Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Feeline (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 26 October 2009 (→WLU reported by Feeline (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:Jakferwold reported by Skyfiler (talk) (Result: )

    Huang Xianfan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Bagui School. Jakferwold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC) This user keep adding external links that violate WP:EL, unreliable sources and removing notability/POV templates.[reply]

    • Revert comparison ("compare"):

    this revision (diff from previous).

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


    • Diff of warning:

    here


    User:Kenosis reported by User:71.184.177.11 (Result:Stale)

    Page: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Kenosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    The issue here is edit warring and attempts to control the content of the article using "scorched earth policies", through the deletion of mainstream material in favor of minority opinions.

    I attempted to add the following "colored text" - I am correcting a typo of the addition in the link below -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=320885364&oldid=320884974

    Kenosis and another editor called SaltyBoatr are acting in concert to delete the new material and control the article content. Per his talk page SaltyBoatr seems to keep a constant low level "edit war" going with other editors which at times boils over into 3RR violations.

    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]

    revert by SaltyBoatr

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=320931180&oldid=320891179

    I understand that the above may not meet the requirements of 3RR or "edit war" but it frankly disgusts me to find that a dissenting report to the US Constitution Ratification Convention of Pennsylvania published by the 23 dissenters to that ratification is now referenced as the "ramblings of a single embittered eccentric" due to the actions of this duo.


    Adding what looks like evidence that Kenosis and SaltyBoatr are the same person - if so - this more then meets the requirements of a 3RR violation and editing under multile ID's is a violation in and of itself. Below is a message left for Kenosis left by myself and I find SaltyBoatr responding to it as if he is Kenosis. Currently Kenosis/SaltyBoatr has filled in the gap between my question to Knosis ID and the response by SaltyBoatr ID with intent to hide the connection. He probably noticed he responded under the wrong ID.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=321208025&oldid=321206918

    What is this source? Who wrote it? It looks like a hodgepodge of blurbs about antifederalists in PA pulled from somewhere, but I'd be interested to know by whom and from where this stuff was culled. As to the article text w.r.t. the Pennsylvania minority, presently it reads as follows:

    "Another non-military usage of the phrase is found in a one-man Pennsylvania "minority report" published after the ratifying convention [cited to Uviller and Merkel who in turn cite to other RSs, with selected quotation from the "minority report"]."

    At least until this discrepancy is sorted out, I would advocate changing the text of that passage to something like:

    " Another non-military usage of the phrase is found in a Pennsylvania anti-federalist "minority report" published after the state's constitutional convention: [followed by selected quotation from the "minority report"]

    Just to be cautious here, I'd recommend a citation to Uviller and Merkel, and another WP:RS representative of the position that the minority consisted of, what was it?, twenty-something participants/signers, whether they were in fact part of the convention or not. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


    Aren't you capable of clicking on a link and LOOKING?

    I will be deleting all Uviller and Merker material once this article is unprotected as they engage in HISTORICAL REVISIONISM - forbidden by wiki policies - and SLANDER - also forbidden by wikipedia policies.96.237.123.191 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

    I am capable of looking, and I looked. You are using primary sources, and that isn't allowed per policy WP:NOR. We must use reliable third party published sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

    Per his talk page SaltyBoatd has engaged in constant low level edit wars for years and been punished a number of times. If he is now using multiple ID's (and it looks like he is) to evade edit war and 3RR policies he should be permanently banned.96.237.123.191 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    For ease of reference

    Question to Kenosis - Aren't you capable of clicking on a link and LOOKING?

    Responded to by SaltyBoatr - I am capable of looking, and I looked.

    SaltyBoatr was not part of that thread previous to his response to that question.96.237.129.184 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - yes - Kenosis does not respond to material placed there.

    Comments:

    Article protected, plus this is stale. Master of Puppets 05:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lambanog reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result:Resolved)

    Page: Talk:Joseph Estrada
    User being reported: Lambanog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [4]


    • 1st revert: [5]
    • 2nd revert: [6]
    • 3rd revert: [7]
    • 4th revert: [8]


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

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

    (Note: This is the section in Tambayan Philippines. No discussion was available in article talk page itself-it was all edit war)

    Comments:Lambanog's behaviour in dealing with me, JL 09, Sky Harbor, GraYoshi2x, and Howard The Duck have been nothing short of abrasive. User has been slapped with three tpv warnings and a 3rr but insists on pruning the talk page in the name of clarity but is actually destroying the order of the threads. User's line of reasoning falls along the area of "I didn't do anything wrong, try pointing out where you think I did go wrong" as if he expects to be spoonfed. User has been advised to simply archive the comments as many of them are over two years old, but has refused to listen. All of his edits since 09:13 20 October have been focused on the article talk page. I recommend a temporary block for him to take a cool-off period. At the same time, restore the talk page prior to his wholesale editing.
    --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Lambanog's Response:

    I am relatively new here so am somewhat surprised after reading the relevant pages just now at the precipitant action to block me. I was only made aware of this 3RR business slightly before Eaglestorm's just initiated action and had to look up the subject. In my defense I will note a number of things:
    1. From my perspective this all happened pretty fast. Looking at the timestamps it seems that in my ignorance I may have reverted the page in question enough times to trigger the edit war condition before I was warned of the consequences of doing so. Last revision I see doing is at 13:52, 20 October 2009. 1 The serious warnings regarding 3RR I received came later at around 14:55, 20 October 2009 and 15:16, 20 October 2009. I was in dialogue with those disagreeing with me from right after I first saw the first warning. 2 3 While there is no discussion on the article talk page itself, I was invited by JL 09 on my user page to participate in the discussion at Tambayan Philippines so that is where, in good faith, I attempted to discuss the issues raised against my edit. I feel if the article talk page was the appropriate place to discuss the issue I should have been invited there. Criticizing me for not discussing the issue there as Eaglestorm does in the above complaint is disingenuous. This rush to take action to block me and the reasons given for it therefore strike me as premature and honestly a bit annoying since I wasn't even informed it was initiated and I had to find this page on my own, but since it has been started already I would welcome a conclusive adjudication. Note the discussion at Tambayan Philippines had been archived and effectively closed by Eaglestorm leaving no alternative active established venue to discuss and possibly resolve the issue.
    2. I did not violate the guidelines for which I was initially accused. It has been implied that I've changed someone's words to mean something they didn't originally mean. False, I have done no such thing. I have reformatted the talk page because it was messy and so as to improve clarity but I did not alter anyone's posts with the intent to change meaning and do not believe I have done so. I have requested the complainants to show where I have done so and have not received a reply. In the discussion at Tambayan Philippines, Sky Harbor cited a section of WP:TPO that allows me to make such changes that I remember reading previously. I took that as support for my position. Those accusing me of improper conduct despite apparently being active longer do not appear to know the guidelines. Can I be faulted for thinking I had the liberty to make such changes when the guidelines indicate I can? Be bold it says more than once in those help pages. So I have been. Apparently this is what it gets you.
    3. I have been recommended for blocking because I supposedly reformatted the talk pages improperly, not showing due respect to users comments, and insisting on my revision triggering an edit war. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the revision that was being pushed as a replacement actually deletes those user comments I merely rearranged and is thus far worse. This has contributed to my insistence on my own revision. I read in the above complaint about "archiving". Don't know what that's about, if it is relevant, and no one has bothered to say anything about it to me despite Eaglestorm's statement above.
    4. The reason this entire brouhaha has been kicked up is because of a revision by GraYoshi2x and his comments accusing me in the following words "what are you doing modifying other people's comments? I'm fine with removing the spam but DO NOT try to skew and destroy the original meaning of the discussions". A close examination of my revision will show this is a false, misleading, and malicious accusation. I earlier restored some comments he had deleted in the article on crispy fried chicken and can only presume he took umbrage at it and thought to retaliate. GraYoshi2x also seems to have a predisposition to erase everything he does not think fits instead of simply tagging things needing revision and has drawn comment from other users for it. 4 Because GraYoshi2x's edit removes comments by other users I consider GraYoshi2x's edit vandalism and submit that my reversion of it should not be counted towards the 3RR. I can only call it unfortunate that JL 09, Eaglestorm, and Howard The Duck took the bait and in my view did not verify the accusations by checking the revisions carefully before assuming bad faith and improper conduct on my part.
    I trust that after a careful review of the facts and evidence I will be vindicated. 5 edits: fixed hyperlinks and further additions. Lambanog (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How does a whole section on how I did such-and-such on completely unrelated articles have anything to do with your modifying of others' comments? You don't defend your own actions by insulting others instead. And regardless of whether or not what you did was correct, you still violated 3RR. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From the definitions at the top of this page: "The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism" (emphasis mine). Lambanog (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism? Even the most unhelpful-looking edit is not vandalism, as long as it was made in good faith. Read WP:VAND for the actual definition of vandalism. Edits that you disagree with are certainly not. GraYoshi2x►talk 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment on my edit: "DO NOT try to skew and destroy the original meaning of the discussions". Please cite the relevant parts of my edit where I "skew and destroy the original meaning of the discussions". While you are at it, please explain what brought you to that particular page at that particular time. Lambanog (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you even getting at; I don't even know how this relates to what I said above...? From the looks of it, you're trying to hold some type of mock trial, which is not the way we resolve disputes on Wikipedia. I simply happened to be there; it's the internet after all. GraYoshi2x►talk 02:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyways, this discussion isn't leading anywhere and the facts are straightforward; you reverted an edit more than 3 times on a page, all of which were not cases of clear-cut vandalism. If you want to resolve a dispute, then head that-a-way. And with that said, I'm out of here. GraYoshi2x►talk 02:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This has gone stale, and Lambanog has been warned appropriately, so I'll archive this. Don't edit war again, please. Master of Puppets 05:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dimama reported by User:Enric_Naval (Result:resolved)

    Page: Ikwerre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Page: Ikwerre language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Dimama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Ikwerre Ikwerre language

    For Ikwerre

    • prods the page as giberish[11]
    • makes his edit: [12]
    • 1st revert: [13] "Tagging Ikwerres as Igbos is gross misinformation and not approved by the Ogbakor Ikwerre"
    • 2nd revert: [14]
    • I expand with sources[15]
    • 3rd revert: [16] "Please kindly let the Ikwerres be and mind your own business"
    • 4th revert: [17]

    For Ikwerre language

    • makes his edit: [18]
    • 1st revert: [19]"Tagging Ikwerres as Igbos is gross misinformation and not approved by the Ogbakor Ikwerre"
    • 2nd revert: [20]
    • 3rd revert: [21]
    • I expand with sources [22]
    • Another user expands with more sources[24]


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

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

    Comments:

    POV pushing that Ikwerre don't have any relationship to Igbo despite scholar sources saying otherwise.

    User only communicates through edit summaries, and he has only used edit summaries in three ocassions (I posted them in the revert list) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He reverted again both articles 4 hours after being notified of this complaint. He has left no edit summary and he hasn't made any comment in any talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to have stopped reverting and has posted about his concerns on Talk:Ikwerre. It looks like he's pretty new to Wikipedia. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have resolved itself. If the user continues to edit-war, please bring this back. Cheers, Master of Puppets 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.135.170.179 reported by User:BigDunc (Result: Stale )

    Page: Irish Bulletin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 99.135.170.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [28]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    Editor BigDunc is removing each and every reference from the article. He is replacing it, word for word, with the entire section from this work published just last year.[34].

    BigDunc's removal of all article references and repeated insertion of stolen, plagiarized prose is unsupportable, period.99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note the collusion on BigDunc's talk page[35] between all of the the principals here - and lack of any Talk page use[36] to support basis for either removing all references or justification for retaining plagiarized text.15:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.170.179 (talk)
    Wikigaming by group reversion without comment, collusion, and wanton disregard for principles of discussion, copyright, RS and verifiability are unacceptable. This effort to ban an editor rather than address an issue is an affront to every member. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears the book robbed the material from wikipedia the section the IP claims is plagerised was created in 2004 and the book was published 4 years later. BigDunc 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The book is copyrighted, and states that "The contents of the book were extracted from Webster's Online". And what of the wholesale reversion of Ref's?99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reliance on poor refs. is at least consistent. RashersTierney (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That ref has been removed - but Webster's is not generally considered in and of itself a poor ref. I guess this section has become the Talk page for the article then? - It's a shame, the other page is utterly devoid of comment and full of space.16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.170.179 (talk)
    You add the bad ref and then remove an non-contended statement claiming it depends on the ref? This is just blatant disruptive editing on your part. How long more is this nonsense to be tolerated?RashersTierney (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing disruptive about responding to an editors concern by removing a questionable ref. If you feel the questionably plagiarized text belongs simply rewrite it and replace it. Perhaps you might even consider discussing it on the talk page.99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you well know, you removed more than the disputed ref. and your disingenuousness and feigned willingness to engage is far from convincing. RashersTierney (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more than willing to discuss, research, write and reconsider - as I have demonstrated. If you object to removing of the possibly circuitous ref or questionably plagiarized material please specify your concerns or link to citation - preferably at the still dormant Talk page. Your vague assertions are not directly addressable.99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP concerned is edit warring across several articles. They are breaking the 1RR restriction via The Troubles, they are not following WP:BRD but simply using the edit summary to assert their POV. --Snowded TALK 17:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Fozz here 1RR is no longer enforced just depends on the admin that comes along cant find the section on the Arb page were it was dicussed, haven't really got the time to look over the archives. But as stated it is no longer Arb enforceable as it was outside of their remit as far as I remember. BigDunc 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've brought my concerns about the inappropriateness of removing each edit, reference or comma from this article with vague edit summaries and no discussion attempts on talk to AN/I.[37]...-99.135.170.179 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it curious that you are happy to engage here and at ANI, but have not taken your proposals (or the concerns of other editors) to the talk page.--Snowded TALK 06:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find it at all curious, but indicative of a pattern of persistent disruption, time-wasting and disingenuous cries of 'foul'! RashersTierney (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Article now has direct oversight from Administrator user:Elonka. Apparently several of the involved editors, and the general subject area, are part of an ArbCom discussion found here:[38] - 99.135.170.179 (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale A block would not be appropriate at this time, since the edit-warring is not recent. However, it should also be noted that it has since been discovered that the anon has already been blocked under related IPs (see list at User talk:99.135.170.179#Multiple IPs), and has not responded favorably to requests to edit while logged in. A discussion about this is ongoing at WT:SOCK. If there is further edit-warring by this individual (on any IP), it would be helpful to the reviewing administrators if whoever files the report, could indicate that there is a history of edit-warring and blocks on other accounts. --Elonka 04:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Default013 reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result:indef blocked)

    Conservatism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Default013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 23:24, 21 October 2009
    2. 04:38, 22 October 2009
    3. 06:08, 22 October 2009
    4. 06:35, 22 October 2009
    • Diff of warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

    The Four Deuces (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I have not reverted the page 3 times, I reverted it twice following an attempt by this person to remove clearly substantive additions. You can see in the history what they were, that they are substantive and referenced and also that I attempted to speak with this person on the talk page. He responds by saying "conservatism in the united states is an oxymoron". He is clearly an activist editor.

    Link to my counter warning for him. [40] As you may notice on the talk page, it is I who made the last post. He has gone onto a strange tangent comparing American politics to that of UK politics, of which this article is clearly not about. --default (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    This editor has now been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No idea why somebody didn't close this sooner. Anyway, resolved. Master of Puppets 05:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drsmoo reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result:Mediating)

    As shown in history, three reverts in 24 hours:

    • 04:48, October 22, 2009: 3
    • 04:26, October 22, 2009: :2
    • 11:49, October 21, 2009: 1

    For example, Drsmoo's 3rr edit here using this vitriolic opinion piece by Nick Cohen which compares Atzmon to a Nazi, something clearly questionable under WP:BLP.

    Note that Drsmoo was blocked from editing the same article for 3rr in March 2009.

    Background: There was so much editing warring of this article - especially over Drsmoo and others adding of poorly sourced, primary sourced or out of context Atzmon quotations which had to be constantly reverted or put in context, that the subject of the article complained, there was an OTRS and the article was locked from April 15 to September 30. As you can see from Drsmoo’s series of edits above, he is again insisting on adding poorly sourced material (defamatory statements from a political organizations web site) and a source that is merely a polemical attack, even if it is from a WP:RS. Instead of working with editors who contest these controversial edits, including by bringing them to WP:BLPN, he insists on reverting deletions of this material and adding even more contested and controversial material, merely justifying his actions on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated new examples of edit warring at this diff:

      • Drsmoo deleted the statement (in the article for more than six months) "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." made to a neutral journalist and presented in context and used it instead in a quote a polemicist opinion writer alleges Atzmon said in a debate, without giving any context at all. This is the definition of POV against BLP and an example of extreme edit warring (though to be fair I did bring to WP:RSN).
    This vendetta against me is reaching into the hilarious realm, I restored an edit made by two other editors who CarolMoore had asked to help her, as can be seen in the edit history . This wasn't my edit lol. What's even more ironic, is that I was the one to originally added the Gisborne Herald source Ms. Moore is criticizing me for deleting (even thought it was two other editors who changed it) Perhaps Ms. Moore feels she can make herself happy by blatantly lying about me. It hasn't been very successful for her so far. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drsmoo violated NPOV/BLP by deleting the Socialist Party defense against the Committee's attack on Atzmon and the party. He also removed the reference which contains the defense so the material is now unreferenced, a violation of WP:V. (Unless, to be fair, he wants the whole quote him specifically name Atzmon as the Jew the committee is defending.)
    • This diff: Drsmoo removes what the authors say while retaining their references to support his point. See "in context" paragraph of this diff.
    What is most "ironic", is that the article was locked with the so called "offending" quotes inside. It was locked because admins were tired of the above editor attempting to remove every notable case that perhaps cast the subject in a less than heavenly light. Only to have the above editor immediately resume deleting the relevant notable information upon the article being unlocked. Once again, this is all in the page histories.
    As you can clearly see, there was only one revert. The other was to add a line and the third was to remove blatant vandalism. I wish she would stop harassing me. The above editor has unsuccessfully sent various editors messages in their talk pages asking them to "help" her. She posted on the BLP noticeboard, and they sided with me, so now she's going here to attempt to have me banned from the article. Her whole point is that all of Atzmon's anti-semitic statements, and whole articles, should be removed. Somehow, his own words are "defaming" him, even/especially when they are discussed by notable commentators/reporters in reliable sources. Such as the Guardian/The Times. Again you can look at the history of the article, in the talk pages, and on every noticeboard she has posted the same thing on, going from one to the other. Everyone agrees that these sources are notable, and must be in the article.
    I am fairly certain that Harassment is against Wikipedia rules. Namely, going to various editors, and telling them to revert my edits (which none of them do) as well as going to noticeboards and saying I should be banned.
    Just look at the edit histories, and the article. The whole thing is an apology for the subject, the same sentiment being expressed on the BLP noticeboard, and 90% of the article was written by the above editor. Drsmoo (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Drsmoo: if you think you have a case against me, complain elsewhere and don't forget anyone can make vague accusations. Proving them with diffs can be much more difficult, especially if there aren't any. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to the above editor's claims, Nick Cohen's commentary was supported in the article by every other editor working on it. It was not from a debate, but from an interview Atzmon did with the Gisborne Herald, which is cited in the article. The above editor is the only one who wants Cohen removed, solely on the grounds that she does not agree with this journalist's politics. The commentary was noteworthy, by a noteworthy reporter, in a noteworthy newspaper, [The Guardian]
    Similarly, the Socialist Worker's Party statement was that "calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite." This is an ideological, philosophical statement, rather than a specific defense of Atzmon. Drsmoo (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This has become too muddled; there's a dispute between editors, it seems. I'll discuss it separately. Right now edit-warring seems to have passed (just don't bring it back). Master of Puppets 05:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for trying to mediate - my reply on your talk page. However, it is clear when someone has done 3rr.. Evidently I should just have brought everything else to the place recommended by the BLPDispute tag.
    Note that I am giving it 24-36 hours to allow others to chime in, but I do feel that Drsmoo's edits continue to be a violation of BLP by an individual who has proved he is obsessed with making the subject look bad - (almost the only article he's edited this year) - triggering an OTRS BLP complaint by Atzmon himsef (according to a category that previously was on bottom of talk page). If Atzmon is paying much attention he'll probably complain again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Others have been chiming in consistently, particularly after you asked them too on noticeboards, you just keep reverting their edits. Drsmoo (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither editor has complained about my edits, one to increase the amount of neutral info in the paragraph per WP:BLP (there was twice as much negative from biased sources as NPOV from neutral sources) and the other asked for something shorter than the spring draft a few people worked on and I gave it to him. Please join the mediation proposed by Master_of_Puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you're asking me to "join the mediation" Master of Puppets and I have been working on this for a while now. And there was nothing POV or biased about the sources, you just removed them because you didn't like them, but they've been restored. The other editors who you ignored have been asked to help as well. Drsmoo (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Slick112 reported by User:Smallbones (Result:IP and user blocked 3 days)

    Page: Insider trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Slick112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Edit warrior User:Slick112, at Insider trading

    1. 03:26, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. Consecutive edits 22 October about 2:28
    3. 13:08, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "undid POV vandalism by KEVARON, he is doing the same in the Raj Rajaratnam's page")
    4. Consecutive edits
    5. 23:37, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "RE added valuable REFERENCED

    User:24.186.79.32 apparently the same editor (e.g. same views, same edits, same bad formatting)

    1. 13:21, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321133619 by Smallbones (talk)")
    2. 17:57, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321133619 by Smallbones (talk)")
    3. 17:58, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 21:16, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "added valuable information about the need for legalizing insider trading")
    5. 00:15, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    6. 00:45, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    7. 02:41, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "undid childish vandalism, stopped deleting contributions that you don't agree with people!!")

    I've warned him at both user pages. He's trying to edit-war against about 5 editors (who at a minimum don't like his formatting). Time to put him out of his misery. Smallbones (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's now switched to another IP address (obviously same person from edit comment) diff [41]

    I've warned him again at User talk:148.4.9.168


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

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

    Comments:

    This is such a "crank" that nobody has taken him seriously. He's copied a notable but controversial point of view from the article and put it in as the first sentence (above a "US-centric warning box"). Not even vandalism, per se, but awful annoying after 5 or 6 editors have reverted and explained in the edit summary why it can't stay that way. Smallbones (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistant vandalism of the Raj Rajaratnam page by him has led to him being reported by me to the ANI as well [42]. I would respectfully request banning on both the account and the IP address as well. Kerr avon (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont agree that that his edits are persistant vandalism with respect to Raj Rajaratnam. Looks like if when an editor adds information with reliable material that is making the article from a propganad and POV pushing one into a neutral tone one then you cannot say that he is pov pushing and vandalizing.Taprobanus (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also adding Raj Rajaratnam to the See also section of Insider trading by user user:Kerr avon may be violating WP:BLP which seems to have contributed to the edit warring. Admins need to look at all sources for this conflict involving Raj Rajaratnam article. Let's all go back to writing a encylopedia not use this for personal grudges based on our place of origin and ethinic identities.Taprobanus (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully reject any violation of BLP on my part. Raj Rajratnam's close connections to the LTTE are well reported in the mainstream media. He is even being sued in the USA for funding a terrorist organisation. user Slick112's edits have all shown a lack of respect, POV pushing, adding irrelevant information, and removing cited information against Rajaratnam. The article was semi protected due to his vandalism and it looks like it will have to be done again. I am not the only editor he has edit warred with. Sine he is a SPA his edits are biased and he should be banned.Kerr avon (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit puzzled why this is taking so long The violations at insider trading to me seem crystal clear, just take a minute at the page's history and the violations should jump out at you. Nobody is actually edit warring against User:Slick112, but when 6 unrelated editors revert obvious bad edits and then he reverts back it looks like he is edit warring against the community. The most recent blatant errors he is making are personal attacks in his edit summaries, that is "stop deleting facts that you disagree with,smallballs" apparently aimed at me, and "stop deleting facts that you disagree with, Grandma" apparently aimed at User:Epstein's Mother. As far as I know edits at Raj Rajaratnam have nothing to do with the edits at Insider trading.

    Just to be clear - I think a 24 hour block would get the point across that he needs to try to understand some of Wikipedia's basic rules. Smallbones (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Still going with 24.186.79.32 diff - MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean that 24.186.79.32 is still edit warring (it wasn't clear at first reading). In any case, thanks for reverting back to a reasonable version, making you the 7th editor to have reverted him. But what will happen when he reverts back one more time? Smallbones (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really sorry that it took this long, guys. I'm usually around here to check out reports, but I'm fairly busy during weekdays so I can't always get around to doing these. Anyway, I've blocked both the IP and user for disregarding warnings and edit-warring. Sorry for the delay again! Master of Puppets 05:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I seemed impatient. This is maybe the only place on Wikipedia that seems to work automatically (the half dozen or fewer times I've used it), so maybe my impatience was really a compliment on how well you do the work! Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reconsider the static reported by User:Atama (Result:Report waived)

    Page: Vivek Kundra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Reconsider the static (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [43]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Just see Talk:Vivek Kundra#Recent edits concerning 66.171.128.239 which I haven't even participated in.

    Comments:
    I am actually on Reconsider the static's side in this content dispute. I make this report reluctantly. You may notice that I myself made two reverts much like they did. But I've stopped at two and won't make any more. I'm only reporting them because of the excessive number of reverts, including the last two after a warning to stop. 13 reverts in a 24 hour period is excessive even if done for the right reasons. -- Atama頭 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As to the other side in this content dispute, 66.171.128.239 was already blocked for disruptive behavior, and I've opened a sockpuppetry case for those opposing Reconsider the static in this edit war. -- Atama頭 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response First of all, I acknowledge the fact that I violated the 3RR rule, my purpose here is not to dispute that. I suppose in this response I will attempt to justify my position by bringing forth situational justification and the case of vandalism by the anonymous IP. It has been argued that the edits that I reverted do not constitute as vandalism. I dispute the claim on the basis that 66.171.128.239 made several edits in which sourced content was removed without the provision of an explaination [58] [59]. The user then went on the repeat the same edits, however an explaination was given "Please Read and follow Wikipedia policy" [60]. I think that you would agree that ""Please Read and follow Wikipedia policy" hardly constitutes as a valid reason for removing an entire referenced paragrah. I rever the edits and the cycle continues. The removal of sourced content without an explaination definitely constitutes as vandalism, thus I believe my initial reverts can be excused under the notion that 3RR does not apply under the instances of reverting vandalism. I know that I made quite a number of reverts after that, I will now discuss that issue. I do not believe that the explaination given for the removal was adaquate, as others have agreed thus I reverted the edits. I believe that in the event of a contentious edit, it is the person's job to discuss the issue and gain a consensus. The long and ardous discussion under "Regarding Arrest" [61] suggests that no consensus has been made on the underlying issue, thus the edits by 66.171.128.239 is a violation of such editing processes. The actual reason for this edit warring report is the fact that I reverted after my 3RR warninig. My response is that I was reverting socks by a banned user, and thus the notion of "edit warring" does not apply. By the way, the article in question is actually protected due to "Excessive vandalism: repeated removal of sourced material by ips not participating on talk page", which again, reinforces the point I'm trying to make. -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Atama, for reporting someone you agree with; I'm very impressed with that move. Also, I appreciate your tenacity in trying to keep Wikipedia better, Reconsider the static. Next time, try to report this to us early-on (or, if you feel it is blatant vandalism, WP:AIV), so that nobody has to break the 3RR. Thanks! Master of Puppets 05:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably add this to clarify; if this happens again, people most likely won't be as understanding, given this occurrence. Please don't take this as an excuse to edit war! Master of Puppets 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the consideration. I will exercise greater care in future. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.134.94.194 and User:80.177.99.30 reported by User:Pyrrhus16 (Result: Protected)

    Page: Earth Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 86.134.94.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    First edit to page: [62]

    Subsequent reverts by user:

    Edit warring / 3RR warnings: See here

    Comments:

    This user, using two separate IPs, has repeatedly reverted (around 20 times since July) the actions of numerous editors at the Earth Song article. He has reverted my edits, restoring in the process factually incorrect information, grammatical errors, original research, unreliable sources and links to copyright material. This user has not once used the talk page for discussion, despite numerous and continual pleas to do so. He has been warned numerous times, but fails to heed them. His disruptive behaviour cannot continue to be met with warnings. I feel that a block or article semi-protection is the only way to stop the unconstructive edits of this user. Pyrrhus16 19:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopping, so I've semi-protected the article. — Jake Wartenberg 03:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pbergen1 reported by User:Yilloslime (Result:Warned)

    Page: Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Pbergen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [63]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] (19:56, 23 October 2009)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has been advised (via an edit summary[65]) to discuss his/her edits on the talk page, but, alas, no such discussion has taken place. Some discussion has taken place here though.

    Comments:

    User:142.244.181.31 is User:Pbergen1: User:Jsudafax advises Pbergen1 to "put your cited information back up"[66] and 142.244.181.3 replies "Not sure exactly what you mean by my cited information"[67]

    Yilloslime TC 23:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned the user. I'll also see about the IP issue. Master of Puppets 05:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Varsovian reported by Jacurek (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: London Victory Parade of 1946 ([[Special:EditPage/London Victory Parade of 1946 |edit]] | [[Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/London Victory Parade of 1946 |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/London Victory Parade of 1946 |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/London Victory Parade of 1946 |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [68]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74][[75]]

    Comments:

    User does not appear to be a new editor due to evident experience in editing, however the account is new and user claims to be a new user. Records of questionable behavior are to be noted[[76]][[77]] including false claims [[78]] and threatening comments such as this gloves off comment[[79]].--Jacurek (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The diff you gave of the 3RR warning actually came after the user's most recent revert. However, the user's general incivility leads to believe he will continue to be disruptive, so I have issued a 24 hour block. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further discussion here). Removing comment as AN3 is not the venue to discuss blocks. Master of Puppets 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review as this is a content dispute that was being handled in the talk pages of the No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron and User:Varsovian had indicated a commitment to resolve issues in a diplomatic manner. I am not sure of the motives of bringing this to another forum. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    User:98.235.186.116 reported by User:Alowishous (Result: Semi 24 hrs)

    Page: Marvel_Super_Hero_Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 98.235.186.116 (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: [84] I tried the warning but screwed it up. Others have tried talking to the guy though. See Talk Page

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

    Comments:
    As far as I can tell, it looks like 98.235.186.116 is upset that the Rumorbuster site is up there and keeps deleting it or replacing it with his proboards forum, only to get upset when that's deleted. I'd like to think that all parties involved want a peaceful solution they just can't settle on one. Alowishous (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I semiprotected the page for 24 hours. Hopefully some discussion will come of that. — Jake Wartenberg 05:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP: 71.230.32.53 reported by User:Marek69 (Result:24 hrs )

    Page: The Vampire Diaries (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 71.230.32.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [86]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

    Comments:

    IP blocked for 24 hrs. — Jake Wartenberg 05:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:140.180.12.237 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result:Mediating)

    Page: Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 140.180.12.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [98]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104] (ongoing discussion)

    Comments:


    IP user changes consensus definition of marriage to a dictionary definition, edit wars to maintain. Engages in discussion on talk page but will not address the POV in his edits. Also says he "will not let this definition be changed" [105] and will create an account to make more revisions [106]. Dayewalker (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You should add a warning to the users talk page, so they can follow the links and see what our policy and practices are, so they can attempt to conform to them, and there is a record of the issue. Hardyplants (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll mediate this. The editor has agreed to stop reverting. and I've got to say, I'm impressed with their maturity. Hopefully this all goes well! Master of Puppets 04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mauricio Rua article, multiple editors at war, reported by User:Jusdafax (Result: Page semi-protected)

    Edit war in progress at this page due to a controversy. I have no interest in the issue itself; I got involved on vandal patrol and have lost track of who the vandals are. Suggest semi-protect may be the answer 'till things cool down. Thanks, Jusdafax 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE There have been over 25 edits in a one hour span by multiple editors since my last attempt at reverting. Strongly suggest action be taken asap. Jusdafax 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC) ‎[reply]

    User:Bigsuperindia reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Mediating)

    Page: Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Bigsuperindia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [107]

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

    1. 16:19, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
    2. 16:26, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321957909 by Abecedare (talk)")
    3. 16:35, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321958957 by Abecedare (talk)")
    4. 17:00, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321960510 by Abecedare (talk)")
    5. 17:07, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
    • Diff of warning: here

    See attempts to discuss issue and explain relevant policies at user talk page and article talk page

    Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: User has now logged out and is making |same revert as 114.143.92.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can that IP be blocked too and the page semi-protected for some time ? (I am not doing any of this myself since I am "involved") Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update 2: And now the user is back as Rachitadelhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continuing to edit-war. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok potential sock issue here, but I've warned the two user accounts, any further reversions without discussion will result in blocks am actively watching at the moment. Khukri 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: this is not a possible sock issue. This is admitted socking: see the messages left by IP and sock at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Delhi. Also I am not sure if we need to wait for further reversions, given that the user and his sock has already made 7-10 reverst despite multiple 3RR warnings. At a minimum, the socks need to be indef. blocked and the page semi-protected to prevent continued disruption. Abecedare (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Think this has calmed now, assuming good faith editor didn't know about sock rules etc, and has started to discuss. I've blocked the sock and User:Bigsuperindia should continue discussion. I'll continue to monitor for a bit. Khukri 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I've watchlisted everything, and will watch. Though disapproval has been given about how I handled this so would appreciate others input from those who look after EW issues more frequently than I, and have no problems if different action is required . Khukri 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there! hey i don't want to mess up anything. i'm trying to bring the facts to light. and i want to help in improving Delhi article. Many things there are just out of order. I hope you guys are not gonna sue me for my free services. :) Bigsuperindia (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page: State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Users being reported: 71.182.110.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.240.245.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other related IPs seen on page history


    Previous version reverted to: [108]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112] and [113]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

    Comments:

    While this individual, who began editing the article under a series of varying IPs early last month, has not breached 3RR, I still believe that their reversions, as well as their complete avoidance of any sort of discourse on any talk page, proves a serious problem. I refuse to revert the page any further (I have already done so twice), and my repeated attempts to establish a connection with this edit warring anon have been unsuccessful. Their edits to the page are nonconstructive and problematic (see the first IP's talk page for my specific concerns), as another user on the talk page mentioned a month ago, and although I have extended the olive branch several times, I have received nothing in kind. I'm at a loss as to what is the next step. Either way, their uncooperative edit warring is disruptive and detrimental to the article. María (habla conmigo) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned the most recent offender. If this keeps going on at this rate, I'd say to request page protection. Cheers, Master of Puppets 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Threeafterthree reported by User:James Nicol (Result: No vio)

    Page: {{Todd Palin}}
    User being reported: {{User:Threeafterthree}}


    Previous version reverted to: [115]

    • 1st revert: [[116]]
    • 2nd revert: [[117]]
    • 3rd revert: [[118]]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


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

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

    Comments:

    User:James Nicol reported by User:J (Result: )

    Page: Todd Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: James Nicol (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: [121]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see lengthy discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin

    Comments:
    Editor was aware that numerous editors and administrators believed his similar edits at Sarah Palin to be problematic per wp:blp. Given the facts, it appears clear he pursued the same matter at Todd Palin in an attempt to circumvent the consensus against his edits at Sarah Palin, wp:blp notwithstanding. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WLU reported by Feeline (Result: )

    Page: The Courage to Heal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [122]


    • Editing away my stuff instead of reverting: [125]
    • Removing my POV tag: [126]
    • Removing my POV tag again: [127]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

    Comments:I would like to note that I am not the first user that WLU has treated in this way. I am just the only one who's put up a fight so far. Here are some earlier reversions, for which I can find no justification: [130] [131].

    Thanks.Feeline (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=322203619"