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 96.244.150.95 (talk) at 00:10, 1 February 2010 (→‎User:Mark Shaw reported by IP 96.244.150.95: new section). 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:Anonywiki reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: blocked by User:Vsmith)

    Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Anonywiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2] (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)

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

    Comments:


    User:Cexycy reported by User:Rapido (Result: 12h)

    Page: Living Next Door to Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Cexycy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    See: [4]

    • Despite the discussion here: [5]
    • And warnings: [6]
    • And above edit warring report: [7]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

    Comments:

    Don't think we're getting anywhere. I reported Cexycy last time 3 days ago, and there was discussion on the article talk page. Despite this, he has reverted back to his version (no sources added or anything - just the same version as before) with the edit summary "Remember the discussion please". This isn't consensus building, just a continuation of the edit war. So I think we are not getting anywhere! He keeps trying to steer the conversation to the fact I nominated some articles he started for AFD some weeks ago... but little or no discussion on improving the article. Rapido (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hyquest reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 31h to the IP)

    Page: General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Tucson Theological Seminary
    User being reported: Hyquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also appears to be editing as or in conjunction with 174.18.20.181, and User:Azggardner


    Previous version reverted to: [10]


    Per the article's history this editor admits to warring. In addition to the warring, the editor seems to admit to making COI edits (claiming they are "his/her" pages). The same editor has also disruptively edited the Tucson Theological Seminary article which is being discussed for deletion as evidenced by that article's history. The IP user also blanked this article's talk page.

    I would also note that I think the General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc. should again be reverted (including for copyright), but I hesistate to do so so that I do not run afoul of WP:3RR myself. Another editor has already done this.

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

    Novaseminary (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit seems to indicate that 174.18.20.181 and User:Azggardner are the same person, and strongly suggests that all three are the same person. Novaseminary (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the anon IP (now blocked through other process) is the same as User:Azggardner, but not the same person (though editing in conjunction with) Hyquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as discussed on User talk:174.18.20.181. Novaseminary (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - 74.18.20.181 has been blocked 31 hours by Materialscientist. This IP is the same person as Azzgardner. A new user, Hyquest, has joined in discussions. Novaseminary is helping to sort it out, and has explained our policies. Blocks for the new editors will follow if the message is not received. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bmpowell reported by User:SchoolcraftT (Result: Protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: Mountain Parkway Byway


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bmpowell#3RR_-_Mountain_Parkway_Byway

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mountain_Parkway_Byway


    Comments:
    He dosen't accept what I tell him is correct and that the information needed to be changed. He used inaccurate informtion and clams that he is right.
    Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raj2004 reported by User:Goethean (Result: No action)

    Page: Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Raj2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

    Comments:

    • Comment - As an outside observer who watched this from the beginning, I feel this should immediately be closed with no action. Reporting editor never notified the other editor of the report to this page; a simple content dispute. Editors appear to be working on the article in dispute, with no further reports filed since this one... Doc9871 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - No action. The last revert by Raj2004 was more than 24 hours ago, and the participants are discussing things. Anyone continuing to revert should be aware that if they don't get consensus on Talk, blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ferocious osmosis reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 h for both)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [22]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

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

    User:89.168.224.187 reported by Fred the Oyster (Result: No action)

    1996 Manchester bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 89.168.224.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 00:16, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340622818 by Fred the Oyster (talk)Facts are facts")
    2. 00:24, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340626237 by Malleus Fatuorum (talk)The source is utter crap")
    3. 00:27, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340626744 by Fred the Oyster (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - No action. The IP was indeed being stubborn, but they only reverted three times, and they have not edited in more than 24 hours. Several others have edited the article since, trying to improve the phrasing of the disputed passage, so the issue appears moot. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Automyte reported by User:LTSally and by User:Willdow (Result: 31h)

    Page: The Watchtower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Page: History of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Automyte (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: [34]

    Comments:

    User is targeting two articles, repeatedly adding POV diatribe against The Watchtower magazine at The Watchtower article; repeatedly adding improper WP:EL at History of Jehovah's Witnesses. There have been multiple reverts of user's work from several editors and several pointed comments on user's user page, all without effect. The user has not discussed any edits. LTSally (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Loonymonkey reported by User:Heqwm2 (Result: Heqwm2 blocked indef)

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

    I added edits to this article, which other editors repeatedly deleted without discussing on the talk page. What little response there has been, has been nonsense that has been repeated despite my refuting it. Heqwm2 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is exactly the sort of pointy disruption that has gotten the reporting editor blocked repeatedly. Heqwm2 has just come off of a one week block for edit-warring and immediately launched into warring over the same edits on the same articles. I would also add that his personal attacks and comments are extremely disruptive and have the effect of chasing other editors away from discussion. These kind of comments [35] [36] [37] (and these are just a few of many, many examples) should be enough to block this editor again, regardless of their edit-warring. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop posting false information. I was not blocked for edit warring. I was blocked by an admin who first claimed that he was blocking me for vandalism, and then when I challenged him, switched to claiming that he had blocked me for edit warring, a claim he refuses to defend. You are making a personal attack to distract from the issue. Furthermore, I have given you chance after chance to discuss my edits, which you have refused to take, instead wasting my time with wildly disrespectful responses. You are the one not attempting to reach consensus. You are the one edit warring. And it is not the same edit. I have tried, over and over, to modify my edits to address the basis on which you claim to object, and each time I am rudely shot down.

    My most recent attempt to edit the article: have you made any effort to discuss it? No, you have not. Yet you insist that you are not edit warring.

    When I explain why your argument on the talk page is invalid, and you respond by simply repeating your argument without any acknowledgement that I have a counter argument, that is completely unacceptable. It says to me that you have absolutely no respect for me or the consensus-building process that editors are supposed to participate in. You and other editors are repeatedly insulting me and trying to threaten me into not editing, and then claiming that I am "extremely disruptive and have the effect of chasing other editors away". What hypocrisy.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BotfieldCatflap reported by Woogee (Result: Warned)

    BotfieldCatflap (talk · contribs) repeatedly edit wars on the Tiktaalik page, reverting to his preferred version. I usse him a 3RR warning, but he did not reply, and continues to edit war. Has yet to use a Talk page. Woogee (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kbrose reported by Fnagaton (Result: Both warned)

    JEDEC memory standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kbrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 06:19, 29 January 2010
    2. 16:49, 29 January 2010 Note the unhelpful comment about "rvv".
    3. 00:04, 30 January 2010


    • Diff of warning: here
    • The user also left this untrue insulting message on my talk page [38]. I have a feeling the user will not stop their behaviour.

    —Fnagaton 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Both warned. This report only lists three reverts, and it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the rule. Nonetheless, there seems to be an edit war going on. Both parties are urged to seek wider consensus. This article seems to be just one chapter in the Binary prefix war. Anyone trying to figure out how this article fits into that saga will not get much enlightenment from the Talk page. One would expect that both sides would take the trouble to better explain their positions on Talk, so that people new to the dispute could get oriented. If reverting continues with no actual consensus, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hoising reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Warned)

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


    Previous version reverted to: 07:07, 24 January 2010 UTC


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:32, 30 January 2010 UTC

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

    I happened across this edit war fairly late. I reverted User:Hoising's changes leaving an appropriate edit summary, indicating he needed to discuss the issue and instructing him not to continue edit warring.[39] The next time I saw the page, Hoising had breached 3RR but hadn't been warned, so I left warnings for both involved editors.[40][41] Hoising read the warning, deleted it and then made his latest revert. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Warned. Hoising's desire to force the sizes of images looks to be a one-man war against the existing standards of the football project. His stream of reverts on the image sizes has not continued on 31 January, so perhaps he got the message. If he resumes his reverts against the apparent project standards, file a new report and mention this one. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ob4cl reported by User:TheJazzDalek (Result: 48h)

    Page: Template:Killah Priest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ob4cl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [42]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:43, 29 January 2010

    Comments:
    I linked to consensus regarding my edit in my edit summaries; Ob4cl wouldn't even enter into a dialog via edit summary. Very carefully made fourth revert 1 hour and 1 minute after his first. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you check his contributions, you'll find he's now going around reverting many of my edits on various articles and templates, apparently out of spite. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - 48 hours. Editor has has made about twenty reverts on 31 January, mostly of changes by TheJazzDalek. Hardly ever uses edit summaries, and never replies to comments left on his user talk. His systematic undoing of changes by TheJazzDalek on a variety of articles looks like WP:Stalking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    62.43.17*.* reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: )

    Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 62.43.177.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 62.43.178.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Previous version reverted to: [43]

    (after multiple earlier reverts, almost daily since 23 Jan:)

    1. 16:52 28 Jan
    2. 11:32 29 Jan
    3. 17:41 29 Jan
    4. 21:43 29 Jan
    5. 23:54 29 Jan
    6. 16:59 30 Jan (new IP 62.43.178.208 from same range as earlier 62.43.177.92)
    • Prior warning (before latest rv): [44]; also edit summary [45]

    Comments:

    User ignores ongoing talkpage discussion, never uses edit summaries or reacts to them; this was his only ever attempt at communication, apparently in response to [46]. IP might be identical with earlier Indymediacentral (talk · contribs), who was revert-warring in a similarly stubborn fashion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AeronPeryton reported by User:JBsupreme (Result: 24H Block )

    Page: List of Bemani musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: AeronPeryton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Examples:

    1st revert 1 - 06:15, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 14:15, 30 January 2010)
    2nd revert 2 - 12:24, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 20:24, 30 January 2010)
    3rd revert 3 - 22:16, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 06:16, 31 January 2010)
    4th revert 4 - 22:48, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 06:48, 31 January 2010)
    5th revert 5 - 23:49, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 07:49, 31 January 2010)

    I do not know if I'm doing this right, so I apologize in advance for mistakes here (feel free to correct them). The editor in question, AeronPeryton (talk · contribs) has been constantly reverting edits to the List of Bemani musicians article. The edits in question involve removing back links to deleted/non-existent articles. I have had a run in with this editor recently regarding the removal of backlinks to a different page, but provided leeway given that it was a userfied article. [47] For the record, I still do not believe that deleted backlinks should exist on userfied pages either, but decided to just let it slide. For mainspace articles on the other hand it is common practice to perform these type of cleanup functions. JBsupreme (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has been warned now a couple times on his talk page and was fully aware of the 3RR (or 4RR, really) violation. Since then a fifth revert has been made. [48] JBsupreme (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just seconding report. Warned user here [49]. Reminded user they're at 4rr here [50]. User responded insisting they would continue here [51]. User then reverted again here [52] (this revert is I think the fifth revert already mentioned by the orignal complainant JBsupreme.)Bali ultimate (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The guideline WP:REDLINK exhaustively explains the purpose of red links in the Wikipedia project. I do my best to keep my edits focused on advancing the Wikipedia project. After spending almost a week watching a mass deletion of biographies that are not or poorly sourced (instead of making an effort to work on them) mostly fronted by JBSupreme and Bali ultimate, I noticed that in addition to the subversive strategy of deleting little bits of an article at a time then asking for deletion because there's 'nothing but a sentence and it's not sourced!' both of them have taken to removing red links from other articles that lead to their deletions on the ground that it's "common practice".

    I have opened communication with both of these editors and have been met with either no response at all or the deletion of my comments of the matter [53][54]. Or in this case, a very self-confident promise of being blocked for keeping with fundamental community beliefs. I don't know what time zone JBSupreme lives in but I corrected the timestamps for the edits he feels are in contest. In fact, only the final three are involved in his dispute, and that must be where Bali's claim of a third editor comes in. There's a lot of mis-information in their reports. As for my excuse for exhibiting 3rr behaviour, again, I do not believe that their edits are in keeping with good faith or even good ideas. It feels as though they simply want to delete and bury everything for good. Not even giving a second's thought to whether or not the person is notable due to disinterest and their focusing on the next AfD. Reading their own user pages is depressing as well, you get a terrible sense of anti-social and anti-cooperative personalities from them. Bali makes a deadpan insult to Jimmy Wales for making an intelligent (and too often factual) statement and JBSupreme forces everyone who views his talk page to load a full high-res image of ducks that can't even be completely seen on most screen resolutions, to list an example for each. Both of these editors act drunk with power and are going not going to work with anyone who is in their way, whether they're right or wrong.  æronphonehome  01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bali ultimate has just made his own third reversion to the article in question, insisting that I do what I've been doing this whole time.  æronphonehome  01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for citing WP:REDLINK. I was looking for that guideline earlier and didn't think to search for it under the obvious. It clearly states: Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book; nor should they have red links to deleted articles. (emphasis mine) I have been removing red links to precisely those types of articles, have tried to discuss it with you only to be met with hostility, and now here we are with you overstepping the bounds of 3RR. JBsupreme (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Aeron - do you live somewhere where UTC does not apply? If so, in consideration for the rest of us, please accept the timestamps as they are.   pablohablo. 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DuKu reported by User:Finell (Result: 31h)

