only" account. Alohamesamis (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made 138 edits since Oct 25, 2012, the majority of which consist of reversions. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User: IP user using 157.21.125.91, 70.160.29.75, 184.242.60.119, 152.133.7.64 reported by User:Tovojolo (Result: No action )

    Page: Memon people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 157.21.125.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 70.160.29.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 184.242.60.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 152.133.7.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On my Talk Page: [31]

    Comments:
    The Memon people article lists Memons who have achieved notability for good things like business as well as bad like terrorism. Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon are terrorists, Saud Memon was a financier of terrorism. The anonymous IP user seems to take it personally "Please stop editing the Memon people page. It is my family name and my race. I don't think you would like it if someone labeled something antisemetic under your family name and I don't like to my family name to be labeled with terrorist." [32] Note how he seems to think that the Memon people article belongs to the Memons. He boasts, and admits, having different IPs "I work proudly for the US government serving veterans, am an educator at a institute of higher learning and have a personal computer. That is why I have different IPs. Going to ban them all?" [33]

    User:Coin Operation and User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: )

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: unclear, different reverts each time....


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] [41]


    Comments:

    Two users edit warring over tags and content, etc. Page protection may be the best solution, as both users are about to breach 3rr and may do so by the time I finish this report. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I am not edit warring, not close to violating the three revert rule. I have made two reverts today (ever) on the article. The first one to remove a section that was added into the article with numerous unresolved tags. The second to add tags that I had added back into the article. Coin Operation (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The fourth revert listed above is not a revert, it is so I would not edit war by removing the content again. I added tags to show what my concerns were. Coin Operation (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit, Dogmaticelectric restored to the article a section which has been unsourced since 2009. I wonder if he has any intention of providing sources. Surely enough time has passed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The section already has a source, and in fact a link to this source was included in the article before I first restored the section (but under External links instead of References - I fixed this already, however). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dogmaticeclectic, one of the items you restored was "It can enforce software license agreement restrictions that may be legally invalid. For example, a company may refuse to reactivate software on an upgraded or new PC, even if the user may have a legal right to use the product under such circumstances." This item was tagged as 'citation needed.' Have you added a source for this? EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the source I mentioned discusses this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unclear what source you may be referring to. There are currently two external links, [42] and [43]. Which of those two sources speaks about 'enforcing software license agreement restrictions that may be legally invalid.' Please quote the passage which addresses this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I clearly stated, I am not referring to any external links, but to the one reference included in the section (specifically, the section header). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.159.107.161 + 85.189.246.67 reported by User:Trofobi (Result: )

    Page: The Royal British Legion Riders Branch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: List of motorcycle clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Motorcycle club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 81.159.107.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 85.189.246.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 90.210.191.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 217.33.26.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 213.48.63.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: Sjgarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 86.163.156.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: The Royal British Legion Riders Branch + List of motorcycle clubs + Motorcycle club

    The Royal British Legion Riders Branch:

    1. revert: [44]
    2. revert: [45]
    3. revert: [46]
    4. revert: [47]
    5. revert: [48]
    6. revert: [49]
    7. revert: [50]
    8. revert: [51]
    9. revert: [52]
    10. revert: [53]

    List of motorcycle clubs:

    1. revert: [54]
    2. revert: [55]
    3. revert: [56]
    4. revert: [57]
    5. revert: [58]

    Motorcycle club:

    1. revert: [59]
    2. revert: [60]
    3. revert: [61]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:85.189.246.67 + User talk:81.159.107.161 + User talk:90.210.191.103 + User talk:217.33.26.100 + User talk:213.48.63.1

    Update: I did now notify all of the above mentioned via {{subst:an3-notice}} (sry, forgot that first) --Trofobi (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62] + [63]

    Comments:
    The person uses multiple IPs to try forcing his opinion on The Royal British Legion Riders Branch not being a motorcycle club into the articles. --Trofobi (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The protection of the article has already been requested twice Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection by me and Dennis Bratland. --Trofobi (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This new comment by Sjgarth sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, so perhaps this can be closed here? --Trofobi (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mor2 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

