Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Singhboi89 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result:24 h )

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]

Comments:

There is a suspicion that this user is the blocked vandal IP: 86.136.213.236, which has caused much disruption to many articles. Note I am not the only one who has reverted his edits. He has made suspected disruptive edits here. He has totally vandalised this article as well as this article. He is a suspected sockpuppet of this blocked user (this will need further investigation. The behaviour on many articles on surnames seems to be like a bot and needs a more advanced user than me to investigate.

User:Tadija reported by User:Muzakaj (Result: 72h block and 1RR editing restriction for Tadija, 24h for Muzakaj)

Previous version reverted to: [[8]]

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

Comments:User reverting to the "right" version ignroing the 2 names of the town. Such things happen all the time in the Albanian wiki. Our admins deal with them immediately.

This is not Albanian wiki. For more, see also (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Muzakaj) Tadija (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which you admited you were wrong. You broke the rules, time to pay.--Muzakaj (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE I just found out that this user has had a sockpuppet in the past, and has been blocked in other times for edit warring. In Albanian wikipedia sockpuppet=indefinite block.--Muzakaj (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Albanian wiki. And no, i didn't. I was reverting sock user Sarandioti. Blocking admin can explain very well. That was just little mistake that you are telling me. Main problem is still here. You cannot edit whatever you think is ok by your standards. And at the end, this is actually wrong, as those edits occur in more then 24 hours... Tadija (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes to you, although I just used the standards. And now you're admiting you waited to do that, so you can't be blocked?Hmm...in Albanian wiki we call that loje me sistemin, meaning gaming the system. hmm...--Muzakaj (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Muzakaj is blocked indef as a sock of User:Sarandioti, a highly disruptive user. - Tadija (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:NickCT reported by User:Shuki (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

1st revert: [14]
2nd revert: [15]
3rd revert: [16]
4th revert: [17]

Diff of 3rr edit warring : [18] Diff of 3rr4 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
I warned NickCT on his talk page of the edit war, he blanked that. I warned him of violating 3rr, he also blanked that. NickCT is trying to give UNDUE weight to one instance of occupied territories when clearly the article is about the general term and many other notable occurrences exist or have existed. Inserting a POV dab into the article and justifying that by adding personal opinion on the talk page without any evidence to back his claim up except merely finding 10 URLs on the internet which refer to the Israel/Palestinian issue. I am not trying to remove information and added a neutral suggestion which NickCT reverted. Only after he violated 3RR did he attempt to 'compromise'. Consequently, I have backed off at this point since the user does not seem sincere. --Shuki (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing ... - 2/0 (cont.) 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warned No activity for over a day, user warned as blocks are preventative, not punitive. Recommend a short block if disruption resumes. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:TJ Spyke reported by User:Afkatk (Result:24 hours )

Previous version reverted to: [21]

1st revert: [22]
2nd revert: [23]
3rd revert: [24]
4th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been blocked before, understands the 3RR. No warning had been given by any user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:
TJ has a history of not obeying a consensus or agreeing to new formats and incivility [27]. One instance where he refused to follow a new format can be read about here Archive on the WP PW ANI archive. After viewing his block history, he continues to edit war over even the simplest of problems. Edit wars like this have happened numerous times with numerous people in the past, he seems to be trying to own the articles rather than improve them. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, 24 hours, would have gave a longer time period but it was 12 hours ago the violation. Secret ^account 17:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:TrueColour reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

1st revert: [29] ([30])
2nd revert: [31] ([32])

Previous version reverted to: [33]

3rd revert: [34] ([35])

Previous version reverted to: [36]

4th revert: [37] ([38])

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Japheth the Warlock reported by Vidkun (talk) (Result:Stale )

Three-revert rule violation on

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

17:08, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
18:54, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "still exists or I wouldn't link to it")
18:59, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "So? It's better than no link, and it provides useful information.")
19:42, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")

