Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

Reports

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: semi)

• Page: Dorje Shugden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 94.192.139.167 (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]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

Please note that today I added sources which support my edits, but the user continues to remove them. Emptymountains (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'd the page for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please consider doing the same to the related Dorje Shugden controversy article, where this user is also active today. Emptymountains (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the user Emptymountains speaks of. i have reported this group to the relevant authorities and would ask that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism as well as all the stuff in the talk page of New Kadampa Tradition as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive140#POV_edits_from_a_group_of_users_on_Dorje_Shugden These people are dodgy/slippery and this must be watched!!!YontengYonteng (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Heroes (previously posted on arbitration and "incident" page, relocated a third time now. Result: prot)

There is an edit war involving whether the Invisible Man in the TV series Heroes is named "Claude," "Claude Rains," or neither of the above. I attempted to add information that both clarifies the source of the debate and also takes a neutral point of view. User Ophois, however, immediately deleted this information without listing his reason. When I politely called him on it on his user page, he declared my information to be speculative, which, quite frankly, it isn't. This is more than a mere difference of opinion with another editor. Ophois has been engaging in an edit war over this silly issue for a while now, according to the page's history, and immediately rejected my attempt to neutrally end the edit war, with a simple deletion of my neutral information without even citing a reason. He is clearly more interested in asserting his own POV than in respecting either the integrity of the article or in following Wikipedia rules except where it suits him. I'm asking for arbitration because a review of his behavior both on the article's discussion page and on his own user page clearly illustrates that he is not interested in resolving disputes peacefully. Minaker (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like this situation calls for some form of dispute resolution but is not yet ready for arbitration. Also, you haven't provided the kinds of information we need to process a request for arbitration. Rather than spend a lot of time here discussing procedure, could a Clerk or other experienced administrator please counsel the parties on how best to address their dispute? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm skipping steps in the process, I'm not doing so deliberately. However, I'd like to point out that Ophois has kicked the dispute up a notch, starting a new edit war and even deleting my comments from user pages, which is dishonest in the extreme, not to mention surely against Wikipedia policy. It's getting ugly. Any help would be appreciated. Minaker (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war occurring, actually. The original debate has ended, as we found a source confirming that "Claude Rains" is merely an alias. Minaker has since kept adding speculation despite warnings that the name may be a reference to the actor Claude Rains without providing any reliable source to back it up. Ophois (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any look at the history page will reveal that Ophois's claim that there is no edit war is completely dishonest. In addition to the original edit war (don't take my word for it or his, just check the history page, it's right there) there is one a new edit war occurring, instigated by him when he deleted an edit I made without citing any justification whatsoever. As I have pointed out, he only cited a reason when I called him on it on his home page. Despite Ophois's claims to the contrary, the original debate did not appear to be over; simply because Ophois himself had had the last word does not mean that the debate is over. Ophois's claims of speculation and original research on my part are completely without merit, but as he will disagree, I whole-heartedly encourage people to review the article's history, the article's talk page, and the relevant discussions on both his and my user pages. Yes, it's getting heated, and ugly on both of our parts, but I should point out that Ophois's warnings about edit warring are meaningless if he himself continues to engage in one, or if he abuses the citation of Wikipedia rules for his own benefit, while gleefully ignoring them when they don't suit his purpose. Read the discussions and judge for yourselves. Minaker (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:Request for comment. There is not anything that is likely to be actionable by an admin here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Minaker

