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:202.129.79.232 reported by User:Morenooso (Result: malformed)

Page: El dannys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 202.129.79.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

--Morenooso (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Report was actually fine. The problem is that the page was deleted 2 minutes after it was filed, invalidating the diffs. Moot anyway. Tim Song (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Factsontheground (Result: no action)

Page: Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mbz1 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]. I also attempted to resolve the issue on the user's talk page but he deleted the discussion: [8].

Note that Mbz1 is also edit warring on Robert F. Kennedy attempting to insert similar POV-pushing material:

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th rever: [12]

Comments:
User has ownership issues with this article and is ostensibly asking for help yet rejecting any edits that do not agree with her pro-Israel agenda. She is cherry picking quotes that support her point of view and removing any quotes that are balanced or neutral.

She is also removing important, sourced facts from the article that do not support his agenda, such as that RFK was 22 at the time of his trip and only spent several weeks in Palestine.

I would also like to note that Mbz1 has a serious problem in the way she treats Wikipedia as a battlefield. As this edit shows she seems to believe he is "fighting for a cause" and not merely writing an encyclopedia. It may not be relevant here, but she has been extremely uncivil towards me in the past ([13], [14], [15]) and other Palestinian users such as Tiamut (talk · contribs) ([16]).

Amazingly, Mbz1 has even removed such objective, important information as the dates that RFK was in Palestine simply because they don't further her agenda. This user really needs to improve their understanding of neutrality on Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, Factsontheground, Mbz1 is a woman, not a man. With respect to Robert F. Kennedy, I see as much revert-warring from you as from her. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Factsontheground (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thank you, Malik.
    • To the closing administrator. May I please ask you to note that me and the filing party are involved in the discussion at the article's talk page, where we have agreed on some edits. Apparently filing party agreed not to add a quote that is not from Robert Kennedy's reports he wrote in 1948. The last edit I've done to the article was done 10 hours ago. I was mote than surprised to see the report. Please also notice that this report was filed right after we have agreed to discuss changes here, and there were no more reverts ever since. Please also see the discussion page of the article in particular user:George and mine extensive and successful negotiating.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Entirely stale. No current edit war = no action taken. Tim Song (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bevus1 reported by User:Kittensandrainbows (Result: 0)

Page: Tall Guy Short Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bevus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]

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

Comments:

I didn't try to delete the page, just suggest that the content be merged into another article. Author keeps removing the call for discussion without responding on the talk page. (Hope I filled this form out right.) Kittensandrainbows (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a new user, should have been warned before being reported. Has not reverted more than 3 times. However, this article is an obvious candidate for speedy (it is already mentioned on the Johnstones page, I'm not sure there is much more to merge). I've slapped an A7 on it, if the user keeps reverting blindly, please notify me. Thanks, yandman 16:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme reported by LotLE×talk (Result: no violation see Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Watkins (2nd nomination) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Watkins (2nd nomination)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:59, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:59, 11 March 2010 (edit summary: "removing a second blatant, unnecessary, and unfounded personal attack made by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters WP:NPA")
3. 17:56, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349352199 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) reverted personal attack for the *second time* NPA")
4. 18:27, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349461622 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) PLEASE STOP ADDING PERSONAL ATTACKS FOR THE LAST T")
5. 18:36, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349464160 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) constant false accusations = prs.attack WP:NPA")

—LotLE×talk 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

These two editors need some distance. Related discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:76.219.200.59 reported by User:Doniago (Result: already blocked)

Page: Mafia (party game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 76.219.200.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

• 1st revert: 16:55, 12 March 2010
• 2nd revert: 17:58, 12 March 2010
• 3rd revert: 19:53, 12 March 2010
• 4th revert: 19:57, 12 March 2010

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

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

Comments:

Doniago (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked for 31h by DMacks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:204.9.221.126 reported by User:GF940 (Result: no vio)

Page: Aurora Flight Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 204.9.221.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<The IP address is from Cambridge, MA and is part of the Aurora Flight Sciences company who is in an edit warring phase with respect to the article above. Please block the IP>

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]

<PLease see the discussions section on the article where a dialogue was attempted. [diff]

Comments:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by GF940 (talk • contribs)

Only one edit on the article in the past two weeks or so. Tim Song (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Undefeatedcooler reported by Gun Powder Ma (talk) (Result: protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undefeatedcooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 11:37, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reach a consensus in talk page first, before any unnecessary removals !!!")
2. 16:23, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349426096 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page please !!!")
3. 11:12, 13 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349495524 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Please let Mike Searson to deal with it, see talk")
4. 03:10, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349696376 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) not 50%, this has been discussed before, stop messing up the article")
5. 15:28, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349801919 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Look back on the history in talk page, Wing Chun section has already mentioned.")
6. 16:52, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349822594 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) See Talk Page History !!!")
7. 13:32, 15 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349994887 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Let Mike Searson to deal with the editing. See Talk")

Comments:
Undefeatedcooler reverts the removal of the Chinese family name template, even though other two other users (Talk:Bruce Lee#Template:Chinese name and Template talk:Chinese name#Bruce Lee a Chinese name?) also agree that it serves no purpose for "Bruce Lee", since the sequence of first and family name follows here Western convention anyway. He has been blocked for edit warring on the article in the recent past and he is a classic single-purpose account. Morover, he has thrown racist allegations at me for the second time.

—Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Single-purpose user continues his policy of mindessly reverting. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PPS: The single-purpose account reverts well-referenced material. He points to the talk page and request consensus, but at the talk page, he shows nothing which suppports his opinion, while he seems to suffer from the delusion that consensus would mean that no changes or improvements on the article can be made by other users until he agrees to them - which, of course, will never materialize. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PPPS: I made a different edit on the basis of well-sourced references, and although I warned him of edit war, he still reverts it. Just curious, but for how long do you want to allow a single-purpose account disrupting one of the most visited articles in the Wikipedia. How often can he call established editors "racists" and remove/minimize any scholarly references to Lee's substantial non-Chinese ancestry, before someone says something? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PPPPS: User continues to revert, even though I warned him of another revert in no unclear terms. The funny thing is he refuses to accept a reliably referenced statement by Bruce Lee's wife herself (!!!) that Bruce had German and Catholic ancestry. Another racist allegation (yawn).

Just for your information, dear admins: The article has 300.000 visitors (!!!) being one of the most wanted reads in the whole of Wikipedia - and a single user has been allowed for weeks now to disrupt it seriously. Please tell us when you wake up and are ready to act. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected for 1 week. Tim Song (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsontheground reported by User:Debresser (Result: Warned)

Page: Cave of the Patriarchs massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Factsontheground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Factsontheground added a piece of information to Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in this edit of March 7. I have removed it since, and Factsontheground has insisted on restoring it a few times, as can be seen in the edit history of the article. On March 9, I opened a section about this issue on the talk page, where I and others have argued against inclusion of this piece of information. Factsontheground refuses to accept the fact that consensus is in disagreement with his opinion, and in this edit of March 13 has again added it (albeit in shortened form).

• 1st edit: [24]
• 2nd edit: [25]
• 3rd edit: [26]
• 4th edit: [27]

I have asked Factsontheground to accept that consensus disagrees with him, both in the talk page discussion, and on his talk page as well. [28]

Note: this is not a case of 3RR, but of general edit warring.

Desired outcome: a warning to Factsontheground to avoid edit warring and to restrict himself to consensus edits. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Debresser (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Result - Factsontheground is warned. He insists on adding a passage claiming that in 2010, a group of Jews celebrated Baruch Goldstein's mass murder of Palestinians in 1994. Though he did not exceed 3RR, Factsontheground should be aware that Ynetnews says "A video obtained by Ynet depicts Jewish residents of east Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood during their Purim celebrations singing songs of praise for Baruch Goldstein", without commenting on its veracity. The Jerusalem Post merely said that "a video was circulating on the internet." I hope he does not take these reports as a ringing endorsement that the events narrated in the video actually took place. At Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs massacre#Relevant, editors speculate that the video has been faked since the people singing are never shown on camera. Since Factsontheground does not have consensus for his change, he may be blocked if he restores this material again. Everyone, please remember this article is under WP:ARBPIA and admins may take a dim view of careless editing in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can appeal this, because this is very silly.

I've seen some pretty funny consensuses in my time on Wikipedia, but Debresser + 2 other dudes who comment once is the weakest "consensus" yet. Not to mention that there is Zscarpia who is part of the debate but refuses to take any sides.

Secondly EdJohnston made judgements about the content. I thought WP:AN3 was not a content noticeboard, but a behaviour noticeboard. I thought judgements about content were supposed to remain at the relevant talk page.

Thirdly, my recent addition was a completely different compromise text that was not the same as the other 3 reverts. It was so different to say I was "reverting" is quite wrong. I was attempting to compromise my reducing the mention of the incident to a single sentence.

Also, why didn't you give me any time to reply before closing? I live in AEST and I was sleeping at the time.

Debresser also edit warred against me and ZScarpia to remove any mention of Purim and Ramadan from the lede even though we had a good, mainstream source (Time magazine) that described the significance which Debresser accused of "poor journalism".

I recently went to the trouble of finding a book quote that supported the common-sense mention in the lede in order to end the silliness once and for all; a book quote that significantly improved the sourcing of the article. And what do I get for my trouble? I am not "edit warring" on the article I am trying to improve it.

Debresser himself is edit warring about the simple factual title of the section in question, and has yet to provide any argument why it should not be in accordance with its content. [29]

The section is about people celebrating the massacre. Its not just about the veneration of Goldstein himself. That is a fact, not an opinion.

FWIW, ZScarpia seems to agree that I was not edit warring. [30]. As he says, "It may be seen as significant that none of Factsontheground's edits has involved hitting the Undo button."Factsontheground (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this on the Talk page of the article. This report lists four reverts by you. Though they are not within 24 hours, the four reverts all restore the possibly-bogus video to the article. I trust you will not consider a bogus video to be so fascinating that it simply must be included in our article. Per the usual admin detachment, if you can get consensus for this, it can go in. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:119.161.71.12 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Stale)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hume Highway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 119.161.71.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 01:34, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ M31")
2. 01:39, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ victorianhometruths")
3. 01:42, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ supwangers")
4. 01:44, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
5. 01:46, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Victorian Hume Freeway upgrade projects */ 31")
6. 01:49, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Views */ vicbyvics")
7. 03:59, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
8. 04:28, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ no single carriageway hume in victoria.")
9. 04:45, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
10. 05:08, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted: "although most of this section is dual carriageway rather than freeway" -Legally, a freeway designated by the governing body -VicRoads. 'most' is grade-separated 99.9% too.")
11. 05:32, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 349747680 by Bidgee (talk) i didn't realise articles cannot be edited to display the facts within a short term time period.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Stale Tim Song (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture reported by User:Ghostofnemo (Result: no action)

Page: 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: OpenFuture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Before that, the disputed content was removed by another user: [32]

Warning: I'm sorry, you're not being reasonable. I feel this material is highly relevant to the article and it is referenced by a mainstream news source, so I'm going to reinsert the material and the references. If they are removed again, I will seek outside assistance through the proper Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. I feel OpenFuture (talk) is engaging in WP:Disruptive editing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:

We've tried to resolve this on the article talk page. OpenFuture (talk) is not engaging in a rational discussion. After a long discussion with person who originally removed the material, as to why the material is relevant and should not be removed, OpenFuture removed the material again. It is referenced with a news source, but OpenFuture claims it is not relevant to the article because: "The section is about the WTC collapse and conspiracy theories concering it. The petition did not cause the collapse nor it is a conspiracy theory. It also gives undue weight to one of many petitions." --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC). He or she is being completely unreasonable, for reasons discussed on the article talk page. The petition in question, to reopen the investigation into the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings, has been signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers, making it highly relevant to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Stale No recent edit-warring. Consider WP:DR if the discussion breaks down. Tim Song (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I give up then. The material has effectively been excluded. The debate has gone on for days and days, that's why there has been no recent action. There is no point in me restoring the removed text, because he will just remove it again. I give up. He achieved his objective.Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jackieboy87 reported by 24.18.156.43 (talk) (Result: Semi'd)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lost (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:57, 13 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349693861 by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) Remove unsourced episodes.")
2. 01:32, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349719115 by 66.30.12.197 (talk) Unsourced")
3. 01:58, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349721330 by Dropmoy (talk) Not the title of the finale.")

Comments: This has been going on forever, it was just notable that he did 3RR in the past couple hours.

24.18.156.43 (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.; as the problem has resumed since the last protection, Page protected for 3 months. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Wisdompower reported by Me-123567-Me (talk) (Result: protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of University of Toronto people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wisdompower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1. 04:59, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349733798 by Abductive (talk) Don't do this. WP:BRD This list has equal rights as any other lists. No more vandalism")
2. 06:30, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349753717 by Abductive (talk) You can't force us to do this. No general consensus was established.")
3. 06:32, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349754373 by Abductive (talk) Just don't do anything. Leave.")
4. 06:50, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Business */ Abductive, who cares if you 'go well' or not? Who do you think you're? The ref I added for Cassaday includes not only Cassaday, but also several others. (especially the redlink ones)")
5. 06:56, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Business */")
6. 07:02, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Business */ Abductive, that's all for today. No more whining. When we say, we're gonna do it. We really mean it. Plus, none of this was fabricated. (since you're so skeptical.)")
7. 08:08, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
8. 08:23, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349768332 by Abductive (talk)")
9. 08:24, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349768049 by Abductive (talk) Is providing citations not enough for you? What's wrong with you? Are you mad?")
10. 08:25, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Business */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I came back to WP after a few days off to see this edit war going on. My own take, as an infrequent contributor to the List page (and a longtime Watcher) is that User:Abductive began editing in an aggressive manner, and also violating the 3RR, despite User:Wisdompower's plea for time to make sensible changes. Moreover, Abductive quoted WP:BLP in justification, which does not seem to pertain to lists. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Diff He's still going "hog wild". Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I realize that Wisdompower was already notified, but I also left him a request to respond here. How do we know that he's been using an IP as well as his registered account? Since an RfC is now running on the talk page of this article, his edits look pretty uncooperative and warlike to me. Opinions may differ on what evidence allows inclusion of a person in a list, but he should wait for consensus to form, and then abide by it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Actually I dealt with this while handling an RFPP request on this article. If any admin wants to revert per WP:PREFER, feel free. Further attempts to edit war after the protection expires would be looked upon very dimly. Tim Song (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:83.39.14.222 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24hr block)

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 83.39.14.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

Still going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours JamieS93^❤ 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:88.114.224.105 reported by User:Paralympiakos (Result: protected)

Page: Michael Bisping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported 88.114.224.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

first edit

second

third

Have tried to reason with the IP multiple times and the IP has been told to sign up for an account by admins. IP has not done so and continues to edit across multiple IPs, whilst sockpuppeting and 3RRing. See report here.

User has been banned for incivility, 3RR and socking before. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tim Song (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Loremaster reported by User:Dintonight (Result: 72 hours)

Page: O: The Oprah Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]March 14, 23:18
• 2nd revert: [37]March 14, 23:55
• 3rd revert: [38]March 15, 00:06
• 4th revert: [39]March 15, 00:40

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [41]

Comments:[User:Loremaster made 4 reverts in less than 90 minutes, all in an effort to include a top 10 reasons to hate Oprah reference in an article about her magazine. I tried to explain that such contentious content is a violation of wikipedia's living person policy which states that inflamatory material must be immediately removed, especially if poorly sourced (Loremaster's source is an unknown writer on an obscure website). Further other editors have tried to convince Loremaster to remove the living person violation in the past[42] but Loremaster not only insists on reverting them too[43][44] but when they try to compromise by placing a tag citing POV concerns, he/she removes that too [45]. It's Loremaster's way or the highway! It's also interesting to note that while Loremaster adds inflamatory material about a living person to a wikipedia article, he/she does not tolerate criticism on his/her talk page, choosing instead to immediately archive it[46] Dintonight (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Straightforward 3RR vio, previous block for edit warring. Filer has also violated 3RR, but I'm not blocking at this time as BLP concerns are paramount and we allow editors some leeway in that. However, I do have some concerns about the filer's familiarity with WP on their first day editing here, but I'll deal with that separately. Tim Song (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Iadrian yu reported by User:Nmate (Result: 55 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert:

17:30, 14 March 2010

• 2nd revert:
  

19:23, 14 March 2010
19:28, 14 March 2010

• 3rd revert:
  

20:31, 14 March 2010

• 4th revert:
  

20:58, 14 March 2010

• 5th revert:
  

22:16, 14 March 2010

• 6th revert:
  

16:00, 15 March 2010

familiar with 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[48]

Comments:

The user has been extensively discussed his edit on the talk page. However, he keeps attempting to force his theory on the relevance of John Hunyadi's origin into the article with ignoring 3RR. Even though there is no consensus for it and it has been removed by other users.--Nmate (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 55 hours Tim Song (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

multiple 99. anons reported by [[User:]] (Result: )

Page: Vaclav Smil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

1. 99.155.156.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 99.155.150.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 99.184.229.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 99.39.186.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. 99.155.156.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. 99.184.230.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. 99.155.158.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. 99.155.156.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [49] (as part of a series of edits, reverting my edit here
• 2nd revert: [50] (reverting most of [51]
• 3rd revert: [52] removing {{verify credibility}}
• 4th revert: [53] restoring [[Names for U.S. citizens|America]]
• 5th revert: [54] to 4th revert.
  • and [55]] changing {{off-topic?}} back to ISBN

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] and [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58] Well, I tried, but the anon doesn't listen to reason.

Comments:
How do you warn a dynamic IP, anyway. Anon clearly has no interest in collegial editing, see, for example [59]. As an alternative to blocking the ranges for a few months, indefinitely semiprotecting all articles related to climate change, no matter how slightly, could be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:74.12.5.73 reported by User:Matthew R Dunn

Page: List of Criminal Minds episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

1. 74.12.5.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]

The IP address doesn't seem to want the change in episode list tables (which have been improved, but the IP would rather have the old version) If you look at the IP's talk page, s/he was warned no less than three times, but still choses to ignore them. Requesting temporary block. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66]
• 4th revert: [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on related page:

• The history of the page in question, where various users and an admin tells the user that the comment should not be struck

Comments:

• Mbz1 was acting in good faith. She believed that by striking the comment in question, she was removing vandalism as permitted by WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Vexorg's comment does not resemble vandalism in the slightest. Factsontheground (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • But the continuous reverts by you and other editors of my striking of the personal attack do. Breein1007 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, with all due respect, no, they don't. If you want to know what vandalism looks like please see WP:VANDAL. Factsontheground (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• The edits of the user filing this report should of course as usual be examined, and upon doing so it is evident that he too perpetuated this edit war. Here are two reverts done by Daedalus969: [69] and [70]. Also, it is fair to mention that user Factsontheground has joined in on the edit war with these two reverts: [71] and [72]. It is interesting to note that both users cited WP:TPO in their reverts, when in fact they were the ones violating this policy. The edit in question is a personal attack made by user Vexorg against Mbz1 on this AfD. The personal attack was a false claim that Mbz1 and a certain IP are the same user (ie: Mbz1 is using a sockpuppet). This comment came after a SPI was concluded and checkuser determined that Mbz1 and the IP were unrelated. Therefore, in line with WP:TPO, I struck out Vexorg's personal attack and added a note explaining why. Leaving the attack would influence other people's votes, because they would think that Mbz1 was using a sockpuppet and this would inevitably look bad and lead to counter votes. After my edit, the edit war ensued. It is also worth noting that these two users have shown a particular pattern of harassment of Mbz1 lately. They are not acting according to the WP:5P and certainly do not appear to be doing things that encourage positive collaboration and contribution on Wikipedia. I have already suggested that both of them drop this personal vendetta and find better things to do with their time. It seems that they did not take this suggestion to heart and have instead chosen to take the route of stalking Mbz1 and hounding her at any chance they can get. I hope an admin will consider this and take appropriate action. Breein1007 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: both Daedalus969 and Factsontheground have been warned on their talk pages by an admin to stop reverting the edits at the AfD. I sincerely hope that they will follow this advice. Breein1007 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Factsontheground was only recently warned (User:Factsontheground reported by User:Debresser (Result: Warned)) on 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC), Factsontheground made a bad attempt a few days earlier User:Mbz1 reported by User:Factsontheground (Result: no action) --Shuki (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about me Shuki. I know you love me so much that you just can't stop thinking about me and I'm very flattered, but maybe you should keep your love letters on my talk page. <3 Factsontheground (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, It's interesting how you left out the fact that that same admin (Malik Shabazz) reverted Mbz1's alteration of Vexorg's comment and warned Mbz1 to stop doing it and to stop reverting. It's almost like you were trying to put one over readers of this page by not telling them the whole truth, but I'm sure you were acting in good faith and have good reason to do so. Factsontheground (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is only one instance in which is is acceptable to attempt to attach an IP to a user, and that's when it's done for the purpose of a sockpuppetry accusation, however, in this case since the user has already been cleared of being attached to the IP by checkuser the attempt to attach them is unfounded, and thus is simply outing (bear in mind that outing doesn't have to be correct). Mbz1 has every right to remove personal information about them-self. I suggest that the comment about the IP is removed from the AfD as outing, but that no punishments are handed out, as all the users appear to be acting in good faith. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)