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 Bakersdozen77 (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 21 February 2012 (→User:Bakersdozen77 reported by User:Athenean (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:Xandra44 reported by User:Citizen of the USA (Result: Two days)

    Page: American Staffordshire Terrier
    User being reported: Xandra44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


    Comments:


    Five edits in two days.Citizen of the USA (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you warned him about WP:3RR? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, on her talkpage User_talk:Xandra44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen of the USA (talk • contribs)
    I'm seeing a vandalism warning, but nothing about WP:3RR. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, after placing a uw-3rr template on the editor's page, which actually explains the 3rr policy, Xandra44 has reverted a 7th time. This one is only going to pay attention to a block, and the account clearly only exists to show off the pic of their dog (who doesn't seem to resemble other members of the breed on a Google image search). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    She keeps going on vandalizing the page again.Citizen of the USA (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of two days JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Xandra44 is continuing the edit war under the IP 86.209.214.231. I finally got some discussion by leaving uw-error templates on their talk page, but only claims of fixing the article. Um, picture of Xandra44's dog doesn't match the Google image search of the breed, the original pic does... That's the opposite of fixing... Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkness Shines reported by User:TopGun (Result: Declined)

    Page: Dal Khor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Anti-Pakistan sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    1RR violations by sanctioned user:

    Previous version reverted to: Left as reverted by User.


    1st article:

    • 1st revert: [8]
    • 2nd revert: [9]

    2nd article:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The sanctions on the user do not require warnings to be given anymore as indicated [12] by the admin on his talk page.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13] [14]

    Comments: Reverts of (different) tags which were removed on Dal Khor, disagreed, sentences cited inline and clarified by two users including me on the article talk and Afd. First he asked to verify, which I did, then added inline on request. This is fully cited content. Second article, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, was also tag bombed after sources were provided on request. There's discussion on talk already for different parts of the article. This user was blocked very recently for hounding me and editwarring and was sanctioned to 1RR. This has been indicated on this talk page and block log. User has continued this behaviour even after his one week block (that was lifted and replaced with the sanction). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This user incorrectly claims edits as not counting towards reverts and above is an attempt for WP:SOUP. An administrator should verify the diffs above which were specifically objected to and re-added by DS. Two other users one on each article disagree with his edits as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no comments on RSN board yet, and DS just admitted to not adhering to the sanction. Don't know how is the content dispute or going to RSN board a justification of violating a sanction. Note that the diff he is providing is not even about the content in dispute here, rather about a reference which said to be not reliable at RSN previously and has never been put in after that. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Already told to not use Op-Eds for statements of fact Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Content related, not justification of 1RR. 2) Not even this dispute. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It has everything to do with this, you were told Op-Eds may not be used for statements of fact, and not only did you use two for statements of fact you also used them for a definition. OED has no entry for "Pakistanophobia" EB has no mention of it. Yet you think two op-Eds are fine and dandy for it? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (there's no need to tell admins how to do their job) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined Technically this was indeed a violation - even if you hold the WP:TRUTH, that's no justification for edit-warring, or violating a 1RR restriction. However, just because ONE party is subject to 1RR, that does not ever permit the other party to draw them into a violation. Both parties are clearly at fault on this one, and rather than block BOTH, I'm leaving both alone as warned. TopGun: from this point on, you should consider yourself on 1RR when it comes to any articles that both you and DS are editing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think that would be fair at all (if you could actually impose such a restriction as an administrator), because this guy following my edits and drawing me in to editwars was what got him this. And take a look again, I didn't draw him into a conflict here too (I actually added sources, did verifications... everything). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? DS's 1RR restriction was implemented by a single admin ... I appreciate that you have acknowledged the existence of this restriction. Now, stop creating such a battleground environment, and actually follow WP:DR instead of always reporting editors to admin noticeboards. Additional frivilous reports will lead to blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1RR doesn't say you can. And I have clarified I did not draw him into an editwar. Just because I'm the reporting user doesn't mean I'm the only one in disagreement (actually you should see that I am following DR). Anyway, you have acknowledged the breach.. so don't call this a frivolous report. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You CREATED a situation that would lead to a 1RR by the other editor: unethical. You posted a frivilous ANI report, again. Do you not see that YOU are the cause and solution to all of your problems on Wikipedia? You cannot ethically expect what appears to be your "primary enemy" on Wikipedia to be held to a different standard that you, yourself, can you? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not. I facilitated with the dispute on the talk page. There was no point in reverting. An uninvolved editor specifically left a note on this saying it was good enough. And I don't consider any one my "primary enemy", you just coined that term. And the ANI report was not related to this user (though he still had to mess with it). And there are others that agree that the IP was rude... but don't spill it here. DS reverted instead of discussing. And I did not make him do that... there's no way I'm going to be held responsible for his reverts where he chose to make them specifically to annoy me or to get his WP:POINT across after no consensus. And that doesn't mean that I need to draw him in edit wars, I don't care what he does.. I'm not following his edits, he's admittedly following mine and is unrepentant. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes an Op-Ed and a letter to the editor, wonderful sourcing. Darkness Shines (talk)

    I think an interaction ban would probably be in the best interests of Wikipedia now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to agree: TopGun has at least 2 editors, if not more that a direct interaction ban should be initiated for. Or perhaps, seeing as it's TopGun who has such a problem with editors that an WP:RFC/U might be a big start (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eddaido reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: declined)

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

    Repeated addition of uncited material.

    The UK Daimler car company used engines to a design by Charles Yale Knight. Eddaido has added an image, and a contentious caption. The image is generally dull and unimportant, but a reasonable addition. The caption "Logo required by Knight on cars with his engine" however is problematic:

    • This is WP:OR It's a hundred year old car with a mascot. Apart from coincidence, how do we know that knight-shaped mascot was added by the factory, not a past owner?
    • It's uncited that this was Knight's mascot.
    • Most importantly it's uncited that Knight required this mascot, rather than merely one owner choosing it of their own choice. There are many sources and illustrations showing Daimlers (which used the Knight engine for a long period) with other mascots, including Daimler's own promotional material. The US cars that used the Knight engine don't seem to have used any similar mascot.
    • They're also generally termed "mascots", not "logos", although this is unimportant. Radiator mascots would be a clearly notable topic - they're quite collectable as antique art objects.