The user Minaker has repeatedly added Original Research to the page List of characters in Heroes. I have explained to him that he needs a source to back up his claim, but he has been hostile and keeps readding the speculation. I have warned him four times on his talk page, but he keeps persisting. Ophois (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated. This has become insane. Ophois has gone from disingenuous to outright dishonest ("there is no edit war") and insanely disruptive, demanding, for example, a source when I cite on a TALK page that there has been a debate between us. And now he's threatening to block me over an edit war that he has started (see above). There is nothing speculative about my comments, and Ophois's attempts to paint himself as the voice of reason are, frankly, absurd. I again encourage everyone to read the discussion pages on the article and both users to determine 1) if there really is no edit war, as Ophois claims, 2) who is most responsible for said war, 3) whose edits and arguments are made in good faith and who is merely being difficult. I also fully encourage any of these third parties to try to read past the increasing antagonism on both sides and make their judgments solely on the merits of the edits and arguments as Wikipedia rules (and the spirit behind such rules) would apply to them. It also might be helpful to review the history of both users (Ophois has repeatedly been blocked in the past for exactly this type of behavior while I have never needed disciplinary action from Wikipedia) and to note who asked for help first -- not exactly evidence, I'll admit, but certainly adding creedence to my claim that my initial goal was to resolve disputes, while his goal is . . . well, to speculate would be foolish, judge for yourselves. Minaker (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've been given your final warning, I've stopped removing it as it is out of my hands. However, as yet another editor has reverted your most recent revert, I would suggest that you please stop adding it in. Ophois (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I again question your authority to give me such warnings, as you yourself clearly defy Wikipedia rules whenever you please (don't make me list the ways). However, since another editor has weighed in, I will stop re-adding the information until the matter has been resolved; since it is currently under review by administrators, I will trust their judgment over yours, Mr. Darrow's, and my own. Minaker (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Same advice as above) I suggest you guys take this to Wikipedia:Request for comment. There is not anything that is likely to be actionable by an admin here. (Unless you get into WP:3RR territory, which has its own board.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sad to say but we are both guilty of violating the 3RR rule. I took the discussion here because I had originally posted it elsewhere (request for arbitration) and they told me to take it here. I'm really getting the run-around on this issue. Minaker (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Result

Henrik (talk | contribs | block) m (148,402 bytes) (Changed protection level for "List of characters in Heroes": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 05:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mifren reported by Yeti Hunter (Result: 24h for edit warring)

• Page: Marble Hill, South Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mifren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [6]

• Initial addition of material: [7]
• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]
• 5th revert: [12]
• 6th revert: [13]
• 7th revert: [14]
• 8th revert and 3RR violation: [15]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [16]

-Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Mifren blocked 24h for edit warring. He only made three reverts, but there was an extremely patient and thorough discussion on the Talk page, and he reverted against the outcome of that discussion. The consensus was that the section he wants to add is not factually correct. The editors on Talk claim that this section can't be supported by reliable sources, and Mifren has not persuaded them to change their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• A few hours after the ban expired - 9th revert: [17] --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• 10th (partial) revert: [18] --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Docob5 reported by Geoff B (Result: 10hr blocks)

• Page: The Thing (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Docob5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: [20]
• 2nd revert: [21]
• 3rd revert: [22]
• 4th revert: [23]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [24]

Geoff B (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Geoff B is continuing to war after request to discuss in talk, which was refused by Geoff B . Geoff B set up the 3-revert by using Yomangan to change page and cause intentional vandalism to [25].

[26]

Request consensus to determine outcome. Docob5 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• 10 hour blocks issued to both Docob5 and Geoff B
  Whilst the filer did not violate 3RR, he was blank-reverting simply because he did not agree with the change that had been made; such conduct is totally unhelpful.
  AGK 17:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Geoff B and Yomangan reported by Docob5 (Result: 10hr blocks, warnings issued)

• Page: The Thing (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Geoff B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Yomangan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism and hostile intent to intentionally war without cause.

Geoff B is continuing to war after request to discuss in talk, which was refused by Geoff B . Geoff B set up the 3-revert by using Yomangan to change page and cause intentional vandalism to [27].

[28]

Docob5 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

HELP User Cunard keeps deleting my comment on his talk page about a contentious article page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cunard#Hugh_Wilson --Gregory Clegg (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• As above, Geoff B and (the filer,) Docob5 blocked for 10 hours.
  Yomangan's involvement was minor enough to warrant a final warning for becoming involved in an edit war—as opposed to a block; hopefully the warning will serve to stem future disruption.
  AGK 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad my involvement was minor enough to just warrant a final warning. I foolishly thought I was just removing uncited, inaccurate and irrelevant original research, but you live and learn. Thanks, AGK. Yomangani^talk 09:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ShinyGiratinaMan reported by Sesu Prime (Result: stale)

• Page: Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NOTE: Article has since been merged with its parent article.

• User: ShinyGiratinaMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

• Diff of 3RR warning: User received total of six warnings in the form of vandalism warnings on their talk page from XLinkBot, ClueBot, ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds, and myself: [34].