Discussed on article talk page, no resolution Link to User Talk page and another, user is refusing to engage in discussion.--Vidkun (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stale case, warned, will block if he reverts the page again. Secret ^account 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not stale: he did it again. Drmies (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, user continued a couple of times, received another final warning, now blocked for a week. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rachelbirnbaum reported by User:EvilweaselSA (Result:Both accounts blocked indef, page semi-protected)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law&oldid=332090507

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law&action=history <- all visible here, unfortunately I don't get how to do diff links, but there are more than three
2nd revert: [diff]
3rd revert: [diff]
4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rachelbirnbaum

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law

Comments:

There has been considerable discussion on the talk page, and no comments from Rachelbirnbaum. I've attempted to discuss it, and after other input pared down the previous changes rather than removing them and starting again, but there has been no response, just reverting the page. I apologize if I messed something up here, I'm new at this. EvilweaselSA (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just see a bunch of edit warring between new users including both of you. I blocked both along with another account indef and semi-protected the page. Secret ^account 13:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- With respect, I think it might be a bit more complex than that - but agree that the indefs and protection will settle the dispute for now. To their credit, the reporting editor (EvilweaselSA) appears to have made a good faith attempt to discuss issues, whereas the Rachelbirnbaum account did not. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danieldis47 reported by Shlomke (talk) (Result:48 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

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

04:23, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332191892 by 99.155.206.57 (talk)criticism not relevant; the cartoon exists as described")
04:53, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "see disc. page; Lieberman is one of most visible/powerful Jews in the US & the 1st Jew on a presidential ticket; cartoon fits within the long history of Jews falsely accused of murdering Christians")
05:48, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "An active discussion is now underway on Discussion Page; this editor gives no specific reasons for his deletion; please show common Wikipedia courtesy")

Diff of warning: here and here

—Shlomke (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked 48 hours by User:BozMo Secret ^account 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MariAna Mimi reported by [[User:80.47.73.66 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)]] (Result:No block, for now )

Previous version reverted to: [41]

1st revert: [42]
2nd revert: [43]
3rd revert: [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:

User: MariAna Mimi has a history of edit-warring, and was blocked for edit-warring on this very article only 2 weeks ago as seen here. The article page in question was also fully protected by an admin for 2 weeks. Now that the two weeks are up, MariAna Mimi is back up to her old tricks and is deleting and reverting the same content from a reliable, reputable source in favour of her own choices that are more flattering towards the article subject. She was also told by the admin who blocked her 2 weeks ago that she has to start using the talk page to discuss changes and seek consensus before she reverts. However, all she has actually done is revert the material then placed her reason for doing so on the article talk page, which is not engaging in discussion or gaining consensus at all. She has reverted the page 3 times in the past 16 hours, despite attempts to discuss the matter on the article talk page and another warning about edit-warring placed on her own talk page. Though this isn't technically surpassing the 3RR (yet) there is a clear pattern of edit-warring behaviour present with this user (she was also blocked for edit-warring in June 09 as well as 2 weeks ago, and received a final warning from another admin on 26 November 09 for edit-warring on other articles). It's obvious she has learned nothing from being blocked so I feel a longer block should be issued for this persistent and disruptive behaviour. 80.47.73.66 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a clear 3rr here, only three reverts, no block Secret ^account 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user has continued edit-warring after this report was filed and has now broken the 3RR rule. A new report has been filed below as this one is now marked as "dealt with". 80.47.93.242 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that this noticeboard isn't just for reports of 3RR, but also edit warring generally. The user was blocked just weeks ago for edit warring on the article, and has resumed aggressive editing tactics immediately once the two week full protection expired. Try to evaluate the entire situation or defer. NJA (t/c) 13:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:94.192.246.167 reported by User:segrov (Result:3 reverts, no block, other party warned )

Previous version reverted to: [47]

1st revert: [48]
2nd revert: [49]
3rd revert: [50]
4th revert: [51]
5th revert: [52]
6th revert: [53]

I believe this is the same person as i have been reported earlier, under a different name. The Digital Audio Broadcast page is tormented with strong battles centered around maybe one person who have a strong opinion about sound quality. This has been going on for a few years.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55] [link]

I accept that i might be blocked to. I just wish for a balanced edit.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:
I have for some time done edits under the ip-range around 84.48.121.36, in case you wonder.

Segrov (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No block as only three reverts, both of you stop edit warring, either of you touch the page again in the next few days, you will get a block. Secret ^account 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, I will not edit the DAB page for a while. Does this means that User:94.192.246.167 is going to receive a block since he did his 6th revert a few hours ago: [58] ? Segrov (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:WVBluefield reported by User:Atmoz (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

1st revert: [60] one statement was unsourced and critical, the other was sourced to a blog, BLP exemption
2nd revert: [61] same as above, one statement was unsourced and critical, the other was sourced to a blog, BLP exemption
3rd revert: [62]
4th revert: [63] material that was reverted did not match the source and was WP:NOR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A. Editors knows about 3RR. Been blocked previously for it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A.

Comments:
The material that was removed in the first two edits was sourced to a blog, and that a BLP no no. The individuals who inserted it should have know better, and I suspect they did as they changed the reference to a WP:RS. At any rate, it is now being discussed on the talkpage at my initiative. WVBluefield (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Having issue establishing clear edit warring, which is likely why the report was skipped over by other admins. I'd look over dispute resolution policy to try to engage them fully in the process of editing constructively. There are other noticeboards for BLP and reliable sources as well that may be of assistance. NJA (t/c) 13:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Manticore126 reported by User:Mr. No Funny Nickname (Result: Both parties warned)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

1st revert: [65]
2nd revert: [66]
3rd revert: [67]
4th revert: [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:
Article had been going through a constructive revision and dispute resolution by myself and User:Stc573. User:Manticore126 has contributed nothing but to completly delete a section that offends him. Also, upon review, I have found that this is not the first time the user has resorted to this. [71]

Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Both warned. Since Bearcat has opened an RfC about the disputed paragraph, the parties are warned not to add or remove the paragraph until consensus is reached in the RfC. Blocks are possible otherwise. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the RFC is about the photograph only, not any text, so it's of only indirect relevance here. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MariAna Mimi, reported by User:80.47.53.183 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC) (Result: Final warn, 1RR restriction)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

1st revert: [73]
2nd revert: [74]
3rd revert: [75]
4th revert: [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:

3RR violation and on-going edit-warring. I reported this yesterday - first as an edit-warring issue before 3RR occured (which was ignored) and then reported it again later the same day after 3RR had occured but the second report was inappropriately removed by another editor. User: MariAna Mimi has a history of edit-warring, and was blocked for 3RR and edit-warring on this very article only 2 weeks ago as seen here. The article page in question was also fully protected by an admin for 2 weeks. Now that the two weeks are up, MariAna Mimi is back up to her old tricks and is deleting and reverting the same content from a reliable, reputable source in favour of her own choices that are more flattering towards the article subject. She was also told by the admin who blocked her 2 weeks ago that she has to start using the talk page to discuss changes and seek consensus before she reverts information. However, all she has actually done is revert the material then placed her reason for doing so on the article talk page, which is not engaging in discussion or gaining consensus at all. She has reverted the same detail on the page 4 times in the past 24 hours, despite attempts to discuss the matter on the article talk page and another warning about edit-warring placed on her own talk page. Attempts to discuss with her are met with an immature, territorial and confrontational attitude. There is a clear pattern of edit-warring behaviour present with this user (she was also blocked for edit-warring in June 09 as well as 2 weeks ago, and received a final warning from another admin on 26 November 09 for edit-warring on other articles). It's obvious she has learned nothing from being blocked so I feel a longer block should be issued for this persistent and disruptive behaviour. 80.47.53.183 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warned NJA (t/c) 13:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:M i k e y 86 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

14:43, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I rearranged the page to make it more suitable, as the other layout did not flow. this is more aesthetically pleasing")
14:45, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
14:47, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Airlines and destinations */ Removed Destination picture it is not current as per the destinations create a new picture with the correct destinations and update it when new destinations come online")
23:32, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "undo edit, we all know what the point of an airport is but the layout of the page is not flowing and makes for an un pleasant read! Please leave it. consult on talk page if you dont like the change")
03:43, 18 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop changing the layout, discuss on talk page before changing! The layout you have constructed is unpleasing to read it lacks structure!!")
12:45, 18 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 332440016 by Bidgee (talk)Please discuss with me before changing!")

Diff of warning: here

Comment: This editor refuses to take the problem to the talk page and the latest revert by the editor clearly shows they have an ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like the last comment from user M i k e y 86: "please discuss with me before changing"! And to add my two bits, I have had to ask this user to get familiar with the aviation project guidelines - which they insist on dismissing, preferring to do what they feel like and say things like "Unfortunately readers will not know about this "project" and standards of "pleasantness" and "prettiness" should be up held. Reader want something that is well structed, if it isnt it makes for an unpleasant reading experience, in which the "Project" should adopt these important standards". And that's just one of many examples. Jasepl (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a formal 3RR, but this editor does seem to have his own special preference for how an airport article should look. I don't notice him waiting to find consensus, and I see that he restores his preference numerous times after it's reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.155.106.6 reported by Ian Dalziel (talk) (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

11:06, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
11:12, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332473405 by Christopher Pritchard (talk)")
14:54, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
14:59, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332498192 by Ian Dalziel (talk)")
15:04, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")

Diff of warning: here

—Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result -- IP blocked 48h for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Echidna2007 reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [79]

1st revert: [80]
2nd revert: [81]
3rd revert: [82]
4th revert: [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [The problem is with one user]

Comments:

User is also trying to insert secondary and arguable information into header ("Transparency International" is a think tank, and therefore only purveys opinions), when the point is already given lengthy treatment in Economy section. Membership in G-20, though, is matter of record, and can be found in the intros of almost all other G-20 country articles.

User:Dan56 reported by User:GerardW (Result: 72h)

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

1st revert: [85]
2nd revert: [86]
3rd revert: [87]
4th revert: [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Comments: See page history for additional edits and uncivil behavior (profanity) in edit summaries: [90]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vitorvicentevalente reported by User:Gerardw (Result:2 wks)

1st revert: [91]
2nd revert: [92]
3rd revert: [93]
4th revert: [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Comments:Engaged in long running edit war, please see history [96]

Blocked – for a period of Two Weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:FactStraight reported by User:66.162.39.129 (Result: Submitter blocked)

Page: Leonida Georgievna, Grand Duchess of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reporting user 66.162.39.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: FactStraight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [02:20, 12 December 2009]

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:

Continues to remove cited work and requests for citations from articles66.162.39.129 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Submitter IP is recently blocked two weeks as a sock of User:Tfoxworth, per WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pantherskin reported by User:Martintg (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:
User:Pantherskin has previously edit warred this page and now is blindly reverting a synthesis tag, the issue has not been adequately resolved on talk. --Martin (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP

User:60.48.191.73 reported by User:jasepl (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [100]

1st revert: [101]
2nd revert: [102]
3rd revert: [103]
4th revert: [104]
5th revert: [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]

Comments:
The IP insists on reverting to their own version of things, despite several explanations from three experienced editors. In addition, IP's comments on my talk page are re-added, every time I remove them. 3RR violated on my talk page as well.

Attempts to explain, or to warn the IP resulted in IP blanking their talk page.
A courtesy that this report had been filed also resulted in the talk page being blanked.
An explantion on the article talk page was also reverted by the IP.

Jasepl (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor Jasepl (talk), The IP editor is asking the editor to provide the actual link to support his word, but the editor Jasepl (talk) didn't. The editor is ignore the message instead of keep on revert the Talk Page and others. The editor Jasepl (talk) also breaking the 3RR rule.

Hope admin can investigate it. Thanks! 60.48.191.73 (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards