Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:55, 20 May 2009 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,236 edits →User:85Zed reported by J (Result: unresolved): Now officially warned for 3RR← Previous edit Revision as of 04:59, 20 May 2009 edit undoGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits →User:A Man In Black reported by User:Ikip (Result: 9 days ): endorseNext edit →
Line 723: Line 723:
*{{AN3|b|9 days}} Also, {{User|Ikip}} you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) *{{AN3|b|9 days}} Also, {{User|Ikip}} you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
*I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page). ] (]) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC) *I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page). ] (]) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

* of edit warring, with 11 valid prior blocks for edit warring since his RFA, endorse. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==

Revision as of 04:59, 20 May 2009

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Reports

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


    InaMaka reported by TharsHammar (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    There is a consensus reached on the talk page for inclusion of this material. InaMaka is not respecting that consens and continues a slow-rolling edit war. This is not a simple 3 reverts within 1 day, but an ongoing edit-warring against multiple users. Please see the talk page of the article for evidence of consensus. Particularly, here. These are by no means all of InaMaka's reverts of this material, and he has said on a user's talk page " If Hilton's nasty, fascist, hate-filled comments are re-inserted in the various articles then I will remove them as violations of BLP." Many users are frustrated by InaMaka's lack of accepting consensus.

    TharsHammar and 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

    Are you sure you wish to defend the edits using name-calling in them as valid in a BLP? Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    This report is hilarious. This is a report on 3RR. Please notice that all of my edits that TharsHammer refers to were made over a two week period. Not one of the edits he/she refers to happened in a 24 hour period. As a matter of fact most of them are days and sometimes weeks apart. There is NO violation of 3RR here. Clearly TharsHammar is determined to place the negative, contemptuous comments of Hilton in the Prejean article and I believe that the repetition of Hilton's remarks to be a violation of BLP. He is attempting to use 3RR as a weapon to settle a legitimate discussion about a violation of BLP. He/she does not agree with my position and he/she is attempting to have me blocked for removing clear and definite violations of BLP. Removals that are spread out over a two week period, I might add.--InaMaka (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    InaMaka has contacted me about this. There has been a discussion at BLPN which has become dormant although I think there are serious problems with the article (at least in some of its recent incarnations). Any action on this needs to be considered in the light of the BLP issues and so far as I can see if any action is taken, there is no reason to block InaMaka. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    Based on WP:BLP guidelines, I would consider InaMaka's edits to be correct. The article is in piss-poor shape right now though, and unfortunately, thanks to rampant recentism it'll be a while before the article looks better. I wouldn't take action here. (though in the interests of transparency, Inamaka notified me of this) Wizardman 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    Very Strongly Oppose. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

    This strategic posturing is a SLAPP suit-style abuse of process.

    The "multiple users" TharsHammar refers to are marching in lockstep on the article editing and discussion. TharsHammar and Exploding Boy are just two of them.

    When I tried to question things, before I realized that the "multiple users" were completely uninterested in consensus-building, I found that they just rebut what you write.

    Before you realize it, you're in a debate with the "multiple users" -- who simply prove they can make an argument, no matter how unpersuasive. They line right up to oppose you.

    It is not operating in good faith to consider what an editor -- from 'the other side' -- writes, as simply something to rebut. There's no consensus-building in this environment.

    Personally, I'm surprised InaMaka has spent so much time trying to debate them. Search the talk page for "InaMaka" and you'll find the posts of InaMaka's that Exploding Boy has not deleted.

    The "multiple users" either don't know, or find it convenient to not recognize, that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.

    Judging by TharsHammar's continual bad faith, I'm guessing that s/he probably filed this to get the same anticipated chilling effect that the "multiple users" obtained -- by squelching another editor that does not share the POV of the "multiple users."

    TharsHammar seems to be the biggest edit warrior of the "multiple users."

    I can find at least as many reverts of TharsHammar's, including duplicitous citing of consensus , and gaming.

    1. 15:50, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288689450 by Alan Canon (talk) read her quote, notice the plural photoS")
    2. 01:30, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288783781 by InaMaka (talk) POV reverts of consensus")
    3. 18:15, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289512566 by The lorax (talk) we cannot rely on TMZ for allegations that scandelous")
    4. 02:40, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Miss USA 2009 controversy */ dumb bitch per talk")
    5. 19:25, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289727801 by Tstrobaugh (talk) see talk, no consensus yet for this, please discuss")
    6. 02:20, 14 May 2009 (edit summary: "-gay per talk")
    7. 14:46, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "undid most of POV warriors edits")
    Note that TharsHammar is namecalling in the last edit summary.