User created the article Pokemon Heart Gold and Soul Silver, but it uses an improper title (there should be an accent over the e in Pokémon, and the "HeartGold" and "SoulSilver" should not be separated by a space; they use CamelCase according to convention established by past Pokémon remakes; see Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen). So I made it a redirect to the article with the proper title; Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver. User then changed "HeartGold" and "SoulSilver" to "Heart Gold" and "Soul Silver" numerous times ([35] [36] [37]), and I asked the user numerous times ([38] [39] [40] [41]) to discuss this issue at WT:PCP instead of edit warring, and the user refused. User even added this message directly to Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this must be stale by now William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng / 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: 24h)

• Page: New Kadampa Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Yonteng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

aka

• User 94.192.139.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [42]

To show this has been going on for a week:

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]

And, in the last 24 hours:

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [50]

• 5th revert: [51]
• 6th revert: [52]
• 7th revert: [53]
• 8th revert: [54]
• 9th revert: [55]
• 10th revert: [56]
• 11th revert: [57]

The user was reported for 3RR the day before on another article here: [58], the result of which was a semi-protect, which is why they have since registered a username.

I posted this to the user on the discussion page:

Yonteng, the onus is on you. Per WP:NPOV dispute, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." Emptymountains (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The user is active on the article's discussion page, but never listing any "specific issues that are actionable" concerning the content of the article, saying that removing his tag is "cyber bullying."

I asked the user on the Dorje Shugden controversy dicussion to "agrue facts not personalities," but that continued unabated, including an attempted outing which I reported here: [59]. There was talk of a block by the administrators who responded, but I don't know if anything came of it. Emptymountains (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New user Yonteng also making unpleasant ad hominem attacks on the talk page (and Edit Summary boxes). (Truthbody (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Filmography section (result: sarcasm)

user Shshshsh believe that a filmography section does not belong is an article about a film composer. He also removed template from dozens of films scored by that composer. He also is reverted work on my template: Sachin Dev Burman. He is absolutely mistaken about how this website works. Please help me make him understand he needs to stop vandalizing.Cosprings (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK this guy created a template with a selected filmography of one composer. His template included something like 50 films (maybe his favourite ones), while the composer composed over 270 films (!). Well this is definitely POV of the user, and he says he chose "the most notable" films.

I do appreciate his efforts. I really do, but he just doesn't understand what's permitted and what's not.

While adding the template, the user also removed other important templates such as stub sort tags.

And after all he says I vandalise... Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If the article is no longer a stub, then yes I removed some templates, and the bollywood template does not belong on every bollywood-related page. The films were not "my favorite ones" but, the ones which, through a long process of detection, found already had articles on wikipedia without being listed on the composers main article. Cosprings (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK so this and this and this are not stubs????? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read some truely appalling badly formatted 3RR reports in my time, but this one must be a record: you don't pretend to list any reverts, and for extra points don't even bother tell us which article you have a problem with. Bravo! William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to continue posting to this, but this exact thread was also started at both WP:EAR and WP:ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

88keys4me (result: 24h)

• Page: Franz Liszt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 88keys4me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't want to add a formal report I just think someone needs to look at the contributions [60] of user:88keys4me, certainly is an SPA on a mission which is never good. Based on the name could be a throwaway too but I might be wrong about that. Anyway just take a short look and remove this post if you think he is not edit warring. Hobartimus (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

24h. Unlikely to be a throwaway (how many keys does a piano have?) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

69.65.93.171 reported by Janus303 (Result: Semi)

Three-revert rule violation on:

• Louis Caldera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 69.65.93.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 20:45, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
2. 21:29, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
3. 22:06, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
4. 23:52, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
5. 23:53, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
6. 00:25, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
7. 00:59, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
8. 02:03, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
9. 16:10, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
10. 16:43, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
11. 18:13, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
12. 18:50, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */") Janus303 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
13. 19:37, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */") Janus303 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of warning: here

Result - Semiprotected. A fluctuating set of IP editors persist in adding the unsourced POV term 'scapegoat' to the article. One IP was blocked for 48 hours by another admin, but a new IP showed up immediately to take his place. This is a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

86.138.90.54 reported by Soxwon (Result: 24h)

• Page: Pagan metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 86.138.90.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [66]

User also possibly tag-teamed here as both users were present for an AfD and the one who is in violation has made few or no edits outside the article. Soxwon (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz reported by HarryAlffa (Result: Page protected for 7 days)

• Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Ckatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [67]

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]

He only just falls outside the 24h hour window - gaming the system.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [71]

I gave sound reasoning in the talk page[72] and indicated this in the edit summary. The usual style of Ckatz is to not respond in talk pages. You'll notice his first contribution to the talk page wasn't until after his third revert - and even then it was nonsense. HarryAlffa (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hey, this is fun... now I'm gaming the system. That fits in nicely with previous accusations from this editor that I'm part of a cabal, that I'm a sockpuppet, the checkuser request, and so on. Anyone reviewing this is encouraged to please read through Harry's contribution history, especially his general pattern of behaviour toward anyone who disagrees with him. Please. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts in exactly 25 hrs; gaming the system. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote, 16 August 2008

I think it was Ashill who mentioned sockpuppets at one point, and having scanned the article I thought the three users fitted. Please do read "the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous," and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions.

Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and "acting" required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say. -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, fundamental dishonesty from Ckatz - again. Last year I genuinely thought sockpuppetry was happening, it wasn't - I acknowledged it. Then Ckatz continually brought it up as if I hadn't, now he brings it up again as if it's in the present. Is that exemplary behaviour? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, Serendipodus & ASHill were to me operating as a Cabal - and in a recent post I said, "it seems only in the past", he's read that, yet he casts it up as if it's current. Be very careful of accepting anything he/she says at face value. Like a politician with deceitful intent, will use use statements of apparent truth to paint a perverted picture to suit. Is this really the sort of ethics administrators are expected to exibit? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Note his clever use of the last sentence - he's hoping you don't check up, as he hopes he's fooled you before you get there. I give reasoned argument, and expect the same from others. Check the FAR[73] of Solar System to see my great patience in explaining things to those who will not reason. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:King of Hearts protected the page for 7 days. Since no actual violation occurred, I'm closing this. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

211.31.31.188 reported by Alan16 (Result: Semi)

• Page: Andy Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 211.31.31.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just look at the history. He has reverted about 6 times in the last 18ish hours. Alan16 ^talk 01:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Result -- Semiprotected one week by Juliancolton. His comment was: Excessive vandalism: persistent unsourced speculation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

76.195.220.65 reported by decltype (Result: 24h )

• Page: Homophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 76.195.220.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [79]

decltype (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment This talk page post appears to say the editor is going to keep reverting back to his/her edit, no matter how many times they are reverted. CTJF83Talk 05:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also note these edits from May 5-6 [80], [81], [82], [83].Dawn Bard (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Annoynmous reported by Collect (Result: 55h)

• Page: Business Plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Annoynmous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [84]

• 1st revert: [85] 20:25 6 May
• 2nd revert: [86] 20:52 7 May et seq
• 3rd revert: [87] 23:56 7 May
• 4th revert: [88] 1:03 8 May et seq
• 5th revert: [89] 20:53 8 May (3RR)
• 6th revert: [90] 1:28 9 May (4RR in 24.4 hours)
• 7th revert: [91] 18:19 9 May et seq
• 8th revert: [92] 23:15 9 May (3RR in 22 hours)
• 9th revert: [93] 04:08 10 May (4 RR in 25 hours)

   For Business Plot alone  9 Reverts in 82 hours.  

But more:

He also had:

Smedley Butler

[94] et seq 20:01 9 May [95] 23:16 7 May

And for Gerald MacGuire

[96] 20:32 7 May (stubbing an article from 3K to under 1K in size) which I understand may count as a substantial revert [97] 06:00 8 May [98] 15:03 8 May (making 3RR here as well)

This user has a very long editwarrior history (at least 5 blocks under this name) - one block for which was a week already.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [99] I only filed this report after he stated he was not guilty of 3RR violations, and he then did "one more revert" as I am loathe to report people. Thanks!

Collect (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 days approx 2.3 days due to continuing edit war. If you think his editing generally should be looked into, you are referred to WP:RFC. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when has 3 days been 55h? :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Given his recent declarations that he won't conform his behavior to editorial requirements (especially that he not participate in edit wars) and that he has a "right to edit whatever article I please" suggests to me that he needs a block much longer than 55 hours. This is his fifth edit warring block. As jpgordon said, the next one should be months, not hours. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:173.169.149.127 reported by TastyPoutine (Result: 31h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Tinnitus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 173.169.149.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 13:53, 10 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Treatment */")
2. 14:11, 10 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289065356 by XLinkBot (talk)")
3. 14:30, 10 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289069394 by TastyPoutine (talk)")
4. 14:40, 10 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289070717 by Mindmatrix (talk)")
5. 23:19, 10 May 2009 (edit summary: "Summary")
6. 23:23, 10 May 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:173.169.149.127&diff=289071823&oldid=289070967 here

• Comment - Linkspamming user

TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 00:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Another revert [100]

2009-05-11T04:15:13 J.delanoy (talk | contribs | block) blocked 173.169.149.127 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Spam / advertising-only account) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New users

Two new users have entered the fray.