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

    DuKu is editing warring over Euclid, a long stable article, against consensus (2 editors other than me have also reverted him) and is mis-characterizing one source to contend that Euclid is of "oriental origin". I added the external link that DuKu wanted to add, but with a correct citation and without the editor's mis-description of the link as being about Euclid's "oriental origin", in the References section,[60] but that did not satisfy DuKu.

    Before DuKu's most recent edits and reverts, he added a link to a self-published paper by someone who is not a reliable source on the topic and who promotes a WP:FRINGE POV on mathematics history[61], which was discussed and settled a long time ago on the article's talk page (Talk:Euclid#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry and subsequent sections). Before that, he linked a blurb for a pamphlet on Amazon by the same fringe author.[62]

    The issues were discussed with DuKu on the article's talk page (at the end of the Talk:Euclid#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry section and Talk:Euclid#Consensus and Opinion on adding link to Perseus and beyond)—DuKu raised the issue, after he was reverted, but then went ahead with no consensus—and also at User talk:Finell#EUCLID 3.

    DuKu accused another experienced editor of vandalism for reverting DuKu's edits,[63][64] and has been uncivil and tendentious in the talk page discussions referenced above.

    DuKu is a new user, who became very active very quickly, and is clearly not fluent in English. Therefore, I am not asking for a block. Rather, some firm guidance by an administrator on all of these issues may be sufficient; comments by other experienced editors do not seem to make much impression on DuKu. Thank you.—Finell 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.29.59.12 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: 24h)

    Page: Kick-Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 70.29.59.12 (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: [70]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:
    User:70.29.59.12 keeps adding highly POV material sourced to apparently their own blog, claiming that Marvel Comics stole their idea. At least three editors have left notes about this at the user talk page, but the reversions continue with abusive language in the edit summaries. The same pattern is visible at Kick-Ass (film). This was originally reported at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Self Promotion on for Kick-Ass comic book and film, which is where I came across the problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Has now apparently started up as newly created account User:Rightous. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reversion continues [72], [73] and [74] using new account and old IP address. The material being inserted is as one editor noted "unsourced and potentially legally problematic accusation of infringement by Marvel" [75] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur in the description by Jezhotwells. This appears to be a matter of one editor (though it appears they are now using a newly created account in addition to the IP) with a personal axe to grind reverting several established accounts and anonymous editors. The accusations this editor is making are sourced only to their personal website and essentially accuse Marvel of stealing the editor's idea, which could expose Wikipedia to legal liability. --MikeJ9919 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The most recent reversions are [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kavs8 reported by Per aspera ad Astra (Result: )

    Page: Dublin Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Template:Kavs8


    Previous version reverted to: [82]

    • 1st revert: [83]
    • 2nd revert: [84]
    • 3rd revert: [85]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:Kavs8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86] [87] [88]

    Comments:

    There is a huge edit war ongoing over the question whether to list Thomson Airways flights out of several Irish airports (especially Dublin), which is fought on a number of European airports. These flights cannot be booked directly and are therefore not notable per WP:NOTTRAVEL Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC) -->[reply]

    This user (Kavs8) has been hostile in the past as well. This time around, his only justification is that "I flew it so it must exist". And, of course, comments like:
    • "i will continue to edit-war if continue's to be distructive in editing"
    • "if you continue to STOP edit-waring and re insert all destinations served by Thomson charter i will stop edit-waring but under that condition." Jasepl (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mark Shaw reported by IP 96.244.150.95

    Page: Little Green Footballs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Mark Shaw (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: N/A, he made his fourth revert before I got a chance to warn him.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

    Comments: I am well aware that I am at 3 reverts, however, I feel I made adequate attempts at communication and do not deserve to be reprimanded. He simply chose to edit war. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=341180598"