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

User:DIREKTOR reported by --78.13.165.121 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) (Result: Article semi)

Page: Julian March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DIREKTOR (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] (editor was warned)[5])
• 4th revert: [6] (latest)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] [8] [9] [10]

I've warned here [11] user DIREKTOR.

Comments: User DIREKTOR revert me because he claims (against evidences and sources) that the region "Venezia Giulia" shall be named in English, just with the slavic name "Julian Mark". Using this pretence, he has reverted several others supported edits of mine. DIREKTOR is a multibanned user (for edit war and disruption).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverts are very reasonable. The repeated addition of the Italian name by this IP above all other foreign language names has no defendable logic and is bordering on vandalism. DIREKTOR has asked for the page to be protected and I agree this IP looks very socky because DIREKTOR has been dealing with exactly the same sort of issue with User:Ragusino Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

1) reverts are not reasonable. See talk page and added sources (BTW I've used a SLOVENIAN scholar). The name is not "italian": again, just read sources and talk page. I've answered even in the protection page. 2) Am I "ragusino"? Present your evidences, thank (if I remember well, there is a procedure to check the IP).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It does look impossible that the two accounts are socks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ragusino are with south america IP address and this ip is in europe. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if he's not a sock of Ragusino, he's certainly pushing the exact same POV, and the guy's certainly not new to Wikipedia (it might not be him, I admit, but Ragusino has been shown to use a variety of IPs). The IP is pushing for the unequal treatment of the Italian foreign language name (for a predominantly Slavic-speaking region) in accord with the centuries old territorial "claims" of Italian irredentists. I pointed out WP:EN and did my best to explain the issue, yet the IP continues to edit-war to keep his edits in. It seems suspiciously like another calculated attampt by Ragusino or a buddy of his to get me blocked. Have a loom at what graced my talkpage a while back: [12]

• "Keep requesting blocks.....he will be back (like me and others)...meanwhile you have already collected 6 blocks and soon or later you and your MEATPUPPET Alasdairgreen will be banned forever......It is only a matter of time. CHI LA DURA LA VINCE forse lo diceva anche il tuo bisnonno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.133 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "

I will again recommend that the page be semi-protected to prevent the IP from edit-warring to push his edit. If this is not Ragusino or a buddy of his from itWiki then we'll surely be able to settle this through discussion more easily. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is neither the place to decide a "sock" or if I'm the mate of an unknown South American guy, nor the place for shilly historical forgeries (see the voice talk pages, for this!). The fact is that DIREKTOR did 4 reverts ignoring inserteds sorces, warnings and comments in talk page. For this reason he shall be blocked (for the 7th time, it seems!).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For four reverts in three days? Especially as the last one was against the only edit of a very suspicious SPA account? I think not. No violation - article semi-protected. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The last agianst the SPA account, was not done by a different user. DIREKTOR did 4 reverts against me. He reverted back several referencied edits. BTW I've used a Slovenian scholar, so I didn't supported a suppesed "nationalistic" italian POV. In simply words, DIREKTOR is pushing a forgeries, in fact he has not presente sources. See talk page and read my edits, if you do not believe in me.--78.13.165.121 (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please throw this bad faith IP nonsense out it is clear from the comments above that the IP is actively tring to get DIREKTOR blocked because of a disagreement. This is nonsense. The IP is almost certainly a sock of one of the many users DIREKTOR has had to deal with in this tricky area. Polargeo (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR keeps pushing forgeries, that is one of the main reasons behind his six bans, and always is helped by his many MEATPUPPETS (like user:Polargeo or user:AlasdairGreen27). And he often defends himself with the usual excuse that he is attacked by sockpuppets, but this fact has nothing to do with his wrongdoing here: he has done the reverts! He deserves to be punished. The fact is that DIREKTOR did 4 reverts ignoring inserteds sources, warnings and comments in talk page. For this reason he shall be blocked (for the 7th time, it seems!). Justice in wikipedia has nothing to do with sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, it has to do with precise rules of wikipedia related to 3RR!L.R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.91 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Raaggio reported by User:Turian (Result: See below report)

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raaggio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: It's too blurred to pick one.

• 1st revert: [13] (Also a very inappropriate use of rollback)
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]
• 5th revert: [17]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Shockingly, it is a talk page.

Comments:
This user has been nothing but disruptive; he himself has tried to use my words to validate is reverting. I do not have to be a member of the project in order to edit the page, despite what this user believes. –Turian (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not commenting directly on the underlying content issue, however - I just blocked Raaggio for another issue, so he cannot come here to comment himself. I have notified him of this report and suggested that anyone investigating this see any comments he leaves regarding it. See User_talk:Raaggio#Side_note_-_WP:AN3 Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• See report below Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Sigh)

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Turian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [19] - archived an open discussion to cut off debate (with archive box)
• 2nd revert: [20] - archived the discussion again (with archive box)
• 3rd revert: [21] - removed the discussion to the talk page archive
• 4th revert: [22] - removed the discussion to the archive again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

Comments:
This came up recently at ANI, where Turian was given an option to speak to the subject but chose not to. The last that was said before he ended the discussion was that the discussion would be automatically archived once people had stopped commenting for 7 days. Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL, all I ask is that the discussion is allowed to run its course in exactly the same manner as any other discussion on the project talk page. Everything is automatically archived, and removing it only serves to stifle possible discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Pathetic. No-one comes out of this smelling good. Turian has broken 3RR, but though it's no excuse that's partly because Raaggio and GaryColemanFan are tag-teaming him and then running to this page, Raaggio's "oh, you obviously didn't mean to come back here" edit summaries and reverts in this little episode are frankly a disgrace (I came very close to pressing the block button for that piece of disruptiveness before realising he was already blocked) and since there's absolutely no point protecting a talk page, I'll just link everyone to this. Stop it and go and do something useful, all three of you; I'm pretty sure that next time blocking will be the only way of demonstrating how pointless this is. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Black Kite. This is lame to the point of outright stupidity. I suggest that if this foolishness resumes both parties should be blocked 24 hours to give everyone else a day off. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• I do believe I was the one restoring the consensus version of a page; if you wish to block me for that... –Turian (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan reported by User:Turian (Result: See above)

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Too blurred

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]
• 5th revert: [28]
• 6th revert: [29]
• 7th revert: [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: An entire ANI telling him to stop.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's a talk page!

Comments:
This is more of a prolonged edit warring report than a 3RR report. Please see the above link that contains many users stating the same behavior performed elsewhere. Even after being told to stop, he has constantly continued to open and open and open and open a discussion which had reached consensus a long time ago. –Turian (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the diffs span 7 days, and that leaving the discussion as-is (to be archived automatically) was the outcome of the ANI thread. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As JzG stated: "My technique would be not to engage in the long-term stonewalling tactics habitually used by GCF." This is a frequent behavior portrayed by GCF, and it is intolerable. –Turian (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

JzG can hardly be considered uninvolved ([31]). Ultimately, the discussions get archived automatically on the talk page, and forcing them to be archived sooner does nothing but cut off discussion. When Turian initially archived the discussion, I had commented only minutes earlier. My edits (keeping a discussion open until the page automatically archives it, as every other Wikiproject does) have been in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL, both of which state that discussion is a good thing. I'm finished with this issue, at any rate, since it's not worth the hassle. I do think, however, that it should be noted which editor is the common factor in the three most recent 3rr reports. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only being reported by you. Not only were many discussions closed on the page, which you conveniently left alone. Also, Raaggio also manually archived closed discussions. The one you have only cared about is one that went against your opinion. Hoooooow ironic. –Turian (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't just commented in the other discussions, so they didn't concern me to the same extent. Certainly, I oppose any attempt to stifle a talk page discussion. Unless the discussion itself has turned uncivil, there is never a good reason to deny people the chance to finish a discussion. My major concern is that it was incredibly uncivil of Turian to archive the debate immediately after my post. What I have asked for (and was granted, per the outcome of the ANI discussion) was simply that the discussion be closed in a neutral manner, by allowing it to be archived automatically. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy to oppose this. In fact, as mentioned above, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL both strongly support the right of editors to comment during consensus-building discussions. This issue was apparently gone, as the thread sat for two days. Turian took it upon himself today to throw gasoline on the embers, however. Please also note the adminshopping: [32], [33]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And how is that admin shopping? They have relevance to the matter at hand. GedUK is the admin that closed it and reverted your actions (which you whined about and reverted yet again), so his involvement in the matter is important. Also, JzG had made the comment I quoted, so I informed him to give him a equal field to state his opinions. Consensus was reached, you bitched about not getting your way (despite so many people telling you otherwise), and you have decided to not let it go. You say that it would be archived automatically if no one comments on it, yet you are always commenting on the archiving fact, not the actual matter of the discussion. The article was moved a long time ago (signaling a consensus), but you have acted childishly and have not let it go. If you really gave a flying fuck about the issue of the renaming, you would have just opened another discussion about it (as was suggested to you to possibly do). You tactics of a revert every few days or so is just what JzG stated, a stonewalling tactic. It is disruptive, and I advise you to get the hell over it. –Turian (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• See above report. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deilami Language (Result: Incomplete report)

• Page: Deilami language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some sentences had been entered in the article Deilami language. I explained in the talk page why these matters are not exactly related to the issue, but Revision history of Deilami language shows that it has been reverted two times without any discussion. Writing these sentences, in this manner, is first-hand research, because in the source which is used for this sentence, has not ever been referred to a language such as Deilami Language. there is not enough sources to prove this article and these original researches have been made in it. sicaspi (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Incomplete report. Not enough information to determine if edit warring has occurred. Personally, I share your doubts that the Deilami language exists, so I've proposed the article for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:125.22.58.2 reported by User:Aiken drum (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: St Anne's High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 125.22.58.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:

Editor has already been blocked for repeatedly inserting this unreferenced list of non-notable alumni, and labelling its removal as vandalism. Aiken ♫ 16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks by MuZemike. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:NoNewsToday reported by User:Oli Filth (Result: Warned)

Page: Reed–Solomon error correction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: NoNewsToday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]
• 5th revert: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Reed–Solomon error correction#Oli Filth

Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. User seems inexperienced, and the 3RR warning barely preceded his last revert. If he continues, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:12.35.251.194 reported by User:5 albert square (Result: )

Page: Indian Police Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 12.35.251.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

--5 albert square (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

76.171.170.254 (talk) and others reported by JohnMorra (Result: Semiprotected)

• Page: Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  
• User being reported: 76.171.170.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others

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

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

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

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

Comments:
Maybe somebody has a look on that page, there is edit war going on with reverting and re-inserting of promotional links

• Result - Semiprotected. This has been going on for a while. Spam is coming in from a variety of different IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Idahoprov reported by User:Ism schism (Result:Warned/Article protected by User:Tcncv)

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

Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]

[60]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:

• Note: Article has been protected by User:Tcncv and user has been warned. nat.utoronto 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja reported by User:Salvio giuliano (again, yes) (Result: Warned)

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments: Apparently, a joker thought it was a funny idea to start spreading the news that Knox had committed suicide. It was a hoax and was removed. Zlykinskyja , however, thought that to put some sort of a disclaimer in the article was necessary and she wouldn't want it removed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

THERE WAS A MALICIOUS "BREAKING NEWS REPORT" ON THE ARTICLE FOR TWO HOURS THAT MS. KNOX COMMITTED SUICIDE. THIS HOAX CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF DISTRESS. I POSTED A CLARIFICATION SO THAT PEOPLE CLICKING ON HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION WOULD SEE THAT IT WAS NOT TRUE. As part of the unrelenting harassment connected with this article, including by Salvio, my attempt to post a clarification that Amanda knox was NOT DEAD was removed. This is is not a violation on my part. One of the exceptions to 3RR is when false information is posted that violates BLP. Certainly posting that Amanda Knox committed suicide violated BLP. I initially believed the report and was very upset that she had committed suicide, as I am sure others were upset. Other deleted my attempt to clarify that she was not dead as further harassment. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To remove the hoax would not have qualified as edit warring, that goes without saying; however, to insist on keeping a disclaimer in, when being told that it is not appropriate (Murder of Meredith Kercher#CLARIFICATION SOUGHT ON BREAKING NEWS REPORT), looks like edit warring to me. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I protected the article for 24 hours. As it is currently under mediation, it is my belief that further revert warring on this specific matter would further poison the atmosphere. I suggest everyone cool down and call it a day, then come back and consider whether a mention of the hoax is required and can be added properly, and properly sourced. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a notice posted that Amanda Knox did not commit suicide for all those who saw the report or heard about it. Otherwise, people might continue to believe it is true. Can an adminstrator add that notice? It seems to me that if Wikipedia posts for two hours in bold letters at the top of the page a "BREAKING NEWS REPORT THAT AMANDA KNOX COMMITTED SUICIDE", to not allow a notice to be posted that she is not dead will result in additional unnecessary emotional distress for all those people who saw the notice or heard about it. I know that I was very distraught when I read it and I am sure others were too. Zlykinskyja (talk)

Definitely not. See WP:NOTNEWS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I've warned Zlykinskyja as it would be punitive and not preventive if they are blocked since the article has been protected from editing. nat.utoronto 01:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Otepoti history reported by User:XLerate (Result: )

Page: University of Otago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Otepoti history (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]
• 4th revert: [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73][74]

Comments: The fourth revert was directly after the 3RR Warning, without resolving any of the issues on the talk page.

User:Kostja reported by User:StanProg (Result: )

Page: Boris III of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kostja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. vandalism [75] (removes "the Unifier")
2. vandalism [76] (removes "the Unifier")
3. twisting a source [77] the source does not support the "at the time" claims
4. vandalism & twisting a source [78] (removes "the Unifier" and support the "sometimes styled" claims with source that does not specifies if it's "sometimes")
5. vandalism & twisting a source [79] (removes "the Unifier" and adds "sometimes" claims with source that does not specifies if it's "sometimes")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]

Comments: The fourth revert was directly after the warning, without resolving any of the issues on the talk page. The user is constantly removing a wide spread term without pointing any reliable sources and specifying the sources which does not confirm the claims (twisting of sources).

User:Stan Prog obviously doesn't understand the meaning of Vandalism or Edit warring. Removing controversial, uncited information is not vandalism. And of the claimed reverts, only two are actually reverts: [83] and [84]. Between these two reverts I inserted the alternative title in the lead in a way that doesn't make it seem like it were universal. Meanwhile, this user reverted the page three times: [85], [86] and [87], so his accusation seems astonishing to me. Kostja (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the first edit, apart from not being a revert, was two days ago. Kostja (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dodo19 reported by User:Erikupoeg (result: 1 month full protection)

Page: 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Dodo19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [88],
2. [89],
3. [90],
4. [91],
5. [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [93]

• Result - Fully protected by RegentsPark. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:69.14.124.156 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 69.14.124.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]
• 4th revert: [97]

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

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

Comments:

User:69.14.223.147 may be a sockpuppet of User:69.14.124.156 because my revert was reverted and he was inserting the same objectionable material. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - The two IP addresses listed above along with User:64.134.162.105 which made the same disputed edit received 48 hour blocks from Cirt. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:208.54.4.19 reported by User:Cptnono (Result: 24h)

Page: Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 208.54.4.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]
• 5th revert: [102]
• 6th revert: [103]
• 7th revert: [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105] (2 warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion

Comments:

The user was just blocked so this is now stale.[106]

• Result - 24 hours for 3RR, blocked by Kuru. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Routerone reported by User:Duke53 (Result: Blocked until shows comprehension of WP:3RR)

Page: Linguistics and the Book of Mormon‎
User being reported: Routerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: [109]
• 4th revert: [110]
• 5th revert: [111]
• 6th revert: [112]
• 7th revert: [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Because of his hostile nature with me I have made the decision to NOT engage him in any conversation; this is an attempt to show him that he must follow WP rules, just like the rest of us. Other editors seem hesitant to call him on his behavior and he has, in fact, gotten away with 3RR violations in the past. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

These are his responses to my legitimate warning: [115] Please take note of his edit summary.

[116] Message he left on my talk page.

Comments:
Note that this is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Routerone. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please note, reverting a somewhat flawed and POV statement citing a youtube video as a source (unreliable) is not in violation of WP:3RR. That's all I did. Routerone (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is Routerone's third block for edit-warring, so it's indefinite until he reads WP:3RR, reproduces the exclusions on his talk page, and shows that he understands that "sourced to YouTube" is not an exclusion reason.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you happen to look at the page history and block the other editor that was in violation of 3RR? -Atmoz (talk)

User:Annoynmous reported by User:Fellytone (Result: fully protected)

Page: Institute for Policy Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Annoynmous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

• 1st revert: [118]
• 2nd revert: [119]
• 3rd revert: [120]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Done by Fellytone[121]

Comments:
User Annoynmous has been deleting my sourced contributions. Fellytone (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been doing nothing of the sort. I have been reverting edits that where basically plagarised from a partisan blog. It should be noted that Fellytone has been blocked in the past in regards to this article because of 3rr violations and using insulting language. annoynmous 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually anybody who has been through annoynmous's talkpage can see that this person has a lengthy history of 3rr violations. Also, the "reverted edits" which the user claims are "justified" are not sourced from any blog, they are sourced from books, memorandums and established media sources. Fellytone (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Both annoynmous (talk · contribs) and Fellytone (talk · contribs) are guilty of 3RR here at Institute for Policy Studies. Both of them also have a history of edit warring and being blocked for it. The article has now been protected so the edit warring and petty bickering can stop. Brad 19:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Fully protected by RegentsPark. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nacnikparos reported by User:Huldra (Result: )

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

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

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

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

Comments:
"Brand new user" (read: sock) is editwarring over several articles to remove the word "occupied" from articles regarding Israel/Palestine. Socks should be checked. Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Shuki

Huldra, can you at least take the time and complete the formatting to this claim? You should AGF and not attack this new user as a sock unless you have evidence. Please remove that accusation and stay CIVIL. Last but not least, perhaps Nic passed 3RR, but you are an active member in that edit war, it was not merely one user stubbornly battling many. I think you deserve any restriction that this user might get. --Shuki (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000

I second Huldra's request for a sockpuppet investigation. As can be seen from the history, User:Nymechein made two edits on Apr 22 before being blocked as a sock of User:Drork. Then User:Nacnikparos shows up the next day and starts making exactly the same edits. Hello, hello... Zero^talk 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)