    Past involvement with this editor on car-related topics has not been promising: See Talk:Preselector_gearbox#Recent_changes. I've also been accused of dishonesty by this editor. At Commons they've also demonstrated a tendency for repeatedly defending incorrect WP:OR against clear sourcing. Similarly at WP, to push an incorrect OR POV, against any other sourced evidence.

    One comment here User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Knight_mascot, but I can't claim to understand what they mean by "Yes, you are correct." followed by immediate re-addition of the problematic caption. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined — With the diffs given, I'm not seeing either a WP:3RR violation or a clear indication of long-term edit warring— yet. If they continue or if I'm missing a clear violation, then please feel free to update/re-open a new thread. If you believe there's a user conduct problem, as a whole, I would suggest a user-conduct RFC --slakr\ talk / 01:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was reverted by an independent editor, then promptly re-added here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed weighty and quite fascinating stuff. Eddaido (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TopGun reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 1 week)

    Page: Inter-Services Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [25]
    • 2nd revert: [26]
    • 3rd revert: [diff]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


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

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

    Comments:
    TopGun was put under a 1R restriction for any articles which he and I edit here.[28] I informed him he had broked this restriction and asked him to be more careful in future.[29] As you ca nsee from the edit summary he says there are no restrictions on him. Please note, I do not want him blocked. I wish clarification on the matter. Is he or is he not on a 1R on article we both edit. If so please ensure he is fully aware of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is exactly aimed to get me blocked. I was only told not to game DS in to an editwar (which I did not intend to before as well). And these reverts are not even against Darkness Shines. One is against an IP that copy pasted content and another against a different user. I'm not under any 1RR restriction as such. Just a tit for tat report, that's what this is. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also to add Darkness Shines is under 1RR (as indicated in his block log and on this talk page), he violated his restriction [30] [31] deliberately where I reverted him only a single time for a change with a reason at Pak Watan‎. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have investigated the assertion directly above that DS has broken 1RR. Unfortunately, the 2 diff's presented are dated Feb 12 and Feb 15, which does not meet the 1RR violation threshold. As such, I am not finding a 1RR violation by DS at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week Editor is AWARE that they are under 1RR restriction on articles that they both edit. It has nothing to do with reverting the other user, it's about ANY reverts to the article. What a senseless waste. 1 week block is implemented due to escalation from previous 72 hour block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please unblock him, I was not after a block. Just make it clear to him what the sanction is. This will only add fuel to the fire. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.55.65.45 reported by User:PaoloNapolitano (Result: already blocked)

    Page: List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 173.55.65.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [32]

    And so it goes on... Here too.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has not responded to any warnings, and I believed there was hardly any chance at all that the user would look at the talk page.

    Comments:

    User:Kumioko reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result: blocked 31 hours)

    Page: Talk:American Crossword Puzzle Tournament (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 03:38, 15 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 476654842 by Markvs88 (talk)Undo vandalism by Markvs88")
      03:39, 15 February 2012 (edit summary: "assess as start for WPUS and Add NY and NYC")
    2. 12:35, 15 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 476993808 by Markvs88 (talk)revert vandalism by Markv88")
    3. 16:36, 15 February 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 477013697 by Markvs88 (talk)Undo last edits by Marvs88")
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=477027825 "Since it isn't a matter of 3RR or vandalism I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth."

    —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Talk:American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut and Talk:American Cruise Lines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to clarify that Markvs88 is the one edit warring I am just trying to reinstate the vandalism they did to the articles I edited. IN the case of one he not only undid my edit but also removed Wikiproject bannershell and a number of other cleanup improvements. This whole situation is just being blown out of proportion by Sarek. I initiated this discussion agains Markvs88 which Sarek has so conveniently forgotten to mention in his fine and detailed writeup. I recommend before taking action that the reviewer looks at the history of the articles submitted above and sees what is being done by both editors. --Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to read WP:BRD. You were bold, he reverted you and then you discuss. You don't revert again. You are just as guilty of edit warring. And calling good faith edits vandalism is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did try and discuss it, Mark refuses to accept any of the edits I made. Not just adding WPUS but anything else as well. If you take a look at the edit history you can see that in 2 of the articles linked above. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you take it to dispute resolution, you still don't revert again. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have half a mind to block both edit warriors here... and both editors could do with a serious reading of WP:VAND. Good-faith disputes are not vandalism. Labeling another editor's edits as vandalism does not grant you an exemption to the edit warring policy when those edits are not actually vandalism. --Chris (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If I hadn't already been in a discussion about this matter in another location, I certainly would have blocked both so I see that as a fair move. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is complete absurdity but if you give me a block because I am trying to help the pedia through the childish actions of another user then please make mine a long one. That will send a clear message that no matter how much good you do one editor with their own agenda can get you kicked out. --Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You edit warred. You know you can't do that. So trying to turn it around on being one editor with an agenda is stupid. You didn't have to edit war, he didn't put a gun to your head. You could have gone and looked for some dispute resolution. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec] Kumioko, you've presented evidence of three articles where Markvs reverted you--hardly evidence of his refusing "any" of your edits. I've undone the three since these articles, in my opinion, do not fall under the scope of those projects and their application does not further the project: a half dozen projects for those articles only obfuscates the relevant projects. As for both parties edit-warring: I note that Markvs disengaged from the back-and-forth. If Kumioko reverts again on these three, or indeed reverts any other one of those edits, I propose they be temporarily blocked and the bot shut down indefinitely, until the community a. decides on the proper scope of those projects and b. there are some hard numbers on what it does and what its error rate is. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to dwell on it but I wanted to leave a quick message that I think that my block and the failure to leave Markvs88 so much as a warning for his actions represents a serious delinquency of the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. I also think that the conduct displayed by Sarek and several other administrators are prime examples of the serious degradation of the morale compass of the admin corps and enforcement of Wikipedia policy. If we would have both been blocked I would have been fine with it and simply taken it on the chin. Since I was the only one that got blocked, it shows me that Markvs88's conduct is not only tolerated and accepted...it is condoned. --Kumioko (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moral compass my foot. Your right to the moral high ground evaporated with this: "...I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth." This is an admission that you intend to engage in edit warring no matter the outcome. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a statement, that's all. You just making assumptions of bad faith. I know you don't know me from adam but the fact that I have been around for about 6 years, have 320, 000 edits, etc. etc. should have caused you to stop and go shit maybe I should see what happens instead of jumping to conclusions. But no, the administrator jumped and the block began. Mark sat in his chair laughing indignantly I am sure. In the end, it really does't mean anything other than this place is a joke. We follow policy when we feel like it and ignore it when we don't. we have policy's that tell you to ignore policys and other policy's that tell you to ignore that. We have more rules and regulations that the UCMJ and in the end its just a crock. We punish the editors who are trying to make a difference and reward the schmucks. That is why Wikipedia is dying. We are hemorraghing editors faster than we can recruit new ones. We are becoming a joke to the world and its only a matter of time before someone shuts the servers off. --Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When they turn off the servers we can all go to Conservapedia. Hmmm. I heard they're picky about to whom they give accounts. I hope I'm good enough to be an editor for them. I think I have the right stuff. – Lionel (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, I would't waste my time there either. I'll just spend my time writing another book. It pays better. --Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT warring by User:Imperator Sascha (Result: Malformed)

    Hereby I report that User:Imperator Sascha reverts my additions to the Talk:List_of_fictional_Jews-page. He does so in an attempt to hide accusations of inserting false informations into the article and using false sources. He erroneously requests "oversight" of my entries for undeclared reasons. Hereby I declare that I have also submitted an investigation of "Imperator Sascha" for meat puppetry because that account is in fact a meat puppet of User:Anonymiss_Madchen. For details on this see the respective ANI. It stands to reason that the Edit warring is part of his strategy to influence the ANI for sockpuppetry. --JohnCrehan (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KoreanSentry reported by User:Ferox Seneca (Result: )

    Page: Balhae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:KoreanSentry; reported by User:Ferox Seneca (Result: ) ==


    Previous version reverted to: January 22


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: February 13

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: February 12

    Comments:
    I'm involved in a low-level edit war with user:KoreanSentry over the content in the article Bohai. On February 3 I reverted a removal of sourced data from an IP user which I thought was vandalism. Since then, Koreansentry has removed similar sourced content several times, and has reverted my efforts to revert the omission of this content. The only explanation which he has given has been on one of his edit summaries, in which he explained that he was removing the content because it represented a "nationalist Chinese POV" (which is contrary to the guidelines of WP:UNDUE).

    On February 12 I began a discussion on Balhae's talk page in order to try to resolve the disagreement: Koreansentry has not responded there, but continued to revert my efforts to restore sourced content to the article with the rationale in his edit summary that the restoration of this content "wasn't agreed at the Talk". Another editor left a warning about edit warring on Koreansentry's talk page on February 13, and I left a note on Koreansentry's talk page on February 15, requesting that he discuss the issue on Balhae's talk page. This user has been uncivil with other editors in the last month, and has already been banned for edit warring, so I don't expect the issue to be resolved without arbitration.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.63.184.64 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Causes of autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 68.63.184.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [39]

    • 1st revert: [40]
    • 2nd revert: [41]
    • 3rd revert: [42]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:

    A number of editors have been removing the material the IP has added. Discussion has been ongoing about the lack of WP:MEDRS sources for the material for a couple of weeks now. The IP has not addressed the issue on talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hanlon1755 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: Conditional statement (logic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hanlon1755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 15:37, 14 Feb


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:39, 15 Feb I asked him to self-revert, then he acknowledged (00:26, 16 Feb on his talk page, and 00:21, 16 Feb at SPI) that "it's no secret" he is 96.33.171.225, although the revert is the only edit for Special:Contributions/96.33.171.225, and doesn't hear the part about self-reverting his fourth revert… expands edit war 00:24, 16 Feb to Material conditional.


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:06, 15 Feb & 21:20, 15 Feb—Machine Elf 1735 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: strongly warned)

    Page: Rick Santorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: (All of these edits are removals of the same content added by other users.)

    • 1st revert: [45] (15:44, 7 February)
    • 2nd revert: [46] (06:31, 12 February)
    • 3rd revert: [47] (16:07, 15 February)
    • 4th revert: [48] (02:36, 16 February)

    (Note that these are only the reverts in the past ~week; user has been trying to remove the content for months.)

    There's no bright-line 3RR violation here, but it's pretty obvious edit-warring, especially in light of the clear and enduring consensus to keep this material in the article (see links below to discussions).


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Current discussion here. User began discussion after trying to remove the content several times and being reverted, and his proposal to remove it has been pretty clearly shot down, but he continues to remove it. An earlier RFC, after this very same user tried to remove the same content in December, also demonstrated a consensus to preserve the material.

    Comments:
    User recently had a week-long block for edit warring on the same subject (viz. Rick Santorum's feelings about gay people - report here), was also recently reported again for the same article leading to page protection, and is topic-banned for his edit-warring and other misbehavior in the topic area of abortion. A topic ban may be appropriate here as well based on the user's clear and repeated failure to behave within the bounds of WP policy when this politician is concerned, but as I'm not sure that's within ANEW's power let's just see what we can do here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    This editor ia also engaged in a similar low grade edit war on another LGBT-related article, Freedom to Marry.

    • Massive POV changes under the guise of correcting POV and clean-up on Jan. 27:
    • 1st revert: [[50]] on Feb. 12.
    • 2nd revert: [[51]] on Feb 13.
    • 3rd revert: [[52]] on Feb 14.
    • Second round of massive POV changes on Feb. 16.