    Comments:

    Article is under a 1RR restriction per WP:ARBPIA. Mor2 has refused to self revert and has called the edits vandalism in violation of WP:NPA Darkness Shines (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • AnkhMorpork already tried to change this section [68], his edit was reverted[69] and discussion was open at talk page Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Background. AnkhMorpork subsequent decision to blank the whole section without discussion or achieving consensus for his edit and mostly unexplained removal of multiple sourced material(which are connected with OPOD) constitute edit warring and vandalism, which I was preventing. --Mor2 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    furthermore the linked dif at "resolve dispute on article talk page" has nothing todo with the caese. It is relevant to a discussion of one statement/sentence in different section. The relevant discussion that was opened following AnkhMorpork edit was at [70], which he ignored and continued with blanking the section. None of which was previously discussed in the talk page.--Mor2 (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AnkhMorpork reported by User:Mor2 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

    Comments:
    AnkhMorpork, has a long history on this article of section wide unexplained changes. Which are always getting reverted and going to discussion(or backed up by Darkness Shines and leading here on technicalities) see history page (or I cna fish out the details)

    This time AnkhMorpork tried to change this section [74], his edit was reverted[75] and discussion was open at talk page Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Background. Which AnkhMorpork ignored and blanked the whole section, which on top of his previous claim removed multiple long standing sourced martial connected with OPOD.--Mor2 (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm tempted to decline this as no violation, especially since the edit history is angling for protection anyway. Unless you have some more information, the first edit above appears to be a removal, not a revert. In other words, it doesn't look like there was any attempt to revert a specific edit; it's just making a change to the article. If every content removal were counted as a revert, it'd be impossible not to violate the 1RR. -- tariqabjotu 07:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am tempted to go trout him for his blatant accusation of tagteaming. I had discussed removal of that section as shown in the report above.Darkness Shines (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention this seems like the exact reason he appealed his last 1RR block... but I digress. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation, as noted above. Mor2 provided further information via e-mail (as he is now blocked), but it didn't substantiate the assertion that AnkhMorpork violated the 1RR. -- tariqabjotu 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Amending: I also completely failed to notice originally that that second edit isn't even by AnkhMorpork (that explains the confusion from looking at the article history). I thought the second revert was in reference to this edit (21:37, January 7), which is more than twenty-four hours after the first edit reported here. Even if the second edit here were by AnkhMorpork (and it's not), this would not be a violation, for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, the second revert reported by Mor2 was actually a revert of the first, so I don't understand how this would have constituted a violation (perhaps Mor2 really meant to use the 21:37, January 7, edit?). Anyway, as it stands, with that edit not even being by AnkhMorpork, this was a frivolous report. -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC) [Further amended 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)][reply]

    User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: )

    Page: Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [76]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

    Comments:
    Uncooperative user who has tried to bypass WP:3RR by reverting after a 24-hour delay. Contributed statement that the source directly denies and article covers in the same section. He might have reasons but instead of supplying them, he has resorted to attack another user's talk page and user page, again to the point of 3RR, before he is warned by two other admins. In his last edit, he has tried to supply a fake source that fails verification, but I highly doubt he would listen if I told him. Judging by his past record (see his talk page and two other cases filed in WP:AN3) he will probably prefer to revert.

    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted well after the 24-hour delay (it was closer to 48 hours). The source in question directly supports the statement, and you are trying to leave a false statement in the article. Also, where is the third WP:AN3 case?
    By the way, your own edit history isn't exactly free of policy violations, including edit warring - especially in regards to my edits, which may quite possibly indicate bias against me on your part. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Did you read WP:3RR? "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." In the meantime, I posted two messages in your talk page to which you did not respond; and this not your first, second, third or fourth dispute in which you have exhibited a love for revert button and a hatred for discussion.
    Nevertheless, I am offering you another chance to discuss the contribution while there is still time.
    Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My responses to you were included in my edit summaries. In such cases, I do not think it is necessary to duplicate discussion.
    As for WP:3RR, notice the wording: "just outside" - that doesn't exactly sound like about double the 24-hour period.
    You also (conveniently) ignored my question regarding WP:AN3. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi.
    First yes, I deliberately ignore points that potentially divert a discussion from its goal. I do not comment on a contributor to just belittle him and admins have enough means of verification. Our discussion is: You are not a team worker.
    Second, your edit summaries basically say "my way or highway". What gave you the impression that you are (or anybody, for what matters) allowed to hit revert button even once? Wikipedia is a product of teamwork and any attempt to disrupt the teamwork is unfavorable. WP:Consensus, WP:DR, WP:BRD and WP:CIVIL all make it clear that any edit or revert that one makes in a dispute resolution is not a right, but a privilege, given to the person only by spirit of teamwork. Wikipedians are expected to be such team workers that are not only ready to stop editing for the sake of each other, but cede their position if there is no consensus in its favor. If you wish to do it properly, discuss in a manner that parties that do not agree can call in an RfC and then a DRN.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I don't have an argument stronger than "because it is in the WP:RS in question, it is what the article should state". Since you choose to ignore a core Wikipedia policy, further discussion with you on this issue seems pointless.
    Regarding once again ignoring a question I posed directly to you: calling me "uncooperative" is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... A case of "I just don't get the point, I repeat the old bullshit that I myself know is not true". Fleet Command (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find other aspects of Dogmaticeclectic's behavior troubling regarding edit warring. He has also edit warred on FleetCommand's user and user talk pages, edit warred on the Product activation article (sample diff), and in a similar manner to this report, on Windows XP (sample diff). The Windows 8 edit war, plus this, this, and this edit summary, do not bode well for him. The good news is that he appears to have stopped after being warned by two admins. Thus I believe he is close to a block but not deserving one quite yet - unless of course he continues this behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In all cases, I have both provided strong justification for my reverts and not breached WP:3RR. Also, the latter three edits you mentioned do not qualify as edit wars, as I only reverted a single time at each page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You must not edit war even if you believe you are right - what's strong justification in your view is not necessarily what others think. WP:3RR is only a general guideline, and that your behavior constitutes edit warring is what matters here, not the timing of the reverts. I brought up those last three diffs because in those cases I do not think you get that "his reasoning looks invalid to me and me alone, so I revert" isn't the ideal way to proceed. In all cases, the WP:BRD cycle should be invoked - you discuss before making any additional reverts or additions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In those particular cases, the reasoning didn't just seem invalid to me - it was actually based on a complete misunderstanding of what I was trying to do. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you explain yourself. You don't do another revert because the other editor still does not understand what you are doing according to yourself, because the other editor believes to the contrary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Looks like he has made a fifth revert too and is still unwilling to address the concerns that I posted in his talk page. So, it seems the "good news" portion is debatable. One of his behaviors that is most concerning is this in Windows XP. He reverted me without realizing that I actually read his answer in his talk page and acquiesced to his request. I have never before encountered person who reverts so carelessly and with such hostility.
    And Jasper, are you on friendly terms with FleetCommand? I think someone need to tell him to stop, if we are to see a peaceful end to this. He seems the type of guy that thinks "if you think you can revert, then check this out: I can too." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We have had brush-ups in the past, and they weren't good. We have tried by basically not interacting with each other, although when we agree on disputes it tends to work out well, such as the Windows Blue AfD. It now dawns on me that him and Dogmaticeclectic might do themselves a favor by doing the same.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen to that!
    But did FleetCommand have any friends you know of? I know he might be reading this but you will be surprised how effective this approach can be. Love has great powers. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That Windows XP edit did not properly address the issues at the time until I fixed the article with this edit. That was why I initially reverted it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever thought that the other editor also thinks that your edit doesn't address all issues, and so edits it? The number one rule you need to follow is that you must not revert so many times when someone else disputes your edit. Even one revert is not necessarily the best way to go about it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it might be wise to hook in here. I would point out here is that the three revert rule is simply a hard limit to the amount of reverts that can be done to a page in a specific timeframe. However, edit warring itself is more broad then simply reverting three within a specific time-frame - If one consistently reverts the same change over and over there is an edit war, irregardless of the timeframe in which the reverts were made. Quite simply put: If you are reverting back-and-forth, you discuss it on a talk page or ask some other user(s) input. Regardless of who is right it is senseless to turn it in a "Who can keep this up the longest" match.

    Having said all that - May i suggest continueing this discussion on the article's talk page and change the subject to "What should be in that article" while everyone ignores the revert button for now? Keeping the "What is in the rules for reverting" discussion up won't solve the initial problem and will only result in useless drama and blocks. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KodaKarr reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 3 days)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [83]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

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

    Comments:
    Long term POV SPA editor on this one issue, with a variety of IPs and this account. Heiro 16:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    His only talk page response has been to tell an editor to " ohe, putain. va te faire foutre" - just swearing at them. Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia and if I weren't involved I would have indefinitely blocked by now. A short term block won't help as he'll just be back. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And he's at it again...

    Another warning issued Revmqo (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Huysmanii reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [91] and [92]

    • Continued edit warring immediately after this block expired: [93]
    • 6th revert: [94]
    • 7th revert: [95] (different revert to, from [96]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98] (see [99]

    Comments:

    • Note Only because Huysmanii has not reverted in 24 hours, I'm giving them a chance to avoid a block. I've left a note on their talk page. If they agree not to edit the article at all for 7 days, they can avoid a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Rape during the partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

    Comments:

    I have asked the user to self revert and he has refused, he is removing a well sourced satement for no reason other than he does not like it.

    I will not try to justify what I did. I will not say this report is invalid, just consider this that it was not my intention to edit war. but with DS there can be no other way. He has reverted my edits multiple times. See talk. I asked him quote the passage from the book he was referring to, he ignored it and reverted me. Now, if I am guilty then he is too. I will like to notify that I am not going to war over that again so no need to "BLOCK ME". I simply wanted to take it to ANI, but DS did it first. Sorry for the inconvenience. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you are not going to war over it again, I cannot revert you can I? You need to self revert and discuss your continual removal of a well sourced statement from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you suggested to me, If you want the article to speak of rapes of Hindus by Muslims then add it to the article. I simply followed your advice and balanced the article. What is wrong in that, DS? You are the one who said only Rape of Muslim women by Hindu Male were "well-documented" but basing on what, DS? Also, that's a highly biased and communal claim. The irony is that the very sources used there do speak of the atrocities and retaliation from both the communities. Therefore, I asked you to balance it. What did you do in return? You chose to revert me. You can do much better as an editor. There is no animosity between you and me, bro.

    Besides, its weaselly well-documentedness is your subjective synthesis. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you removed it. That is not balancing. Just self revert and justify your removal on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point, now that I am reported? BTW, I think you need to start justifying yourself first. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing sourced content is a revert. You are being given a lot of chances to self revert, yet will not. Why? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get it, do you? The source was correct the content was not. The claim was not a fair representation of the source; it is not a revert. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:190.46.98.195 reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: 1 week)

    Page: Cleo Rocos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 190.46.98.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    This is a continuation of a previous edit war, where the editor was subsequently blocked for their actions. From the editors actions and edit summaries it seems apparent that they will not deviate from their behaviour or intepretation of BLP. 3RR has not been reached this time around, however should I, or anybody else, revert him again there's no reason to suspect that it wouldn't be reverted again.

    The user also shows little civility in dealings with other editors.

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

    Original issue

    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119] - no response from user
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120] - no response from user
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121] - original attempt, 4th December, and response

    Latest issue

    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122] - latest attempt at discourse
    • Personal attack response: [123]

    Comments:

    It takes two to edit war, and there's been a lot of back-and-forth on the phrase "best known for" between various people. I have put in a reliable source from the Daily Telegraph and three other sources on the talk page, which should hopefully quell this dispute before it goes any further. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on wikipedia. The phrase "best known for" is clearly and obviously POV, regardless of whatever reliable sources it might appear in. The attempts to force this completely unnecessary phrase into articles are tantamount to vandalism. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can quote just about any Wikipedia policy under the sun, and use it to advance your position, so let me do likewise. If you look at Wikipedia's pillar of neutrality, you will see the following : "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person." That means you should not be in any position to argue for or against the state of an article without providing sources that advance your case. I have provided four sources, you have provided none. Furthermore, if you look a little more closely at one of the other pillars, you'll notice it says "Find consensus, avoid edit wars". Calling other editors "retards" is probably not a good way to get consensus on an issue.
    All of the above put to one side, here's the situation. You've reverted the article three times today here, here and here, so a further revert today will mean you run the risk of being blocked for violating WP:3RR. You should take that at face value. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're asking me to provide sources for what exactly? I'm changing the opinion "is best known for appearing" to the fact "appeared". What exactly needs sourcing? Fact is, there's an absolute prohibition on including POV material in the encyclopaedia. End of story. Putting it in repeatedly is vandalism. I'm reverting simple vandalism. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are describing is not vandalism at all. Anyway, you have reverted here for a fourth time in 24 hours, which means you may now be blocked per WP:3RR. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maurice07 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

    Page: List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    This is a case of long therm edit-warring by Maurice07 on this article and multiple similar articles. He insists on adding Turkey to the european section of multiple embassy-related articles without consensus. This is an example of a revert from September which also shows his massive edit-warring back then and for which he got blocked. Please see also relevant report at ANI back then: Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07.

    More recently we have the following: On 3 January he resumes the September edit-warring: Revision as of 18:37, 3 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) and then:

    No warning necessary. This editor is a veteran edit-warrior. This particular edit-warring is a continuation of a massive edit-warring campaign he started in September with the purpose of adding Turkey geographically to Europe. He is acting against consensus.

    Comments:
    This user has been engaged in widespread and long-term edit-warring across many articles and for many reasons. This is just another bout of such behaviour. He also got a warning of tendentious editing under ARBMAC by FPaS recently: [124] which he later erased along with a multitude of other 3RR warnings. Here is another ARBMAC warning from FPaS back in April 2012 which he also erased. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse this report, and suggest that in addition to a block, discretionary sanctions be imposed. In addition to a history of edit-warring, this is user is a textbook example of an aggressive, tendentious nationalist editor with minimal positive contributions to the project. Examples of tendentious edits [125] (tag-teaming and edit-warring over a name already mentioned a few lines below) [126] (self-explanatory) [127] (unexplained changes to the figures, all designed to make Greece "smaller" or "poorer") [128] (WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of relevant See also) [129] [130] [131] (Edit-warring even though the article name is "Tenedos"), [132] (the mere fact that he considers this "irredentist" speaks volumes about mentality) and on it goes. Examples of incivil, aggressive behavior: [133] [134] [135]. Talkpage engagement and content building are next to zero. Activity consists mostly of pushing a narrow nationalist agenda at every opportunity. This is precisely the kind of user these topics do not need. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your special attention,Dr.K.. Hopefully, you should have reported desire to edit war or 3RR warning for Aquintero82 [136] and Sir Tanx[137] To put it plainly, I do not find an objective and impartial your notifications. Your and Greek user Athenean′ contribs on wiki articles,the best proof of it. Also,Far as I know,if three-revert rule 3RR is repeated within 24 hours ,is a violation.Thank you.--Maurice (talk) 01:49, 07 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me see: You get blocked for 48 hours in September after a report at ANI about your Runaway edit-warring and now you come three months later to restart it without consensus and against two other users who are trying to uphold long-held consensus. And no, you don't have to break 3RR in 24 hours to be reported here. If you noticed this noticeboard is about edit-warring not only the 3RR rule. Given your history of tendentious and longterm edit-warring today's report is fully justified. By trying to shift the blame on other editors I think you are making the best case for your own blocking. As far as your evaluation of my contributions to articles here I honestly think you have no clue what you are talking about but I won't hold that against you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting if you are reinserting the same material over a spread out time in order to game the processes in place for edit warring it is still a violation. From what it appears this has been a long term pattern of inserting the same type of material against the consensus. that's what it looks like from the outside anyways Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored this report from the archive since it concerns long-term warring at List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, and it was not closed by an admin. I left a note asking Maurice07 to agree to wait for consensus on whether Turkey is in Europe before making any further edits on that question. That could be a way of closing the report with no sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ed for the action. But as we are about to close this report the same user is involved in two more edit wars at Xanthi and List of languages in Europe where he is cn-tagging Greek as a minority language in Turkey, although it is crystal-clear that there is a Greek-speaking minority in Turkey. It doesn't get any more tendentious than that. Clearly we need an AE action at some point under ARBMAC. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:177.43.87.117 reported by Nableezy (Result: 31 hours)