• 71.122.23.39 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) and
• 67.78.188.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lordvader2009 reported by Christopher Kraus (Result: read the rules)

• Page: User talk:Lordvader2009 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Lordvader2009|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lordvader2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=288921658&oldid=288914738
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=288911793&oldid=288911747
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=288911663&oldid=288893415
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=288359832&oldid=288359744

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=289148067&oldid=289147787

User keeps removing warnings from talk page, which I have been told is permitted, but with the amount of edit warring and warnings occurred by this user, a final warning or some sort of block might be in order. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Has he been edit warring on article pages, or is this just for him removing warnings from his talk page? As per WP:TALK, he can do that as often as he wishes. The warnings are still there in the history of the page, and if a legitimate claim is made against him for edit warring, admins will check his page history and his contributions. Dayewalker (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Lordvader2009--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop harassing LV, and read the rules re user page exemptions William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby reported by Lanternix (Result: stale)

Falastine fee Qalby has been repeatedly violating the 3RR rule and vandalizing articles about Copts. He has been also mounting an ill-faithed campaign against users who disagree with his changes. Here is his latest violation of Wiki rules on the Copts article:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=288384731&oldid=288372149
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=288519261&oldid=288518494
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=288522198&oldid=288520390
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=288526931&oldid=288523240

I hope an independent admin will look into this. I will also notify the user so he can defend himself. --Lanternix (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Stale, obviously. Reporter cautionned to avoid inflamatory edit summaries [101] which could easily be construed as incivil William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have been reverting copyvio, and other people have too, of Laternix' socks. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph being removed is a copyvio. Evil saltine (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ldt88 07 constant unexplained revisions and edit-warring.

User:Ldt88 07 keeps reverting edits to the article without explaining their reasons for doing so. I added a reference to the track listing on Fantasy Ride so that he/she could not continue to add further producers and/or writers. I also attempted to engage in discussion with said user on their discussion page but there has been no response. Yesterday i offered mediation but the user went ahead with thier persistant revisions. Their additions to the article are unsourced and continue to occur without any explainations or edit summary given. I am at my whitt's end because the revisions/edits are identified as WP:disruption and the user is participating in a Wp:edit war. I don't know what else i can do. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Diffs please. In fact, why not use the convenient pre-made format rather than a random string of text? BTW, were I to look at, say, Fantasy Ride, I'm sure I'd find a good explanation by you as to why *your* reverts are a good idea. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the dispute, I will point out the Lil-unique1 has explained his reverts in his edit summaries, and has started talk page discussions about them as well.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:71.122.23.39 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Tinnitus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.122.23.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 12:11, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Tinnitus Causes")
2. 12:42, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Causes */")
3. 13:31, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Causes")
4. 15:48, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Tinnitus Causes")
5. 15:58, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 16:08, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289273433 by Mindmatrix (talk)")
7. 18:44, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
8. 18:50, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours - Black Kite 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf reported by Allstarecho (Result: Both editors warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Violence against LGBT people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Damiens.rf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 08:43, May 11, 2009
2. 13:37, May 11, 2009
3. 16:23, May 11, 2009

• Diff of warning: here

—- Allstarecho (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Result - No violation. It takes four reverts to break 3RR. Both editors are strongly cautioned against more reverts, given that the deletion debate on the image is still in progress. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Editor User:Allstarecho just reverted me again now using an anonymous account. --Damiens.rf 05:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that IP is not me. Be sure you know something for fact before accusing others of WP:SOCK. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: While a 3RR violation may not technically exist at this time, the pattern of disruptive editing began several days ago when User:Damiens.rf made the exact same reverts three times before, not quite within a 24-hour period:

• May 8, 19:14
• May 8, 14:48
• May 7, 16:35

Damiens.rf also has declined thus far to contribute anything substantive to the talk page discussion about these edits, relying only on edit summaries (e.g., "enforcing police") to communicate any rationale. For the record, it's also worth noting that the image that he or she keeps removing is one that Damiens.rf himself or herself has nominated for deletion—for the second time in less than six months: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg. (The previous decision, obviously, was 'keep'.) Damiens.rf has been asked repeatedly on the talk page to wait until the FfD discussion concludes before making such edits; so far, he or she has not responded. Also for the record, neither Allstarecho nor any other individual editor has been edit-warring over this; the war essentially has been one-sided, more like an attack, with multiple good-faith editors reverting Damiens.rf's reverts. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And now edit warring at File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:98.218.204.115 reported by TharsHammar (Result: 24 hr)