    These changes were reverted by four different editors, including myself. This editor has a long and undisguised history of aggressive and disruptive POV editing on articles related to conservative politics and related social issues, and recently received a topic ban for abortion-related topics and a recent one-week block for edit-warring on Rick Santorum's position on LGBT-related issues, his fourth block for edit-warring in the past year. He routinely ignores consensus and policy. Request, if possible, that the editor's topic ban be extended to all topics related to conservative politics and social issues including all LGTB-related articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Except in this case he has consensus on the talkpage [53]. A discussion he himself started. We cannot block an editor editing in good faith with consensus to back them. Block is not indicated, much less topic ban. – Lionel (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that multiple editors are reverting this particular change shows pretty clearly that the edit is not supported by consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not 3RR. NYY did not cross the bright line. He did not game the system by making a 4th revert just outside of 24 hrs. Any block in the case of "generic edit warring" must be based on incontrovertible evidence. And this case is not clear cut. Ros' report covers 9 days! A lot has happened in those 9 days. And currently there appears to be a new consensus. If NYY broke 3RR and there was no discussion, then yes, a block is indicated. But to take an 9 day span with good faith efforts on the talk page... I'm sorry. That's not enough to block. – Lionel (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it's a good thing that ANEW isn't just for 3RR violations, isn't it? Two months ago, NYY tries to remove the material and is reverted. The subsequent RFC determines that he does not have consensus to remove the material. Undeterred, he continues to try to remove the material. The current discussion likewise does not demonstrate a consensus to remove the material - rather, the opposite. Undeterred, he continues to try to remove the material. The fact of having begun a discussion is not a magical shield that protects a user from all sanction for edit-warring - a necessary component of the discussion is hewing to the consensus it produces, which here, again, is to keep the material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of the discussion is that consensus favored NYY's edit. If you are saying that I misinterpreted the discussion, then it is reasonable to assume NYY did likewise. Since this is not a 3RR violation, and since we all agree that there could be a misunderstanding, a block would not be proper.– Lionel (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's ample evidence of gaming the system in the second report, where he makes one reversion a day. Also, the editor is clearly aware what he is doing as, at one point, he reverts himself "to avoid edit-warring". [[54]]. His long history of blocks for edit-warring demonstrate that he should be now familiar with the policies involved. Unfortunately, he has chosen to use that knowledge to cheat the system, rather than to improve his behavior. It should be pointed out that the time span in the second report is because he was blocked for a week for edit-warring on another article. Furthermore, the editor has never discussed his changes on the Freedom to Marry talk page, even though he repeated demanded that the editors reverting him should justify their reverts on the talk page, going so far as to issue "warnings" on the user talk pages of two of the editors involved. The editor clearly exhibits a pattern of disruptive low grade edit-warring that cannot be defended by appeal to the 3rr rule. Sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing any good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Important Note: the above "report" re: Freedom to Marry is two days old. Blocking is preventative: it is not punitive. A block cannot be based on this report because it is stale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)
    That report re: Freedom to Marry is stale. Blocking is preventative---not punitive. – Lionel (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not stale. The report was filed an hour and a half after the editor made his last round of edits only seven hours ago. The block requested is to prevent the editor from continuing his edit-warring, as he has every intention to do. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a problem that lasts for months. He don't use talk page very often. His practice is to delete a large portion of the article (in some cases he deletes up to 80% of the text with edit summary "cleanup"[55], removes sourced content citing WP:BURDEN[56] (!!!), or removes whole section just because "it should be expanded"). He is blocked four times for edit warring, but he continues to do that. More False edit summaries for the purpose of edit warring. His favourite edit summary is apparently "cleanup". Regardless of the outcome of this report, he should be topic banned from LGBT related articles. I know that this is not the right place to ask for topic ban, but if someone decide to propose topic ban at WP:AN, I'm willing to provide additional evidence.--В и к и T 12:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fruitless complaint. 4 edits in 10 days != 3RR violation by a few miles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Then it's a good thing that this is EWN and not just 3RRN, isn't it? Do try to read a bit harder. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Repetitive tendentious POV edits and reverts with dishonest edit summries against clear consensus sure sounds like edit-warring to me. Edit-warring is not defined by 3rr. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I challenge Roscelese's claim of consensus against my edits at Rick Santorum; there is no consensus there, and the article is constantly changing. As for Freedom to Marry, the article was a total and complete disaster before I found it. I don't understand how removing POV constitutes POV editing. WP:BURDEN states that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." Before I started editing the article there were barely any third-party sources, so I removed unsourced statements and did a massive cleanup to remove POV such as "so-called Defense of Marriage Act", "calling on President Obama to do the right thing and join the majority of Americans who support the freedom to marry", "Gay and lesbian couples want to get married to make a lifetime commitment to the person they love and to protect their families", etc. I realize that Roscelese and Dominus think anyone who removes material positively portrarying LGBT rights is a POV warrior, but it is the opposite. I have summarized point by point in the edit summaries what I did at the article. I suppose I should have taken it to talk, but the fact is that the other editors are the problem at the article, not me. In reality, Dominus is edit warring, not me. He has made three reverts and removed a legitimately placed tag on the article. How about instead of blocking people unfairly, we lock down the article so that the revert warriors will discuss the article? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No one can make you edit war. Blaming others for your own misbehavior is not going to get you anywhere. As for Rick Santorum, if you believe there is no consensus, then why are you repeatedly attempting to implement your own proposed version rather than reaching a consensus version on the talk page and implementing that one? How is admitting that you were edit warring supposed to get you off this report? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're twisting his words. He never "admitted" he was edit warring. And your behavior is a violation of policy. He said that "the article is constantly changing." What that means is that one minute the content justifies a certain section title, the next minute it doesn't. At a certain point there is consensus that supports his change, then the consensus changes. His editing has been completely consistent with the ebb and flow, the dynamic change which accompanies an article undergoing extreme RECENTISM. – Lionel (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a good reason why there's so much chatter here from unrelated parties? Other than the parties involved, and admins looking into it, this is not a board that requires other parties to comment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah! Exactly why is Binksternet here? Who invited him? Good call Bwilkins. – Lionel (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow you missed yourself in the Bwilkins assessment, Lionelt. However, Bwilkins was out of order in attempting to shut down discussion. There is no limitation of this noticeboard to admins, edit warring reporters and accused parties; there is no rule against outside observer comments. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    The editing mode that motivated this report has a new incarnation: [57] (today at 17:59); exactly the same edit was performed on multiple occasions over the last month, e.g. [58], [59], [60] (and there are others). All reverted by a number of different editors -- but instead of gaining consensus for it on the talk page he simply repeats it in edit-war mode, albeit slow motion. It's pretty obvious that without a sanction this behavior will continue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The wiki needs to be protected from such slow motion edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was protected because of those specific sections, during which no one besides me made an effort to resolve the dispute. As such, I removed it again. I don't understand why Nomoskedasticity is targeting me as I am the only one who has properly followed policy, namely WP:BRD. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NYyankees51 is hardly the only participant: [61]. It only shows that there is no consensus for the edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned NYY, next time you repeat a reversion on one of these, or any related articles, broadly construed, without really obvious consensus, I will block you for 1 month, as as escalation from your last 1 week block. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Platinum_Star reported by User:206.248.123.79 (Result: warned)

    Page: El Talismán
    User being reported: Platinum_Star (talk · contribs)


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


    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Talism%C3%A1n&action=history

    The most recents reverts are from the user.


    User already received warnings but removed them from his/her talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APlatinum_Star&action=historysubmit&diff=477185751&oldid=477185638


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

    Comments:

    Fist sorry if I did not used the recommended formatting with the links, I am new at HTML. I am reporting the user that has done more than 4 reverts on the mentioned article. Also on other articles that appear on his history page. The user removes information from other editors (most often properly sourced) and accuses them on vandalism. Also the the reported user is using his/her edit summaries to call the lack of knowledge of other editors in what seems like personal attacks. The user removed the warnings from his/her talk page once. I restored them and he posted asking for help.206.248.123.79 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    At no point did you ever post a 3rr warning, just incorrectly applied vandalism warnings. Please read WP:NOTVAND. Also, while "Restored correct and accurate info" is not the most useful summary, it is in no way personal attack. Please read WP:AGF as well. He did call another editor's edits pointless, but that alone is no reason for you to be offended by his edit summaries.
    You also never tried to discuss the issue, and the version you reverted to was unsourced and opinion based.
    I've posted a uw-3rr on Platinum Star's talk page. As far as I can tell, that's really all that needs to be done for now. Both of you stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks206.248.123.79 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Marking as Warned --slakr\ talk / 02:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dominus Vobisdu reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Freedom to Marry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [62]

    • 1st revert: [63]
    • 2nd revert: [64]
    • 3rd revert: [65] (Removed a legitimately placed POV tag)
    • 4th revert: [66] (Removed the tag again)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

    Comments:
    The most problematic of the four edits are today's two reverts of a legitimately placed {{POV}} tag. The tag specifically says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." He removed the tag because he didn't think the reason given on the talk page by the tagging user (User:Lionel) was good enough. After I restored the tag, he removed it again, claiming the matter had been resolved. Far from it. Dominus has made no attempt to discuss anything on the talk page, and instead reported me for edit warring above. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The link in "diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" is in fact nothing of the sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly retributive report, based on filer's own comments. No need for action. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a tendentious, frivolous and disruptive report by NYyankees51. The first edit was on 27 January, the second was on 12 February and the last two were on 16 February. It looks like NYyankees51 is disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. NYyankees51 on the other hand blanked half the article in a series of consecutive edits. Mathsci (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask why this rationale is not being applied to the report filed on me above? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:129.252.69.40 reported by User:LesPhilky (Result: blocked)

    Page: Talk:Carolina-Clemson Rivalry (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 129.252.69.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [69]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Cannot resolve issue on talk page because the issue is on the talk page. User is deleting any attempts made to discuss article bias.

    Comments:Unfortunately, in this case, there can't be a discussion on the article's talk page because this anonymous user is deleting anyone's attempt to discuss possible bias in the article. Valid points were brought up by the user User:Clmsntgr and they do not violate policy. I would also like to have a discussion regarding points on the article. However, this anonymous user is simply deleting the conversation altogether with no explanation because he doesn't agree with the issue. If you look at User:129.252.69.40 talk page here [76], you will see that multiple cases of vandalism, edit warring, and other nuisances have arisen from this IP address regardless of warnings or blocks. It is impossible to discuss proactive changes to the article on the Talk page when this anonymous IP user deletes them ASAP. I request a permanent block on this IP address as past temporary blocks have not made a difference.

    --LesPhilky (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.80.173.5 reported by User:Mabdul (Result: blocked)

    Page: Web design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.80.173.5 (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: [81]


    Comments:
    Spam user/IP mabdul 23:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Astronomyinertia reported by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result: Indef)

    Page: Battle of Aanandapuram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Astronomyinertia (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: [link]

    Level Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Note the user himself warned another user about 3RR for this page

    Comments:The User is making the reverts avoiding 3RR [82] by making the edits outside the 24 hour frame and further talk and revert. The dispute is not even over the article but only whether after the article in the Also See Section whether Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War is to be included or not.Note had to request protection for another page due to a content dispute due to disputes between this editor and another editor. There is no content dispute in this article and there is nothing to justify protection and this edit warring between him and other editors will continue and daily reverts will continue if let unchecked. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



    User:DeFacto reported by User:Martinvl (Result: )

    Page: Introduction to the metric system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [83]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:DeFacto#Introduction to the metric system & 3RR (Entire section is relevant)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Introduction to the metric system#When did the French introduce the metric system? (Entire talk page is relevant)

    Comments:

    This is not the first time that I crossed with this editor - during the last month he showed his true self on this talk page. Martinvl (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't much editing happening on this article today, so I don't think a block or protection are currently necessary. There was no 3RR violation from what I can tell. And Martinvl, the 5th revert diff is invalid. It looks like "99" got tacked on the end of the URL, but I'm not going to correct that since I don't know if the URL without the "99" is what you meant to link to or not. --Chris (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:Redslider (Result: no violation)

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    User being reported: [[User:<Spartahorse|<Spartahorse]] ([[User talk:<Spartahorse|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Spartahorse|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Spartahorse|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Spartahorse|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Spartahorse|block user]] · block log) et. al.


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

    • 1st revert: [89] (original as I came on it; and my first set of revisions)
    • 2nd revert: [90] (my second edit attempt; First complete reversion of my edits
    • 3rd revert: [91] (several editors restore material; I attempt to revise again.
    • 4th revert: [92] (I attempt to correct again; BLP is reverted again;



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93] (again, don't know if 3RR Warning applies since different individuals are acting together (this is not an open consensus process, but a group attack.)


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: extensive discussion at [[94] (esp. items 8-11), too complex for diff.

    Comments:

    [note: the reverts and edits to my original edits are by different individuals that appear to be acting in concert to maintain defamatory material (sourced,inadequately sourced or unsourced) on the BLP.)

    Don't know how or where to handle this, but since the editors warring with me have threatened to accuse me of an edit war on my user page I thought this a good place to start. The difficult part is that there are many editors acting in concert to prevent me from making edits to prevent defamation in the BLP. Believe (but cannot prove) some of these are members of group that created/hijacked page, and now act as single individual to prevent anyone from setting the record straight.

    Whether this constitutes an 'edit-war' proper I cannot say. But they have now threatened me with an 'edit war' charge if I persist in trying to remove the defamatory material. It puts me in a peculiar position with respect to continuing to try to prevent a malicious attack on a living person, and to avoid being falsely beset by Wiki policy and technical sourcing arguments, charges of "vandalism" and such that would try to intimidate into backing off. There's been plenty of discussion on the talk pages (esp. items 8-11) and on the BLP noticeboard (discussion seems to have been deleted). Mediation does not seem to be an option in this case. I am relatively new to all this, so forgive me if I overstepped some unknown line on this board. Perhaps one of you can sort things out and advise? Thank you. Redslider (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sogamespo reported by User:Chicocvenancio (Result: declined)

    Page: Economy of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sogamespo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [95]

    • 1st revert: [96]
    • 2nd revert: [97]
    • 3rd revert: [diff]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

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

    Comments:
    The user has been blocked in ptwiki for insulting me in connection to the same dispute. He refuses to discuss the matter. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record: Sogamespo is using open proxies (diff, proxy info) to evade his block on pt.wiki and also evade being caught on 3RR here.” TeLeS (T @ L C S) 23:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neolloa999 reported by User:CambridgeBayWeather (Result: Three days)

    Page: List of countries by Muslim population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Neolloa999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [100]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104], although not by me that was the first comment on their talk page. They have been warned once or twice more by other editors about edit warring.

    In the original difference they change the numbers based on a supposed reference to the CIA. At the time I used the standard template on their talk page, here and noticed that they had several other complaints about edit warring and had already been blocked for the same thing.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105] was after the first revert I also issued a templated warning but with a short description of what the problem was. After the second revert I went with this and tried to explain the problem.

    Comments:

    There is no problem with having the CIA figures in the article but the column they are adding to is for the PEW reports. The CIA report should be in the other column and the reference should be provided. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Youreallycan reported by User:Badams5115 (Result: Page protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [106]

    Reverts of warnings:

    Posted on my talk page: [112]


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

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

    Comments:
    Isn't he deliberately being a nuisance?


    Revert three - claimed - is actually a self revert - diff - Youreallycan 01:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you considered blocking him for vandalism[115][116] and harassment of other users[117][118]???--В и к и T 01:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, yes. I considered it. And I almost blocked Youreallycan for violating WP:POINT; however, he seems to have cooled down and, when I checked the article's history, I saw that the edit war extended beyond him. That's why I thought that page protection was the best solution. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds a lot like wiki-lawyering and gaming the system to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats right - a rubbish un-actionable report - Youreallycan 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    Moved to WP:AN.--В и к и T 00:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Walter55000 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 1 week)

    Page: List of iCarly episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Walter55000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Previous version reverted to: versions are different each time but this is typical.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve issues on editor's talk page:

    Comments:
    Walter55000 has been a troublesome editor at List of iCarly episodes. Almost all of his edits since 16 February have been reverted by 6 different editors on 9 different occasions. (the last edit was only partially reverted) Attempts to engage him on his talk page have been fruitless. He has been blocked in the past week,[125] with that block later being extended. His actions at List of iCarly episodes make me believe this sort of attitude will continue. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I should probably point out that he's also been edit-warring at ICarly (season 5),[126][127][128] and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/phineas and ferb (season 4). --AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TBrandley reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: A day)

    Page: Fox's Animation Domination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TBrandley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [129] or [130]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has yet to respond to warnings on his talk page, I don't expect him to respond on talk page, either.

    Comments:

    Editor has made at least 4 reverts in 3 hours to Fox's Animation Domination. Three times he reverted to restore unsourced material to page, and once against a revert for MOS guidelines. Last revert was after 3RR warning. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.100.84.46 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: declined)

    Page: Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 68.100.84.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [136]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

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

    Comments: The IP has also made threats ([146]); [147]).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you mean the comparison to Marie-Antoinette, it's obviously a negative comment about al-Assad, but it's well-sourced, so how does it violate BLP? Even so, this IP is incredibly disruptive, not only with the persistent reversions, but with the threats and a major attitude problem. That gets my back up. We have to all play by the rules, including IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Agricolae reported by User:Bearpatch (Result: )

    Page: Sprota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:User:Agricolae


    Previous version reverted to: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprota&diff=477496574&oldid=477496280‎]

    In addition is reverting me on other pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_de_Warenne,_2nd_Earl_of_Surrey&diff=477489481&oldid=477188983 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_de_Warenne,_2nd_Earl_of_Surrey&diff=477545456&oldid=477491384 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_de_Warenne,_2nd_Earl_of_Surrey&diff=477594879&oldid=477593281


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

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

    Comments:

    <Editor has been following my edits and making small changes for a couple of weeks, basically harmless. But on William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey he reverted an entire pedigree table, then after I put it back edited about half of it out. On the Sprota page, created yesterday, he's edit warring over her descendants, whether pedigree charts show she's a progenitrix of notable descendants, etc. I seem to have another editor sticking up for me but that only complicates the issue slightly. I've tried discussing the changes on both talk pages but it seems he wants to argue each point. I'd much rather be improving pages elsewhere than getting into this with Agricolae but he's seemingly bent deleting text, sources, pedigree tables, etc. Sorry if anything is out of place above, my first time here. Thanks for looking into this>