    Moreover, simply counting TharsHammar's reverts ignores the impact of the "multiple users."

    What has been happening on the Carrie Prejean, so-called 'encyclopedia' article is just part of the gay/liberal firestorm -- that ensued after Carrie Prejean was asked her opinion on the legalization of same-sex marriage, on TV, and answered honestly and straightforwardly.

    The hounds of hell were unleashed on Carrie Prejean. Even one of the gay-activist, Miss California USA co-directors stated, "many people felt she was vilified and targeted. I don’t think she deserves that."

    Miss Prejean is of marginal notability -- and the "multiple users" have given undue weight to this event, and flaunted our neutral point of view policy.

    Most of the content on the Carrie Prejean biography is devoted to this issue and the resulting fallout, and most of it is negative -- despite the existence of a content fork for the event.

    "Multiple users" are trying to vilify Miss Prejean on her Misplaced Pages biography article, by copying comments quoted by newspapers -- that slag Miss Prejean -- into the Carrie Prejean bio.

    The "multiple users" repeatedly insist on violating Misplaced Pages standards of what is worthy of inclusion on Misplaced Pages.

    "Multiple users" act like they're on a mission to use Misplaced Pages to destroy the reputation of any that oppose same-sex marriage, for political reasons.

    InaMaka has defended the wiki like a man in a hurricane. For this InaMaka deserves praise, not blocking or "reminders". -- Rico 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    I find this post incredibly inappropriate. Why has it not been placed in sequence as is common practice, and why do you ignore the comments I made below specifically arguing against blocking InaMaka despite his inappropriate behaviour? Why are you accusing me of deleting multiple posts by InaMaka, of tag-teaming, and of failing to engage in discussion, when I personally devoted an entire section of one talk page to responding to your concerns? Why do you appear unable or unwilling to assume good faith? Most of it is railing against the liberal/gay agenda/conspiracy theories; what does it contribute to this discussion? Finally, why have you not yet altered your signature to confirm with WP:SIG by providing a link to your talk page, user page, or contribs page as requested at least 3 times? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    Strong Oppose. I completely agree with Rico's post on this. He's nailed it perfectly once again. TharsHammar and Exploding Boy (among others) have been distruptive, rude, incivil and POV pushing to no end. Both are not interested in a NPOV article, but are interested in pushing a political liberal agenda that has no business here. EB has gone as far as to canvas on the homosexual wiki project talk page to find support from users who share his views. I find this incredibly inappropriate behavior. EB has also given me an empty threat on my talk page as a hint to stay clear of the Carrie Prejean article. Thars is no different, and he tried to get me blocked (claiming vandalism!) over a photograph (on the female breasts) that was on my talk page so I'm not surprised to see him here trying to get InaMaka blocked. I, like Rico, realized that these two users are not interested in consensus-building, they are not interested in respecting BLP policy, they are not interested in NPOV or WP:Undue weight issues. They appear to be interested only in portraying Miss Prejean in the most negative manner possible. InaMaka, like Rico said above, deserves to be praised for doing the correct thing on wiki and not blocked. Both Thars and EB are the ones who should be blocked or given strict warnings. CADEN 17:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    InaMaka appears to be campaigning at present, by leaving messages on talk pages of users who might support him both on the articles in question and here. I don't think this is appropriate.
    In regards to this report, InaMaka did engage in unacceptable behaviour, which included repeated threats to engage in edit warring on articles related to Carrie Prejean. His article edits and reverts; general refusal to discuss on talk pages; accusations against other editors; incivil edit summaries as well as his comments to and general misbehaviour on my talk page around May 1-7 were extremely problematic. Since May 7, however, he seems to have toned this down considerably and has engaged in at least some talk page discussion. This is definitely positive.
    On the other hand, some of his edits still appear problematic. In particular, he seems to be going against current consensus regarding inclusion of statements by Perez Hilton relating to Carrie Prejean. InaMaka apparently wishes to protect Prejean's reputation, and he goes about this by removing specific comments made about her and reports about things she has done. It should be noted that InaMaka has been blocked twice previously for edit warring.
    Taking into consideration the recent improvements in his behaviour, I don't think InaMaka should be blocked at this stage. Instead, I think he needs to be reminded to participate in talk page discussions and follow consensus; be civil, including in edit summaries; and improve article content rather than reverting what he doesn't personally like. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've left a couple of messages on InaMaka's talk page about working within the talk page discussion/consensus process and being civil in both edit summaries and discussions. After that initial burst, InaMaka backed away from the article for a bit, and has been for the most part calmer since their return. (Also note that InaMaka was not the only one who was incivil (whether toward other editors or toward the Living Persons being discussed) in those earlier exchanges.)
    In InaMaka's defense, their initial complaint was feeling it was inappropriate to repeat Hilton's particular use of an offensive word even once on the page. While the majority disagreed with InaMaka's position, there was at least a sizable minority who supported it. However, during InaMaka's break, another user, without prior duscussion, made it so the word appears _five_ times, by (within the references section) directly quoting sections including it from articles used as references for the controversy. InaMaka's comment on the talk page in response to this AN/EW posting (erroneously called a "3RR" in TharsHammar's notification to InaMaka, though it clearly doesn't fall under WP:3RR) indicated a (grudging) willingness to leave the word in there once in the main body text (as seems to be the consensus) but clear disagreement with it now being used repeatedly; as such, I see TharsHammar's reverting those removals, and especially reporting this here as an edit war, as way over the top. John Darrow (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