Resolved

• Three-revert rule violation on

Eric Cantor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 98.218.204.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 01:39, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "removed uncited and anonymous source that was used to support content in violation of NPOV.")
2. 03:16, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289180320 by TharsHammar (talk) see talk")
3. 03:41, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "removed information from fringe source that disputed mainstream view. see talk for more.")
4. 03:51, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "your fringe anoymous source can not be used to dispute the mainstream view. i think you are abusing your adminstrator status.")
5. 15:06, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "this matter is currently under discussion. see extensive talk")
6. 15:08, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "removed section at the recommendation of an admin in extensive talk section.")
7. 22:22, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Before adding this controversial content, please reference the discussion on the talk page. The consensus was reached to remove it. If you want a different outcome, talk page should be first stop.")

• Diff of warning: here

—TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston has blocked for 24 hours [102]. Mark Resolved. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Uopmaintain reported by Docu (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

• University of the Pacific Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• Uopmaintain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Time reported: 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1 06:37, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289062302 by Docu (talk)")
• 06:38, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289060410 by Docu (talk)")
• 06:40, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
• 06:44, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
• 06:45, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
• 2 17:32, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289207199 by Docu (talk)")
• 3 03:14, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "will continue to delete irrelevant and unsourced info")
• 4 04:46, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "clean up grammar if you need to include part about HIV clinic.")

—-- User:Docu 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24h EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay32183 reported by Allstarecho (Result: 24h )

• Page: File:Szapinka.jpg talk - history
• User: Jay32183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]
• 4th revert: [107]
• 5th revert: [108]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [109]

- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-12T09:00:51 Nja247 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Jay32183 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: and WP:3RR violation) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DonaldDuck reported by Piotrus (Result: )

• Page: Tsarist autocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: DonaldDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [110]

• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]
• 5th revert: [115]
• 6th revert: [116]
• 7th revert: [117]
• 8th revert: [118]
• 9th revert: [119]
• 10th revert: [120]
• 11th revert: [121]
• 12th revert: [122]
• 13th revert: [123]
• 14th revert: [124]
• 15th revert: [125]
• 16th revert: [126]
• 17th revert: [127]

• Diff of 3RR warning: the user is familiar with 3RR and has been blocked for 3RR violations and edit warring before

Please note that this is not a report about breaking of the 3RR rule, but of the persisent edit warring, disrupting the article. Donald has not broken 3RR - well, he did it once and self-reverted himself [128], but for close to a week now he has been doing 3 reverts per day. Please note that he has been reverted by several users, and that everybody else keeps to 2 reverts per day on this article, and nobody else certainly approaches his 2 digit revert number in the past week. We also tried to address his points by expanding the article, adding references and rewriting for clarification - all for naught, as he simly keeps reverting and removing the pieces he dislikes (he has not added anythign constructive to the article, he just keeps removing content). We tried engaging him on talk but he is not very constructive in his posts there, hence protecion of the article will not help (as it us inlikely we can raech a consensus). Please also note that Donald has edit warred on this article in the past: ex. [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134] - those edits from Jan 2 indicate that he has actually broken the 3RR...), he edit warred in December ([135], [136], [137]) too. Considering all this, I suggest if not a topic ban, then a 1RR restriction on Donald on this and related articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomdobb reported by William Allen Simpson (Result: )

• Page: Old Forge Blue Devils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Tomdobb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [138]

• 1st revert: 2009-05-12 12:13:54
• 2nd revert: 2009-05-12 12:59:40
• 3rd revert: 2009-05-12 13:36:06
• 4th revert: 2009-05-12 13:50:50
• 5th revert: 2009-05-12 13:52:34
• 6th revert: 2009-05-12 14:02:47

• Reverting 2 editors. Note that this has carelessly reverted substantive edits, including entire paragraphs, references, and disambiguation. (See page history in its entirety.)

• Diff of warning: as a response

• Abused {{uw-vandalism2}}, and didn't follow its /doc instructions for subst'ing.
• This is no longer an Orphan.

  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)