    Please note that of the four supposed reverts listed, one of them (number 3) was not a revert at all but an addition of other material to my own previous edit. No, I have not been "following" this editor - this new editor has started editing in an area I have long followed. And yes, I do want to discuss each point on the Talk page (the SYNTH, the POV, the UNDUE, the IINFO that I am 'bent on deleting') - that is the whole idea of taking a dispute to a Talk page, to Talk about it. I don't doubt that this editor would rather just have their own way instead of discussing it until a consensus/compromise is reached. Wouldn't we all? I have been Talking about it, and I haven't reverted more than 3 times on either page. This editor is just trying to use procedural grounds to bypass discussion of two distinct legitimate content disputes. Agricolae (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GageSkidmore reported by User:Magog the Ogre (Result: warned)

    Page: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GageSkidmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries:

    Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012:

    This is not a 3RR violation, rather a slow moving edit war against multiple users and not discussing. This user has a history of edit warring, and has received many comments and warnings on his talk page asking him to stop (just scroll across User talk:GageSkidmore). There is also consensus on the talk page that the map version he is using is a bad version: see link and link. Also perhaps factoring into your decision: he edit warred at Commons as well: link. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He's gone and done it again [158] [159] (note the ingenuous edit summary stating that the map is incorrect because he only bothered to update the one map on Commons). Is anyone going to take a look at this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see above explanation (i.e., look at user's talk page)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above

    Comments:

    Warned. The next time this happens, they will be taking a 24 hour break. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zazscholar reported by User:Sitush (Result: A day and a revert restriction)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [160]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [165]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[User talk:Zazscholar] - the entire page comprises warnings and explanations regarding this issue

    Comments:
    As I say at the User talk:Zazscholar, it is possible that they were contributing at anon User:115.242.235.158 immediately prior to the above edits, in which case the warring has gone on for longer. I did leave a note at User talk:115.242.235.158. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, please note that this article is under community imposed discretionary sanctions, which the user was warned of (see the first edit to xyr talk page). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.90.197.87 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: A month)

    Page: IPsec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 99.90.197.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [166]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [171]

    Comments:

    This IP user has been editing a number of pages disruptively for months, violating 3RR, among other policies. His/her misuse of English is one of the many problems. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    User:98.247.37.38 reported by User:Sergecross73 (Result: )

    Page: List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 98.247.37.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [172]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178],[179]

    Comments:

    I explained myself in some of my edit summaries to him as well: [180], [181]

    User:76.4.248.139 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24 hrs)

    Page: Pounds per square inch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 76.4.248.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    This appears to be a misunderstanding of a NASA website [186] to the extent that the IP editor has created a WP:NEOlogism of "human pressure" (humans can't effectively independently regulate their internal pressure - they track ambient pressure) and also such strange phrasing as "(Internal psi equals Earth gravity)". This is nonsense.

    Reverted by two independent editors, but repeatedly re-added. Given the attacks in their edit summaries and on their talk page, further discussion appears unlikely to achieve anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saint Jimmy reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: 24 hrs)

    Page: The Amazing Race 20 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Saint Jimmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [187]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

    Comments:

    User:Arabwords‎ reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Israeli settlement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Arabwords‎ (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: [198]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    The article is subject to 1RR per WP:ARBPIA.The user made 3 reverts and was reverted by 3 different users. Probably should be notified of WP:ARBPIA sanctions too--Shrike (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benutzer reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: blocked 31 hrs)

    Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Benutzer (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: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

    Comments:
    Note this page is under a 1RR rule at the moment. User has not entered into any discussions and seems to be a 1 POV push based on his/her edits all revolving along the same lines.

    Actually, I don't think it was under an 1RR rule -- that was imposed under the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, which was superseded by the WP:ARBCC case. This is still a clear case of edit warring, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:Fsol (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [199]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [204]

    Comments:

    This is not a content dispute, the user just deletes tags and requests for citations dated since December 2011. -- Fsol (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Specifically, Somedifferentstuff is removing tags on lots of specific sentences in favor of a single tag at the top of the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Various IPs reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: No action)

    Page: Sleepy Hollow (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 68.193.114.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 24.185.14.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)67.83.174.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)68.193.115.235 (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: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

    Comments:
    I'm writing about an article that is currently up for AfD. There's been an edit war concerning several anonymous IPs that have been insisting upon the band's notability and have been adding sources that are considered to not show notability for the band and some of which are not about the band at all. Other things that have been reverted are OR claims about the band's notability. The discussion on the AfD page is starting to get a little nasty, so I'm reporting that to the admin board as well.

    The issue here is that on the AfD page we've listed reasons as to why the various sources in the article cannot be used and what would be considered a reliable source showing notability. I've left a comment on the article's talk page warning about reverting the article too many times and when I came back on Wikipedia today I discovered that there's been multiple revisions where other editors have had to undo the bits done by the random IP addresses, which is why I'm bringing it here. At best I'd like to have the article protected in some format to avoid the revert warring. There have been no comments on the talk page as far as the revert war warning goes, although there's been some mention of it on the AfD page.

    I'm not sure if any or all of the IPs are from the same person or are several people who know each other. What I can see is that the IPs all seem to be doing the same thing, so part of me wonders if they're campaigning elsewhere or if they're part of the same group. In any case, the reverting is all done by IPs. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

    Result: No action required, since the disputed page has been deleted at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GimliDotNet reported by User:Benutzer (Result: no violation)

    Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GimliDotNet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Malformed report hatted...
    • 10:29, 20 February 2012‎ Vsmith (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Reverted to revision 477842244 by Squiddy: WP:SYN ..... (TW)) (undo)
    • 07:02, 20 February 2012‎ Squiddy (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477840885 by Benutzer (talk)) (undo)
    • 19:37, 18 February 2012‎ GimliDotNet (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Reverted edits by Benutzer (talk) to last version by Harizotoh9) (undo)
    • 19:16, 18 February 2012‎ Harizotoh9 (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477581751 by Benutzer (talk) This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation.) (undo)
    • 18:56, 18 February 2012‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477577563 by Benutzer (talk) After being reverted the FIRST time, you should open a TALK page discussion, see process at WP:BRD) (undo)
    • 17:21, 18 February 2012‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Reverted edits by Benutzer (talk) to last version by NewsAndEventsGuy) (undo)
    • 16:51, 18 February 2012‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477556715 by Benutzer (talk) uh.................. no) (undo)
    • 16:24, 18 February 2012‎ Squiddy (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477554170 by Benutzer (talk) - crap) (undo)

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Reverts of my added content have been made by all of above users without any attempt to talk on the talk page.

    Comments:

    Censorship by promoters of AGW

    On Saturday February 18th, I added a new, perfectly legitimate section to this page together with reputable references (one from the FOIA Climategate site and the other from the IPCC itself). This is in order to bring balance to this page, which, like many others on the Internet is censored to only show the AGW side of the picture. I did not delete or modify any of the existing text.

    However, within minutes my change got reverted. Then I reverted the undo, and it got undone again. It is true that I reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, but that was because I am new to Wiki editing and unaware of the 3-revert rule. So I got legitimately warned by another editor.

    Then this morning, I undid the deletion of what I added on Saturday. It got reverted. I undid again. I aimed to stick within the 3-revert rule per 24h. Yet another editor reported me (despite myself not breaking the 3 revert rule today).

    Obviously the intent here is to censor any alternate view to the page.

    Unless I am advised otherwise, I intend to continue adding my section to the page, but if reverted, I will make sure I will not undo the deletion of my content by other editors determined to censor, more than 3 times in a 24 hour period.


    Consensus is obviously hard to achieve on a subject where one side is determined to present their view as the absolute truth. I have, nonetheless, added a section to the Article's Talk page for any suggestions of an appropriate compromise.

    Below is the addition I posted only. I am open to moving this content to another part of the page, but I am not ok with censoring what the Climategate emails reveal, simply because the pro-AGW lobby intends to paint only one side of the debate.

    Climategate Revealations

    However, the climategate emails show clearly that the IPCC has not been honest about the claim that 97% of climate scientists have proven anthropogenic global warming. In fact these emails show that climate scientists were incensed at the IPCC portraying their work as proof and suppressing the many caveats that they had documented: [1]

    "Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced "greenhouse effect" of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence.

    Many researchers most intimately involved in the search are still far from sure how the probabilities balance. And some of the sharpest concerns are coming from the places where the original early warnings of global warming emerged in the mid-1980s. Places such as Briffa's base at the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California.

    Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that "the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world". If they are they "might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case."

    Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated "the detection of climate change and attribution of causes". It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. "We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter," says Barnett. "We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in." Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline "Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming.

    The statement from the IPCC that 97% of climatologists have proven anthropogenic global warming is, therefore, clearly untrue.

    In addition, a read of the IPCC Third Assessment report clearly shows that many of the predictions in the early 2000s, simply have not come true. An example is the prediction on the predominance of ice storms replacing snow: [2]

    "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. The ice storm of January 1998 (see Section 15.3.2.6) left 45 people dead and nearly 5 million people without heat or electricity in Ontario, Quebec, and New York (CDC, 1998; Francis and Hengeveld, 1998; Kerry et al., 1999). The storm had a huge impact on medical services and human health. Doctors' offices were forced to close, and a large number of surgeries were cancelled (Blair, 1998; Hamilton, 1998). One urban emergency department reported 327 injuries resulting from falls in a group of 257 patients (Smith et al., 1998b)."

    Thank you, Benutzer

    A quick glance at the article's history reveals that you're the one edit warring. The one who does the constant reverting is the edit warrior, not one of the many people who restore an article to a previous state. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:108.206.222.228 reported by User:Davejohnsan (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Two and a Half Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 108.206.222.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [213]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218] and [219]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None; the editor has ignored my requests to open a discussion on the article's talk page.

    Comments:

    This is also happening on The Big Bang Theory, but I have not reverted anything there. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andrzejbanas reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [220]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [225] from me, also warned here by another editor

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [226]

    Comments:
    Andrzejbanas appears to have gone from a simple content dispute on 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) to a full-on WP:POINT attack on another article, based on a narrow definition applied by him to the epic genre - he apparently refuses to listen to a growing consensus against him, as seen in this discussion. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bakersdozen77 reported by User:Athenean (Result: )

    Page: Thessaloniki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bakersdozen77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Several different versions, see below

    • 1st revert: [227]
    • 2nd revert: [228] partial rv of my reverts my removal of ("Thessaloniki became the birthplace...Slavic dialects spoken in the city") [229]
    • 3rd revert: [230] partial rv, undoes my removal of "Macedonian Sklavinia" [231]
    • 4th revert: [232] reverts the following change in wording by Alexikoua [233]
    • 5th revert: [234], same as above.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [236]

    Comments: 3 full reverts and 2 partial reverts in 24 hours and 10 minutes. The user participates in the talkpage but is highly incivil [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] (putting words in my mouth that I never said) [242] [243] and mostly uses the talkpage to try and get under his opponents' skin rather than attempting in good faith to resolve the dispute. I warned him about both his incivility and edit-warring, to no effect. I have the distinct impression that this user will not stop reverting (I knew this was bad when I saw "Racist edits???" appear on Talk:Thessaloniki). In addition to a block, I believe a warning of ARBMAC sanctions is in high order. Athenean (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Each edit that I performed was different as I was trying to find a compromise with users and was in no way a "revert" as defined by Wikipedia. I have reason to suspect that the User:Athenean was participating in racially-hate motivated edits as I explained here in the Talk:Thessaloniki page here: [244]. I also tried to reach an agreement with this user in the talk page as seen here [245] but the user did not respond and was not constructive at all and instead was keep changing the subject, being provocative, and also what I view was being a troll. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    user: Athenean also made a threatening statement against me here [246] where he says: "Do you really think you can brusquely edit a page mostly watched by Greek editors..." which I found was racist because he implied that non-Greek users were not allowed to edit Greece-related articles. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=478015230"