    Page: Deir Yassin massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 177.43.87.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 18:40, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "The footnoted reference is quoted in full, word for word. NPOV in a WP article requires a fair and neutral summary. If one part of the reference is cited, all the reference must be cited.")
    2. 19:02, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "Reworded the fourth sentence from the cited footnote to remove any copyright violation.")
    3. 19:23, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "The cited reference must be cited correctly. The fourth sentence of the citation clearly states that the event remains disputed. If you have other references you wish to add, you are welcome to do so. But do not misstate the actual reference cited.")
    4. 19:40, 9 January 2013 (edit summary:"As I state on the talk page, if you wish to cite other portions of the Gelber citation, please feel free to do so. But the citation clearly says that the event is disputed (sentence 4). The cite must be summarized in full to be fair and balanced")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Article under 1RR, has made 3 reverts of 2 editors' edits. nableezy - 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Now 4 reverts of 4 other editors. RolandR (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.176.5.95 reported by User:66.203.207.68 (Result: Protected)

    Page: Kaitlyn (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 75.176.5.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [138]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144] [145]

    Comments:

    After explaining in edit summary what policies were being broken and why (primarily WP:NOT, MOS & NOTE), and went to editor's talk page to try and give lengthier explanation. Editor started with some good faith discussions but it quickly broke down into "such-and-such page has errors too" and "you're being a dictator". Then editor went and undid whole thing even after agreeing some of their edits were mistakes because they didn't like a dozen or so words. --66.203.207.68 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:193.92.131.230 reported by User:Lugia2453 (Result: Blocked for one week by User:Rjd0060)

    Page: List of leading shopping streets and districts by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 193.92.131.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [146]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

    Comments:

    On the List of leading shopping streets and districts by city article, this IP address is changing Macedonia to "FYROM" despite being undone by multiple users, including myself. The IP address has been warned multiple times, yet has continued to do so and has broken the three-revert rule. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I also just noticed this user removing the Macedonia content from this article without explanation. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked for edit warring in the past. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AmherstApple reported by User:Belchfire (Result: )

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160] (Page created)

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

    Comments:
    This purportedly brand new user insists that his interpretation of policy trumps the consensus of 3 other editors. He is also doing his best to force in the same material at Randall L. Stephenson.

    And it should be noted that the one bringing this up never went to the TALK page but TAG teamed to edit without talk. I asked for page protection in hopes someone would TALK. But looking at Belchfires warning history and BAN history shows he is a edit warrior that just keeps attacking until get gets his way. --AmherstApple (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=532281584"