Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

Update this page

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.

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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Template:Latest F1GP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Rino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:WikiProject Flag Template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.122.138.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]
• 7th revert: [8]
• 8th revert: [9]
• 9th revert: [10]

(Note from LikeLakers2: These reverts are from Template:Latest F1GP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

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

Comments:

This is a simple, uncontroversial update of a template that is made for every new Formula One Grand Prix. The current one is taking place now, so the update was made. This IP has reverted it nine times and counting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the AIV noticeboard:

• Repeatedly reverting edits simply because there was no reason given.. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as edit warring. I suggest the talk page access be blocked on first block, so that they won't remove the block template. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is pretty problematic - he reverts very minor, uncontroversial edits for no reason, up to ten times and counting on the same article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to include links. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 days. m.o.p 14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

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

Comments:
User:Captain armenia is engaging in edit wars and by erasing sourced NPOV material and adding POV material without sources. This user has threatened other registered users with a block even though he is not an administrator and has referred registered users which reverted his editions to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution notice board without first going to the talk page of the article. This user has already violated three-revert rule by reverting this article 4 times and likely will continue to do so again. Saguamundi (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to complain about this user as this user keeps acting like he basically "owns" the article by adding some biased information without acknowledging basic wiki laws.--NovaSkola (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning issued. m.o.p 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Journal of Cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well established and familiar with 3RR policies

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments: User keeps removing expert blogs cited multiple times by other sources per some misunderstanding of what WP:SPS actually says. E.g. Pharyngula (blog) is an award-winning blog from PZ Myers, which Nature (journal) recognized as the top science blog of 2006. Likewise for Phil Plait and his Bad Astronomy published in Discover magazine. Battison herself published in the Journal of Cosmology and gave a hard look at the peer reviewing process from the Journal of Cosmology. Rosie Redfield also gave a point-by-point debunking on the Hoover claims. All these sources were widely quote in the media, and are as reliable as it gets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP removals are not a revert. Using this blog to call the journals editors "Cranks" isa violation of BLP policy. I will also point out Headbomb has done three reverts, with one after BLP concerns were raised[23]. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not BLP removals, as the quotes are fully attributed to whoever made them, reflect mainstream opinion, and were published in reliable and recognized sources.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used a Blog to call BLP`s "cranks" if this is so mainstream why use a blog and not a newspaper or journal? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you want to quote someone, you cite the place where the quote was originally made. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection, 3 days - work it out on talk. Vsmith (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.5.94.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:

This IP apparently believes that sources must be online, which is not so. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you've violated 3RR yourself, yes? only (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not relate to combating vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but he's claiming the source is not POV and is removing it on that grounds. This sounds like an edit dispute over the source...not a case of vandalism. only (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, are you claiming that The Times is in some way unreliable? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film reviews are obviously not NPOV, they are opinions> I have added two "positive reviews" but the fact remains that some critics don't think much of the film. Do you think that the opinions of a Times reviewer are not worthy of inclusion? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another removal here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have already engaged in discourse on the talk page - clear up your disagreements there before you start editing the main page. I'll check back in a bit to see how things are going. m.o.p 15:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [31]

• 1st revert: [32]
• 2nd revert: [33]
• 3rd revert: [34]
• 4th revert: [35]
• 5th revert: through sock IP 24.21.18.209

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and other notices: [36]

Comments:
Assorted copyvio infringements, statements not covered by citations and citing Wikipedia articles. Continues unabated despite multiple warnings. Violations of WP:BLP. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much Fastily. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Principality of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 08:49, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "rv - dont use the sources from the 1905 and encyclopedias instead of the reliable secondary sources and stop to edit warring")
2. 09:26, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "we cannot verify the source from bauer from your link")
3. 09:58, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "how could be a hungarian principality a first state and it was a tribal alliance? its unlogical, source its there but i need a verification")
4. 10:23, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "Its first time, what I have undone your edit today Koertefa. You came into content dispute between me and Fakirbakir (you are not neutral). It were removed tertiary sources from the 1905. secundary sources are there and content was repaired")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
Samofi is a very disruptive user who got a second chance for returning to Wikipedia after once already being blocked for indefinite time [38][39]. After that, he returned to his old way of editing; editwarring with Hungarian users, over Hungarian related content, and changing the nationality of every famous person who posesses an article on the English wikipedia from Hungarian into Slovak.

When he received his indef block, the reason for that was that[40];

• "As noted at ANI, the combination of large aggressive editing with a clear POV indicates a battleground mentality that's inappropriate here. The fact that your response pointing to edits at Černová tragedy which were immediately reverted (in part, because you are obviously removing sources you don't agree with) indicates a real need to understand that purposes of Wikipedia is not for you to push your POV on everybody else."

Which very reminiscents of what is going on here as mentioned by his opponent in this edit war by an edit summary:

• 9:38, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "The full book is there (p. 586), DO NOT REMOVE SOURCES")

Also, Samofi is being discussed at WP ANI [41]. But because in my opinion, Samofi is in violation of 3RR, I also reported him on this very board as well. --Nmate (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear 3RR (10:23, 09:58, 09:26, and 08:49) and appears to be a continuation of his previous disruptive editing. Not sure on the block length, though; will provide input at the ANI discussion and see what other opinions are out there. Kuru (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the Nmate. I was not disruptive, I always use the reliable sources, but he dont like me from my begin at wikipedia - he wrote a lot of warnings to me, sockpuppetry investigation, he never discuss just write a reports against me. My last edit warring was a 1,5 year ago. My first edit what is reported here as edit warring is cut from the context (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&action=history). My first editation consisted with a 5 edits, I wanted to make a better entrance, but fakirbakir started to undone my work. So I undoned him 2x. Than his friend Koertefa (they were involved in canvass afair http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fakirbakir&diff=prev&oldid=448977281) was involved. I misinterpret 3RR, I thought that its about persons (Fakirbakir vs. me) its reason why I undone the edit of Koertefa (I wrote in the edit summary that its for a first time what I undone him). So it was a big mistake from my side that I broken a 3RR. If I would know it, I will not make it. Sorry. --Samofi (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About user Nmate who reported me. He provocate and write reports to all Slovak and Czech editors with different opinions and fall dirty to them instead of discussion and help. Look his activities, its clear ideological warrior and Iam abused from he more than year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yopie&diff=451666472&oldid=451650075 he bite a newcomers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omen1229&diff=446123412&oldid=444652689 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaemn784&diff=prev&oldid=451831919 he often contact other editors and cooperate - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fakirbakir&diff=prev&oldid=452511766 he blanked my sourced page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovak_principality&diff=prev&oldid=449286064 he deleted my sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=prev&oldid=449286020 he still plays with investigations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi&diff=prev&oldid=451509181 - look to this, again Hungarian editors vs. others. He has a battleground mentality and I cannot work at wikipedia because of he. He knows a rules good, so he provocate with other users and waiting for a mistake from our side. About my second undone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&diff=452489154&oldid=452487328 - sourced name by secondary sources the Hungarian tribal alliance was removed, I repaired it in my best faith coz its more frequent term than principality of hungary (which is mentioned only in tertiary sources). --Samofi (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This board is about edit warring, and there is a clear violation of 3RR, which is certainly disruptive. Furthermore, once already said user was blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing, and the only thing that he can do to "improve" Wikipedia is edit warring. Any other thing is irrelevant to this case.--Nmate (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear violation, it was a misinterpretation of the rule and my first edit was rebuilding of the entrance to the article. So I 2x undone fakirbakir and once Koertefa, coz I thought that 3RR is about persons and not about article. How could be principality a tribal alliance? There were unlogical things.. I explained why I made that - it was also written in edit summaries. I made it (violation of 3RR) firstly a long time ago, I was new and I did not know about this rule. Am I a disruptive user? Why only Hungarian editors has a problems with me? I stopped for a short time edit Hungarian related articles. I was edditing Principality of Nitra, Slovak history, music articles. What happened? Hungarian users started to revert my edits in Slovak-related articles. And about my work here.. I added +/- 100 sources last month about history of Slovakia and history of Hungary, I have read a plenty of books - more than you in all your life. Nobody is interesting about your enmity and your to me and other non Hungarian editors. If I really broken the rule about edit warring, than sorry and I will take a consequences, but I made it in the good faith. --Samofi (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone who was already blocked for indefinite time, refers to not being familiar with the 3RR rule is hardly credible. By the way, your entire contribution to Wikipedia is edit warring. And in addition, notwithstanding the fact that Samofi is being reported here, he is still edit warring on an another article [42]. --Nmate (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I add the sources supporting that tertia pars regni is the same like nitra appanage duchy - in the discussion (see talkpage) and article principality of nitra. Fakirbakir did not discuss, he just undone my edits without reason. He undone all my edits and Iam the warrior? I was open to discussion, if he would have a 1 source supporting his opinion against my 5 sources i would never undone it. --Samofi (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring on the article on Tercia pars regni; you deleted the article contents and replaced with a redirect at [43], [44], and [45] in a space of 27 hours. A normal good-faith editor would have placed a notice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and opened up a discussion on this controversial deletion.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A) You knows nothing about this topic B) Have you raed talkpage? I added sources each time when I put the redirection in the article - article was not sourced. Its same content in the article Principality of Nitra and in the article Tercia pars regni. Btw it should be "tertia pars regni" - 116 vs. 13 hits. Fakirbakir has no references - his good fight would be if he would add some references supporting his statement - he is editing a new propagandistic articles without references, iam trying to repair it, coz wikipedia is not dictionary. --Samofi (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated article Principality of Hungary for deletion, than for rename and I was reported by user:fakirbakir that I want to destroy his work. He redirected Royal Hungary without discussion to the Kingdom of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history) I just made a same thing. I use the same shifts as he. He is good and Iam the bad and disruptive? Its unfair. --Samofi (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that in the tertia pars regni it was not edit warring but it was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle --Samofi (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once[46][47].
• BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

And this also seems to be a revert on a yet another article-- [48]--Nmate (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and here I undone an edit in this article: [49] Uf Iam so disruptive.. You are a really funny with your efforts to ascribe to me a disruptions and edit warring. I try make all according to rules in the good faith, all my edits are based on reliable english sources, sometimes Iam bold, okay but Iam able to make a compromises. You are not. I agree that I made a mistake in article about Principality of Hungary, if I would know that my last edit will break the 3RR I would not make this edit so Iam sorry about this. --Samofi (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I add the source in the article about Csontvary, there is written "Magyar" - ethnic magyar roots. No Hungarian roots - it can be nationality, origin or ethnicity. Its explained that word Magyar is the most precise but vandalized by editors from hungary - they did not open discussion about this but edit warring against me. Look what editors from hungary make here: [50] Nmate deleted 3 times in the one day my source: [51] [52] [53] and he did not discuss it at the talkpage and did not discuss with me - clear edit warring. Dear ADMINS, its more than one year what the Nmate harass me and other slovak users - espetialy newcomers: [54] [55]. --Samofi (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? How does someone with ethnic-Magyar roots differ from someone with ethnic-Hungarian roots? The word 'Magyar' is just the Hungarian word that means 'Hungarian'.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week This is clearly an extension of the previous behavior which lead to the indefinite block last year. I've blocked for one week for the clear 3RR violation, and this is a warning that the previous block will be reinstated if there is further problematic behavior. Kuru (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Reverts done today:

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60]

Older reverts within 3 days:

• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]
• [66]

The user is trying to glorify the article, which is about a caste in India. He has removed the refimprove/peacock tags from the page, and is reverting since a week.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [67]
• [68]
• [69]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[70]]

Comments:
Even after 3 warnings issued to the user, the artice is getting reverted. Chektomate (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four reverts in 24 hours (12:08,06:51,06:06,02:47) and many warnings about 3RR. Kuru (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wanted (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tamilan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

• 1st revert: [72]
• 2nd revert: [73]
• 3rd revert: [74]
• 4th revert: [75]

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

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

Comments:I haven't even received a summary from this user for his unexplained vandalizing reverts in the Wanted (2009 film) page. He seems to be a die-hard Kollywood fan (no use of WP:AGF here) and reverted mine and User:Managerarc's edits 4 or 5 times on changing the sentence to saying that "It is a remake of the Telugu film Pokiri". He wants it read that it is a remake of the Tamil remake of the Telugu film. I posted a notice in his page asking him to explain why he did it and I have provided a valid reason "In case of multiple remakes, the original writer is credited, so the original film i.e the Telugu version, is the film from which this has been remade" but no summaries or response has been received. Please block him at least for sometime and here's a link to his talk page in which I gave a warning. Thank you!

• Warned Re-report if the user continues to edit war. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Big Brother 2011 (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:86.176.153.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

see diffs identified in simultaneous report of same user/topic, following this report.

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

• This latest revert diff edit summary [77]appears to imply ownership of the article. I assume the "c" is intended to indicate copyright! However, it may be that he is agreeing to cease from further disruption.Leaky Caldron 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79] plus response from IP [80] alleging censorship and ignoring consensus. Comments:

Closed per report below. Kuru (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Big Brother 2011 (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Big Brother 2011 (UK) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]
• 5th revert: [86]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Big Brother 2011 (UK)#Removal of non-encyclopaedic material

Comments:

I didn't realize Leaky Cauldron was also making a report. As it seems we have given slightly different information, can our two reports be merged somehow? LadyofShalott 14:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Was warned; pretty simple. Kuru (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Reverts by Westvoja:

• 1st revert: [88]
• 2nd revert: [89]
• 3rd revert: [90]
• 4th revert: [91]
• 5th revert: [92]

Reverts by Davejohnsan (including two misuses of Rollback):

• 1st revert (Rollback misuse): [93]
• 2nd revert: [94]
• 3rd revert (Rollback misuse): [95]
• 4th revert: [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (for Westvoja, Davejohnsan is experienced enough to know to not edit war): [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:

• Note:I'm not involved in this edit war, but decided to report it. Seems to be a hint of incivility (by Westvoja) as well here.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the other user be blocked too?Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody warned him. I'm not inclined to block User:Davejohnsan without notice. You can warn him if you like though... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was the one who gave the warning (see the diff), which implies he understands it. Plus, the misuse of rollback is something to look at too.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warned now. I am, however, not comfortable blocking or revoking rollback privileges at this time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Aprock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Aprock has been notified several times not to remove the link to the article militant atheism from other articles and templates throughout Wikipedia as the RfC that is discussing the article's fate is still in progress. I asked the editor to kindly wait until the RfC was over but he continued to remove the link to the article in question from other articles and templates. The following are the relevant differences:

• Exhibit A
• Exhibit B
• Exhibit C
• Exhibit D
• Exhibit E
• Exhibit F
• Exhibit G
• Exhibit H
• Exhibit I
• Exhibit J
• Exhibit K
• Exhibit L

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2

Comments:

• note: not a single diff listed above is a revert, and all but four of them come from before the linked warning. aprock (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Warned both users. In case there's even one more removal of internal links and subsequent reversion from either one of you, you will be blocked immediately (in case the RfC hasn't ended). Wifione ^Message 09:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]