    Not one of the edits he/she refers to happened in a 24 hour period is quite funny, but still no vio William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

    68.148.149.184 reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: link


    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    IP editor continues reinserting an irrelevant RfC from Scientists to the Film's MoS talk page, after having being chastized for violating the MoS on articles, then trying to change the MoS to suit his preferences and having it reverted. Four different editors have removed the tags and explained, repeatedly, it is irrelevant, but he instead is demanding all other editors be warned for vandalism for removing the pointless RfC. Related Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Warning Called For Collectonian. Same IP also edit warred on Watchmen (film) for which he was also warned and seemingly lead to his deciding to be disruptive at the MoS because his inappropriate changes were not allowed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Anon IP 84.148.xx.xx reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Semi)

    Anzac Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.148.60.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.108.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.51.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.79.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.101.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.148.53.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 14:51, 7 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: What comes first, comes first: ANZAC Day is a National public holliday -- no what")
    2. 01:31, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a National Public Holiday in the first place Undid revision 288563590 by AussieLegend (talk)")
    3. 04:21, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA; Whats your problem: It's both, firstmore it's a Holiday, then rest. Undid revision 290220630 by AussieLegend (talk)")
    4. 04:30, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: It IS a National Holiday, believe the Pages, Undid revision 290237297 by Bidgee (talk)")
    5. 05:24, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: You gotto learn, and you will. Undid revision 290238989 by Bidgee (talk)")
    6. 05:40, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a National Public Holiday in Australie and New Zeeland. Undid revision 290245835 by Bidgee (talk)")
    7. 06:09, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: Public Holidays on Australia.gov. You may want to read this page -- you may ignore it as well. But this is Misplaced Pages, that goes for official sources. ANZAC Day is Australials most important day.")
    8. 07:39, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a day of rememberence, so what? For modern Australia and Aussies, it's a Pupblic Holiday in order to remember ANZAC Day.")
    9. 08:29, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "ROHA: But where is your contribution to discussion? I had a look at the talk page, there was no contribution from you. So, please. Read a History Book about ANZAC.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    This is clearly from one editor who is deliberately disrupting and adding errors into the article even when told to take it to the talk page. Bidgee (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Page protected Semiprotected two weeks by Cirt. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    68.148.149.184 reported by Girolamo Savonarola (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • This editor has reverted four separate editors on this action, in order to open up an improper and irrelevant RfC in the face of unanimous opposition to his proposal, which also contravenes general MOS guidelines as well as the specific ones mentioned here. At this point, his actions have been a failure to see the point, acknowledge consensus, or assume good faith opposition on the part of the other editors. This has already drawn out far too long, and this editor has, within a limited time, already drawn considerable criticism for his edits on other pages, including the Watchmen page. I think that the IP's edits on this page (as well as the others, including an active ANI) should adequately speak for themselves, and I encourage their reference. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Legitedits reported by Perlonkid (talk) (Result: )

    Invaders Must Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Legitedits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 18:05, 7 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 18:55, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 12:59, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 22:49, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    5. 22:35, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    6. 09:09, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    7. 14:03, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    8. 16:33, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    9. 13:22, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "")


    • Have warned the editor several times on User Discussion page, however all have been deleted by the editor.
    • Editor continually reverts reviews to remove any negative ones and to include reviews from non-professional sources. Ignores any attempts to enter discussions. Reviews chosen contradict the rest of the article. Perlonkid (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    (a) You've marked your reverts as reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you want WP:AIV (b) I see no signs of your attempting to resolve this on talk in the past 2 months William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    There are many comments in the Invaders Must Die talk page from several other editors regarding the continued vandalism of the reviews. I have reported this to the WP:AIV page and they rejected my request and recommended I lodge a request in this page. To be honest I am a new editor and am totally disillusioned with this process. The other user is blatantly trying to bias the reveiws and there seems to be no way within the wikipedia process to stop them. I have attemped to engage the other editor in discussions on several occcasions but the other Legitedits has failed to respond on eithter the history tab of the page in question, or the users own comment page (they react by deleting my comments/warnings) As a result the album page is biased as it gives an unfair representative of the critical response of the album. Perlonkid (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Gryffinclaw reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    episodes
    characters
    Pitch Pure
    Nanami Kamimura user talk

    Gryffinclaw modified 3 different Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch articles to use a fan-preferred spelling of a characters name, going against Misplaced Pages's naming guidelines and WP:MOS-AM. These were reverted and it was explained to him by User:Nanami Kamimura in the edit summary, then a longer note was left on his talk page. He initially ignored her notes, and began reverting them, engaging in an edit war spread across three related articles. Nanami approached myself and User:KrebMarkt on our talk pages for assistance, as we are both heavily active in the Anime/manga project. I tried explaining to Gryffinclaw why his edits were rejected. He responded on Nanami's talk page, but at this point she did not wish to deal with him anymore and removed the note, requesting he talk with me instead. He began edit warring on her talk page, continually replacing his message despite her request that he not contact her anymore (4 more reverts total). He eventually also began leaving messages on my talk page, first claiming that because he is certified in CIW Web Page Design, his edits are justified (yes, I also went ???), then claimed that he was a teacher and protecting the children from being "hurt" by incorrect names. He then began blanking his talk page any time a warning was left for him. He clearly knows he is edit warring. Even while I was preparing this report, he went back and reverted all of the articles yet again showing he has no intention of stopping. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    I don't understand. You've clearly stated in your edit summaries that you are reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you want WP:AIV, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    He is edit warring. I began reverting him as vandalism as such, and introducing deliberate factual errors as he is now clearly aware he is acting inappropriately. Edit warring is generally to complex for AIV, however. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    This might be closed with a block as a conventional 3RR, on List of Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch characters. It's not vandalism, though. Disagreeing about names is not 'introducing deliberate factual errors.' Gryffinclaw has been editing since July 2008 and should be aware of our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes sorry I was being a bit POINTy. 24h. I suppose I'd get into trouble if I "solved" the problem by just deleting the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Ghettoblaster reported by Scientus (Result: talk)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    notice all reverts are minor edits, as are 99% of Ghettoblaster's edits. Scientus (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    No technical vio, and you haven't even bothered to try to discuss this on the talk page. Also you can't spell your own name :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    89.173.1.149 reported by Hobartimus (Result: Semi)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    It's sneaky vandalism essentially due to the "riot was organized and later abused by Hungarian authorities" part. I would add that Hungarian authorities or indeed authorities of any country are rarely in the business of organizing riots. Of course it's not a clear cut case, like inserting curse words. The IP is on a dynamic range. Hobartimus (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Result - 3RR violation plus non-neutral presentation of events, without sources. Blocking the IP is not likely to be effective. Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Tennis expert reported by Mendaliv (Result: 24h)

    • Diffs of edit warring warnings: 1, 2

    Note the problem here is not an explicit 3RR violation, but a pretty clear edit warring issue. I apologize if this report is premature; I was advised that an ANEW report may be a proper solution per User talk:TravisTX#Why?.

    • On about 9 May, I ran through the above categories and removed what I viewed as redundant sockpuppet tags (tagging an IP for the sockmaster and every confirmed sockpuppet of that sockmaster)
    • On about 11 May, Tennis expert reverted this, stating there was no policy supporting my format, and that his format had consensus (never adequately established; see this thread and specifically this response)
    • On about 16 May, I reverted Tennis expert's reverts, having obtained a pretty clear OK from PeterSymonds, an SPI clerk, that Tennis expert's format was clearly wrong
    • About 12 hours later on 17 May, Tennis expert reverted me again, stating there was no consensus to change formats
    • Two hours later, TravisTX began to revert Tennis expert per the general lack of support for TE's format at WT:SPI, but stopped when Tennis expert demanded he do so
    • Tennis expert quickly reverted all those pages which TravisTX had reverted, stating that discussion was ongoing

    Now, I make no case for my edits versus Tennis expert's here. The problem however is that, where my re-revert had some fair appearances of being supported by the SPI community (and TravisTX's even more so), Tennis expert's reverts have in every single case been unilateral, with at-best spurious claims of consensus for his format. TravisTX had gotten involved in this case for a different problem with Tennis expert's use of {{IPsock}} (see this ANI discussion). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    24h. Hopefully TE will see sense, promise to stop, and get unblocked William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Rjanag reported by Meandmylefthand (Result: sock)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:
    • 10th revert:
    • 11th revert:
    • 12th revert:
    • 13th revert:
    • 14th revert:
    • 15th revert:
    • 16th revert:
    • 17th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I really didn't want to take this drama this far, but as a new editor, I just found his behaviour extremely unacceptable. This user is totally dominating this article. You will see that almost all reverts made in the past 3 months are just him. I can't even be bothered to list them all here, there are just too many reverts by this user. This is just an example of the countless reverts this user has made in the past. He has violated the 3RR numerous times now and is reverting any valid, sourced information on grounds of "consensus" (which is basically just him and a few socks). Discussion with this user is impossible as he immediately accuses anyone reverting his vandalism on grounds of this 3RR (which he himself has violated numerous times), and of groundless sockpuppetry. Any valid edit is immediately reverted by this user and new users (like me) found it very difficult to make any further contributions to this article due to this overdominance. He is completely abusing his administrator rights. Any positive edits made to this article is immediately removed by this user, even if they are properly sourced, and many new users have become victims of his tactics to block any user who is apparently a meatpuppet according to him (and his socks). I find this totally unacceptable and there must be an end to this nightmare drama as soon as possible. Meandmylefthand (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Meandmylefthand is an alternate account of the indefinitely banned User:Ziggymaster, and all the reverts listed are instances where I was reverting edits from a banned user. rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've indef'd M as an obvious sock, though I didn't know whose William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Can this be thrown out? There are all kinds of problems with the report. First of all, the "diff of 3rr warning" isn't a diff, it's a link, and to a 'warning' that was given just a few minutes ago and I haven't reverted since it. Secondly, most of the 17 reverts he listed are not even edit war reverts; for example, #16 is rolling back vandalism, #15 is restoring content that was deleted without explanation, #17 is reverting an entirely different problem and not related to the content dispute that's going on right now (and, besides, it was a week ago). rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    It has been thrown out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Badagnani reported by User:Ronz (Result: stale)

    Recent discussions concerning similar behavior:

    Once again, I'm concerned about his continued behavior and would like more admin help before the current disputes escalate further. In the last ANI, it was recommended that a 3RR report be written up the next time he started edit-warring again, so here we are.

    In David Oei, an article he created, he is once again edit-warring over poorly sourced information that has been discussed in Talk:David_Oei#Advertisement and Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_5#David_Oei.27s_former_wine_shop.

    This time around the information was tagged as failing verification 23 April 2009 by an editor that had not previously edited the article. Three weeks later, I removed the material 18:33, 14 May 2009 . Within two hours 22:04, 14 May 2009 Badagnani restored it without any contributions to the talk page in a month. I reverted his edit added a comment to the talk page. He's restored a portion of the material again 04:16, 17 May 2009 without a source at all, and has still not contributed anything new to the discussion.

    I've simple solution to Badagnani's ongoing problems: have Badagnani himself provide us with a solution. Require Badagnani to state for once exactly what parts of WP:DR he will follow and respect. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    I support this: situation really needs attention. Badagnani has been asked more than once to go to WP:DR over these edit warring issues, and has completely ignored a user RFC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Badagnani. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comments. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability's nutshell says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Are you really expending all this effort simply because you don't believe the pianist owned a wine store? You already told the subject of the article, that the wine shop he owned and ran for 10 years is "of no importance" to his life unless a citation can be found.
      It seems to be verifiable that he owned it: , . Instead of deleting the whole sentence every time, why not suggest alternate wording? Or, take a break from this article...
    • It's already been established that you don't get along with Badagnani. I'll repeat what has been suggested by others elsewhere: Why don't you take the articles you followed him to, off of your watchlist?
      Yes, other people are still having problems with him. But you're not helping matters by creating more drama over things like this. You're not going to educate him into becoming a model-editor. You might manage to provoke him into doing something perma-block-worthy, and that would be a shame. Fortheloveofgodandpeace, stop interacting with him. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Responded to Quiddity's accusations, instruction, etc here, repeating what has already been discussed here and here. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    1) Re: Instruction: You quoted WP:BATTLE to me. Specifically, you quoted "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." I agree. I gave you suggestions on how to improve the article in a more harmonious, and less-wasteful manner. Was it a bad suggestion, to consider a compromise in the article, instead of an all-or-nothing solution?
    2) Re: Accusations: How are we meant to resolve a dispute, if we can't discuss the nature of the dispute? You clearly followed (wikihounded) Badagnani across a number of articles. That seems to be making things personal, which WP:BATTLE clearly advises against doing.
    I can only see negative outcomes, if you continue to attempt to interact with Badagnani, with the methods you choose to use. Instead, I'm suggesting things like: you read over WP:TRUCE, and perhaps question your own motives for continuing to force these disputes to occur.
    3) Regarding the article/dispute in question this time, David Oei, are you really expending all this effort because you strongly disbelieve the subject owned a wine store for 10 years? Are you "challenging" this material?
    From an outside perspective, it appears to be a quibbling over tiny details, with an editor that you have a bad history of communicating with. And purposefully quibbling with said editor. Almost 3 million articles, yet you keep choosing to clash with Badagnani...
    -- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I would broadly agree with Quiddity's observations and recommendations here. Badagnani has a history of not dealing with conflict very well, but Ronz is among the editors responding to Badagnani in a way that is guaranteed to prolong the disruption. I think they should stop. It's not as if a fact about a pianist owning a wine shop is going to hurt anyone if it stands in the article for a little while. Nor will it hurt anyone if the fact is not in the article. The editors involved in this conflict would do well to get a dose of perspective. -GTBacchus 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Badagnani has a long history of being blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and generally being unable to follow WP:DR. Badagnani persists despite all efforts to change his behavior. Attacking other editors for the way they've interacted with Badagnani only worsens the situation. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't believe GraYoshi is involved in any of the current disputes, nor does GraYoshi's attempts to clean up after Badagnani's problematic editing excuse Badagnani from following WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Ronz, take the advice that Q and others are giving you. is just a pointless waste of time. Closing as stale, with an admonition to try to avoid B in future William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:PiTBUL882 reported by Dan D. Ric (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Arcángel (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PiTBUL882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 04:55, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 04:59, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 05:18, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 15:29, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Dan D. Ric (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Fair enough. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Ratel reported by Collect (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: (multiple reverts)


    Extended war - user seeks inclusion of contentious material without consensus on the basis of his comments on WP:RS/N for National Enquirer and TMZ.com. Other editors have removed such material citing BLP concerns. This has now gone on for several days, but only last day is cited.

    • 1st revert: 23:59 17 May and following. comments include "weasel-worded promotional sentence removed" "TMZ has **not** been judged unreliable, and in this case it seems to have actual documents and lawyers' letters to back up the report. See the pdfs) "
    • 2nd revert: 00:21 18 May "Reverted to revision 290615670 by Ratel; The RS noticeboard endorses TMZ, no matter what Amicaveritas says. (TW)) "
    • 3rd revert: 01:08 18 May "FBI investigation: shorten. remove slant)"


    • 4th revert: 07:46 18 May "FBI investigation: hey-yo, problem solved)"
    • 5th revert: 08:08 18 May "(Lots of secondary sources, will definitely be included. Get the BLP posse as you promised, Scott. I welcome it. (BTW, your weasel edit is not weasely))" (as I read them, he is at about 10RR in 3 days - including reverting three or four different edotors)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: prior warning at by another user for same article

    It appears the user may also be a tad uncivil here as well, he routinely makes aspersions on other editors. is one of his mildest. To make things clear, my sole article edit here was to change a pound sign to a dollar sign. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) added earlier warning Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    • These are mostly not reverts but edits or mods to other edits. Two of the other editors have COI (one knows the subject, the other runs his fanclub). Lots of well-sourced info has been removed, despite no real consensus for removal (RS noticeboard endorsed TMZ).► RATEL ◄ 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Editors can follow the TMZ/Copperfield controversy here and here. ► RATEL ◄ 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    And three other editors (including Blueboar etc.) have no connection whatever with the topic (and the other two you cavil on are not "outed" as far as I know for any specific COI, unless you know much more than is on WP). As for saying editing to go back to waht youw ant is not a "reert" - I think you misapprehend what "revert" means here. Collect (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Result - Editor warned. I did not see a plain 3RR violation, but Ratel has been editing aggressively with regard to BLP-sensitive material. I've told Ratel that he may be blocked without further notice if he inserts negative material about Copperfield without first getting consensus on the article Talk page that is OK under WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, and as I responded on my talk page, that won't happen soon, since one of the opposing editors runs Copperfield's fanclub, the other is a confessed personal friend, and a third is Collect (nuff said?). No way any consensus for inclusion will be forthcoming like that, even if the material SHOULD be in the article if objectively considered. ► RATEL ◄ 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Interesting response to a clear warning, I think. And with you not mentioning the other editors, why make this post? Collect (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The editors making Talk page consensus impossible and exposing a flaw in this methodology for deciding edits are:
    TheMagicOfDC (talk · contribs · count) a SPA who runs a Copperfield fansite and is in contact with Copperfield diff
    Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) another SPA who knows Copperfield personally, he says, and he uses a lot of legal phrases like "plaintiff" and talks with familiarity about court documents involving Copperfield diff
    Collect. All that needs to be said about him is here at his own glorious RFC. No sensible consensus possible with him editing the page (not a PA, a fact). ► RATEL ◄ 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Aha -- all you do when given a warning is sling mud again (as you have now done quite a number of times)? Ed -- please consider this a specific request to consider acting on the PAs here, and the implicit attacks on Blueboar, Cameron Scott, Amicaveritas et al. And Ratel -- take a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Please continue this discussion on the article talk page if needed. It is hardly worth going to ANI in a case with so many issues and no smoking gun. Wait to see if Ratel will start to sincerely work for consensus and will observe the constraints of the BLP policy. If not, there are many possible remedies. If he continues to beat up on all the other participants he will not attract much support. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:97.106.43.95 reported by Wildhartlivie (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    IP keeps reverting to a version that claims Fromme has a definite prison release date and removes the factual points that a parole hearing must be held and Fromme must attend in order to be considered for parole. The release date would only be valid if those conditions are met. Without that information, the article gives inaccurate and misleading information. IP history shows a pattern of abusive edit summaries and warnings regarding behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    I suppose there must be a reason why you think your reverts are exempt from 3RR but I don't know what it is William M. Connolley (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that removing what is a conjectural interpretation of a source per WP:GRAPEVINE is exempt from 3RR. In fact, it says "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." In this instance, is it not only a gross misstatement of the source, but it is inflammatory in that it conveys to any reader of our page the impression that her release is imminent. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed. The problem is, who gets to decide that is what you were doing. You? Please see and in future be more cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    There's something quite suspect about an administrator adding qualifiers to existing policy in order to support his decision not to act upon expressed concerns regarding an editor's reversions, especially when the same administrator ends up taking action when someone else reports the same editor for the same behavior. I've been around here a long time and my editing practices have never been questioned. It's too bad when good faith efforts to keep misleading content out of an article leads to revisions in policy and guidelines language in order to ignore an issue that I brought up. I suppose it depends on who you are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Psw1359 reported by Smerdis of Tlön (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to:



    I don't see a technical violation of the 3RR rule here, since enough time has generally passed between the successive edits, and I'm not parsing the whole history for technical violations, but the history of this page shows a long standing edit war between User:Psw1359 and User:J123Jordan concerning the article Distributed Inter-Process Communication, apparently about distributed computing on some Linux thingumabob. This has been going on since September of 2008. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    OK, so it is a disaster area but no-one has even warned Psw about this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Wozwoz reported by Binksternet (Result: 72 hours )

    Most of what's being reverted is an extensive list of over 130 artists or albums. Other material includes the non-standard terms "hi-rez" and "hi-resolution", and URLs which are questioned as references. Each reversion has removed several fact and clarify tags without addressing the indicated problem.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    97.106.43.95 reported by Xeno (Result: 24h)


    2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:97.106.43.95 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Geoff B (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Minimidgy reported by Andrew c (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I'm an admin and I would block the user myself, as they clearly made more than three reverts, with the last one coming after a warning, but I have made a single revert to the page to remove what amounts to almost vandalism (repetitive insertion of strongly POV language). So I recuse myself of admin action, and hope that someone is watching this page and can take swift action. Thanks.-Andrew c  01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Amerindianarts reported by Uyvsdi (talk) (Result: submitter warned)

    Dorothy Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amerindianarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 04:09, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 04:25, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "I did not add it initailly-someone else did. I wrote the article and nothing is offered for sale on the page which is within Wiki rules. Check them out. An authir can do it")
    3. 05:16, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "Like I said, I didn't add it initially and I am the author. There are plenty of other commercial websites on Wiki directly linked to that offer info.")

    —Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is in regards to the three reinserts of the editor's personal, commercial as an external link. Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsd

    No technical vio. U appears to be replacing a link to the original article with a link to the copyvio. I don't understand why U thinks this is a good idea and have begun a discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    I more fully understand the situation now and see that both links have been removed, which seems fine. Thank you for your time! -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

    Errol Sawyer

    Please see this (and with this as background).

    I am an admin, but it could be claimed that I am involved, so I let others draw their own inferences and take appropriate measures. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    24 hours (via related ANI thread). EyeSerene 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Re User:QuotationMan (result: malformed)

    I will have gone into WP:3RR if I do any more on this the above user has decided he owns several pages and has removed huge amounts of info footnoted to WP:RS highest standards. A short ban is in order , I imagine such a ban will result in a few socks popping up. I think that might already be the case on that page.

    Any advice help would be of interest. Catapla (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    I think the first piece of advice would be to tell us which page the problem is on. You might, perhaps, consider following the accepted format for submitting 3RR reports? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Imbris reported by Hobartimus (Result: Protection )

    Previous blocks for 24 and 72hours due second block was shortened due to some stipulation. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Page protected — Aitias // discussion 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:85Zed reported by J (Result: unresolved)

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

    1. 17:38, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History and availability */ no need for mode of announcement. It was pedestrian and trivial. ")
    2. 19:35, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 290989205 by J (talk) Rebates are instant at Bestbuy and other stores etc. so rebates are not all mail in.")
    3. 19:59, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291009463 by J (talk) Please stop reverting. Bes buy and RdioShack do no mail in rebates on Sprint . they do nstate instead")

    User continues to inexplicably revert to remove accurate, sourced pricing details in favour of his unsourced knowledge on the matter. Attempted discussion on talk page, but user has proceeded to revert regardless (including a "Please stop reverting" edit summary on his most recent undo).   user:j    (aka justen)   20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Did you notify him of the 3rr? Ikip (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    I didn't believe he would consider it sincere coming from an involved editor. He otherwise didn't notice my subtler guidance to explore options other than revert and undo, however.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    Please! Always leave a proper warning for the editor involved before bringing a dispute to this noticeboard, unless you are sure they're experienced. When you file a case here it is assumed you know that the editor has continued to revert past the warning. This user's talk page was a red link, so an opportunity for dialog had not been taken. I have now left a proper 3RR warning, and advised him of this discussion. His four reverts on the article aren't a good sign, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    12.36.39.154 reported by Oli Filth (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: (and and ).

    In the interests of full disclosure, I've noticed during filing this report that I've also violated 3RR if one includes my edits from yesterday, but I'm not the only editor who's been reverting the IPs edits. Oli Filth 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    194.46.181.124 and cohorts reported for vandalistic edit-warring by Dr.K. (Result: )


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Even though the 3RR warning does not really matter because this is a clear case of vandalistic edit-warring by a pack of similar IPs. Dr.K. logos 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    I would also like to request semi-protection for the Corfu article. Dr.K. logos 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Strike my comment above. Page was protected following request. Dr.K. logos 04:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    It looks like a case of 3RR violations. Did you notify him of the 3RR? Ikip (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    I notified a couple of them, one before the last revert. But since it is also a case of clear vandalism I think they should all be blocked regardless of the 3RR warning. Dr.K. logos 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:Ikip (Result: 9 days )

    A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

    • 21:52, 18 May 2009
    • 20:34, 18 May 2009
    • 10:03, 18 May 2009
    • 09:40, 18 May 2009
    history of repeated edit wars on this project page in the past two weeks
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    23:47, 16 May 2009 3RR warning:

    For:
    07:36, 15 May 2009
    21:16, 15 May 2009
    21:28, 15 May 2009
    21:56, 16 May 2009
    23:09, 16 May 2009
    23:40, 16 May 2009

    07:12, 7 May 2009 3RR warning:

    For:
    05:20, 7 May 2009
    07:01, 7 May 2009
    07:13, 7 May 2009

    14:56, 5 May 2009 3RR warning:

    For:
    14:52, 5 May 2009
    12:44, 5 May 2009
    09:36, 5 May 2009
    Unrelated section deleted: 14:51, 5 May 2009
    Deleted other editors comments on WT:ARS:
    09:07, 5 May 2009
    19:37, 6 May 2009

    As per the instructions above:

    If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and or warnings.

    A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) AMIB has been blocked more than any other administrator, 12 times for edit wars. The last edit war block was for 7 days in February.

    Ikip (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 9 days Also, Ikip (talk · contribs) you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block. Tiptoety 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page). Risker (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Borcat reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    In most of these edits, Borcat is removing or changing sourced material, and 3 editors other than myself have reverted him, so consensus seems to be against his/her edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    Result - Blocked 24h. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic