Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive86

99.147.62.30 reported by dave souza (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Words repeatedly reinserted (without source) "In any case, the suggestion that natural selection is tautological cannot be an objection to evolution, since a tautology is a statement that cannot be false, and hence is always true. Thus, anybody arguing that evolution is tautological is inherently arguing that it is true." which, in the 2nd revert, were reinserted in the second diff for that revert.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: given before 3rd revert

IP shows in "Whois-search" as "Unknown AS number or IP network." dave souza, talk 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * for 24 hours by . CIreland (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist reported by Jim Butler (Result: Stale/Moot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Below, ScienceApologist edit-wars, and goes to 4RR in 24 hours (last four reverts). He violates WP:TE and WP:NPA as well.  Please check his block log; he is massively recidivist, and substitutes ad hominem arguments for argument on the merits.


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:27, 26 November 2008. In the ES, ScienceApologst asserted: "a LONG time ago, we came to a consensus that we should combine these two sections into one. I have done so. See talk".  Rebuttal: no such consensus was ever reached, cf. archived talk, nor does any exist now.


 * 1st revert: 22:37, 26 November 2008, reverting Hans Adler. Ad hominem coda: Later called Hans "a misguided mathematics post-doc"


 * 2nd revert: 23:25, 26 November 2008, reverting Levine2112. Ad hominem ES: "reverting Levine since he is a documented disruptive editor banned at Chiropractic for POV-pushing and is now continuing his campaing here."


 * 3rd revert: 21:47, 29 November 2008], reverting Jim Butler.  "Ad hominem ES: revert qi true believer"


 * 4th revert: 02:00, 30 November 2008, reverting Jim Butler.


 * 5th revert: 06:45, 30 November 2008, reverting Levine2112. "Ad hominem ES:  People banned from chiropractic should not be editing here either."


 * 6th revert: 20:41, 30 November 2008, reverting Jim Butler.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:21, 30 November 2008

Comment: Note that one additional editor, Hgilbert, also reverted ScienceApologist on 00:00, 27 November 2008; Quackguru reverted back to ScienceApologist's version. Clearly ScienceApologist is edit warring against a majority without consensus, and against the wishes of a plurality, i.e. he's messing with WP:TE.


 * Even if it were not stale, it is moot since ScienceApologist is blocked for 48 hours for another issue. CIreland (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi CIreland -- At what point does something become "stale" around here? I filed the report <3hr after SA's last revert; you replied and deemed the issue "stale" <24hr after I filed.  That's pretty quick turnaround in real time.  Please explain what I need to do to avoid such stale-ness in the future.
 * As for "moot", since SA's already under an unrelated 48-hour block, here's an idea: why can't another block, for this conduct, be set when the present one expires?  Doesn't it make sense to be lenient when offenses are few and far between, and get tough when an editor gets involved in a string of sanctionable offenses?  Particularly in the case of long-term disruptive editors like SA, whose block log I pointed to?  I really don't get the logic here, and I think you're sending the wrong message by not sanctioning.  thanks, Jim Butler (t) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason we wouldn't set another block after the first one, is that blocks for edit-warring are intended to be "preventative" and not "punitive". Once someone stops edit-warring, the block is no longer regarded as useful, as it would be stopping someone from doing something that they'd already stopped anyway. However, once the current block expires, if ScienceApologist does start edit-warring again, he will probably be blocked or banned again fairly quickly. --Elonka 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Elonka, for explaining the preventative vs. punitive rationale. That's understandable (although punitive measures, imo, also have their place in dealing with bad behavior... except this may not be the venue for it).  regards, Jim Butler (t) 06:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Elonka about the consecutive blocks business. We can't justify blocking someone to prevent edit warring when they are already blocked for something else. As for time limits on "stale", I would say 24 hours after the edit warring stopped is about right but there are no set-in-stone policies that give exact times and other admins may say a longer or shorter time.
 * What you may choose to think about is why it was allowed to go stale when other, later, reports were dealt with. For me personally (since I dealt with some of those later reports), it's a time issue (blocking SA requires lengthy investigation of what other sanctions may be in place and then being online for next few hours to deal with the fallout); other admins may have other reasons. CIreland (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks CIreland. Yes, I was wondering about why it was allowed to go stale, and appreciate your candid remarks, although I also find them quite depressing.  Because SA gets into so much hot water, complaints go "stale" by default.  In a backdoor, unintentional kind of way, this amounts to SA being able to WP:GAME the system.  It's a problem; perhaps one you or others here might have anticipated and jumped on the report quickly, but this particular case was special in that the mootness overrode the staleness.  When conduct like this goes unsanctioned, something about our system is broken.  ArbCom or someone needs to deal with SA, imo, and for real.  Thanks again for helping me grok the dynamics better, CI, and please don't take any of my comments as bitching at you.  regards, Jim Butler (t) 06:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alastairward reported by NotAnotherAliGFan (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

He keeps removing my cited reference because his personal understanding doesn't seem to grasp the connection between the two sources. Both sources are reliable and therefore, he has no right to continue mutilating my edits. By the way, if I violated anything in any way, I would like to be warned and have the chance to redeem myself instead of getting automatically blocked. Thank you very much in advance. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted that last edit. It would help if you would discuss things without using terms like "mutilate" and retaining civility. Alastairward (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alastairward has undone his last revert. Editors are encouraged to discuss the matter on the talk page instead of reverting not as well as. Please be mindful that if Alastairward had not self-reverted then I would have blocked both editors. CIreland (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:207.219.39.47 and User:204.50.180.85 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:	 )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:48, 29 November 2008 (probably; they're all the same size, and all edit comments are "undo")

switch to next IP switch back to first IP
 * 1st revert: 16:19, 29 November 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:10, 29 November 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:41, 29 November 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:29, 30 November 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:35, 1 December 2008
 * 6th revert: 17:51, 1 December 2008
 * 7th revert: 19:10, 1 December 2008
 * 8th revert: 22:53, 1 December 2008
 * 9th revert: 22:58, 1 December 2008
 * 10th revert: 02:57, 2 December 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * First IP: 20:20, 30 November 2008
 * Second IP: 19:04, 1 December 2008

Neither IP has constructive edits, outside of possibly this one. Note that I have reverted #s 3, 5, 7, and 10 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Date delinker reported by Locke Cole (Result: Declined)

 * User:
 * Alternate account of:


 * 1st edit:
 * 2nd edit:
 * 3rd edit:
 * 4th edit:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: dispute notice

is a sock/alt account of. Ohconfucius is currently involved in a dispute about whether or not date links should be automatically removed. He was warned not to remove date links in articles from either of his accounts or he might be blocked. Note that this user has used his alt account to edit while blocked in the past in (block evasion) so both accounts should be blocked if that is the result. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, this really is harassment of the first order. This is totally out of order. Cole is stalking me, once again, still accusing me of date-delinking. I have already stopped doing what what I have been asked to do, because he has been so nice about it ;-). Well I am getting tired of having to go through this yet once again. I would applaud him for his tenacity, though he must be getting really desperate to screw me. Evidently, it appears that he has combed through every single one of my 80 entries from yesterday, and he has found more evidence of "massive date-delinking" (''Gasp! Shock, horror!''). Congratulations! out of the eighty articles and god-only-knows how many links undone, he found that I have delinked a grand total of 3 date instances and one solitary year, all of which are buried somewhere deep in the core of the articles concerned. Any reasonable person would say that these are totally incidental bearing in mind the semi-automated tools used to convert dates from mdy to dmy format. It must be pretty darn obvious that this is something quite personal for Cole, and that I am already doing my utmost to avoid him. Yet he still insists in following me around wikipedia and reporting me at every turn. Not a day goes by that I don't have to look over my shoulder, and to come here and review the entries. Please tell Cole to go away and quit bugging me. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You were instructed to cease date delinking activites until the matter is resolved. I stopped reverting your project wide changes with the understanding that any such reversion would result in my being blocked. If, however, this is no longer the situation I will happily begin reverting you because you have no consensus for forcing your changes. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you, Cole?? you're tailgating me, and I'd love to see you kiss my ass if I brake. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius is also removing links from tables in contravention of the Manual of Style concerning tables. See, for example, the Date delinker edits to the Conchita Martinez article. He should stop making these kinds of edits and fix the damage he's done already. Tennis expert (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The moratorium existed because of the absence of consensus on the issue. Looking at both relevant RFCs on the issue, consensus is now much clearer so I have no mind to block on the basis of edit warring. However, I do have doubts about whether this is an appropriate task for automated or semi-automated tools since often the date-link may need to be replaced with a "See also" link to a relevant article (1932 in cheese making or whatnot). If an editor seeks an extension of the moratorium then they should do so at ANI. CIreland (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the RFC, I agree. LC should not make any further reports on this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Does this case set a precedent? In other words, is it valid to bring those trying to bring editors who are editing articles to comply with the MOS and consensus (i.e. date delinkers) to ANI any more (barring 3RR violations of course)? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This does set a precedent. Date-delinkers should no longer be reported here, or to ANI, purely for date-delinking William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted and will comply. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hosannah! Ohconfucius (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what is the proper forum? There is still no consensus that dates should be always delinked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere. I think they are calling this one.  Joy!-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 10:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * True, deprecation does not mean mass delinking still. And since auto formatting is currently a no consensus (which means we keep it) I'm troubled that the solution the devs have worked on relies on date links to remain as-is. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ViperNerd reported by Jober14 (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: - I had to change the link since he deleted the warning off his talk page

Based on previous edits by ViperNerd, he is a fan of the South Carolina Gamecocks. His team lost to Clemson University this weekend and now he is using Wikipedia as a means to "even things out". Even though I am a Clemson fan, my record shows that I have been unbiased in all my edits on this website. I ask for the same civility from ViperNerd but all he is concerned about is writing and editing articles to portray Clemson in a negative and biased viewpoint. This particular page has many many issues and unfortunately they (fans of USC) will not engage in positive constructive discussion about how to write the article in a neutral viewpoint. He's just causing trouble and it is dissuading passive editors from contributing on Wikipedia. Jober14 (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The three-revert-rule prohibits more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. See dispute resolution for ways to get more opinions on the contested issue. CIreland (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing against the closing admin, and to be honest I have not even looked over the circumstances of this case (so the close is probably 100% correct), but fallowing this discussion this noticeboard now allows for users to report cases of edit warring (not just 3RR) and as such cases can be closed with a block even if users have yet to violate 3RR. Tiptoety  talk 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Strikehold reported by FSUNolez06 (Result:Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: He asks me to cite it here, so I do in 5th revert. Appartently, that wasn't good enough, as he undid it again!
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User_talk:Strikehold

I have proven that what I posted was true, yet he doesn't want to believe it. I have been updating this page all year long and have never posted anything incorrectly. Everything I post is 100% true. Check out our talk pages to see our communication about this and many more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FSUNolez06 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

FSUNolez06 reported by Strikehold (Result:Page protected )

 * Page: 2008 Florida State Seminoles football team
 * User: FSUNolez06


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User talk:FSUNolez06

I repeatedly tried to explain the reasoning for the exclusion of the information in question, due to being unsourced and speculative in nature. User FSUNolez06 repeatedly reverted to re-include this information, four times.

I repeatedly asked him to provide a reliable source, where he could only respond with a link to a pay-only message board, and said he could not share the information verifying his edits due to that being in violation of the message board's terms of service. I asked him to link or find an open-source source to verify it, which he could not, and only became more combative.

I warned him that his four reverts are a violation of the 3RR and asked that he remove the information he repeatedly reverted to include. FSUNolez06 then gave me a 3RR warning (though I had not violated the 3RR) in an attempt to report me preemptively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikehold (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

FSUNolez06 (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is FSUNolez06. I don't know how to respond to one of these, so please forgive me if I am doing this wrong. With that said, I have posted a link verifying what I know. It is not my fault he doesn't have a membership to the site. I have posted 100% accurate information (and it will come to light and appear all over the internet within a week). I'm not sure what all the fuss is about with this. Within a week, he will see what I posted was true, and he will be proven wrong. I'm sorry he can't find another link online verifying it. That doesn't mean it is not true. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia that don't have any online sources verifying it: instead, they have newspaper articles, magazine articles, etc verifying it. Because there is not an online source for those things, then it should be taken down? I don't think so. I have been updating the 2008 Florida State Football page all year long and have updated it with nothing but true information. I don't think it is right that Strikehold has come through and gotten rid of some valuable information, just because he doesn't believe it is correct information. It is kind of ironic that he can get rid of it because he doesn't think it is correct.
 * Just glancing at this, if the information will come to light in the next week through verifiable secondary sources, it would be best to wait until then. The main source of information right now appears to be a subscription forum. Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a second source. The FSView (Florida State University's campus newspaper) also supports what I posted. Aren't newspapers OK to cite? FSUNolez06 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For admin's notice, I'm trying to discuss this on the relevant talk page with FSUNolez06. I've suggested he revert his edits and post his newspaper source to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I didn't check the talk page.  I'll move all discussion there. FSUNolez06 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I protected the page before I saw a link to these reports on the article talk page.  — Athaenara  ✉  06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the page has been protected, a block would serve no purpose other than to punish the users involved. I recommend that everyone takes this time to start a healthy discussion on the articles talk page, and possibly try some dispute resolution. Tiptoety  talk 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DHawker reported by MastCell (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:38, 2 December 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:46, 3 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:15, 3 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:06, 3 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:31, 3 December 2008 (undoes immediately preceding edit)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Previous warning and prior 3RR block

is a single-purpose agenda account promoting colloidal silver. Constant edit-warring, blocked about a week ago. I vouched for an unblock provided he'd stop edit-warring. He was unblocked, and repaid me by calling me names and now going right back to edit-warring to promote colloidal silver. Needless to say, I'm having second thoughts. MastCell Talk 05:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ancient Chinese secret says "drink quicksilver and have sex to extend life" Ancient Chinese secret also say edit warring bad.--Tznkai (talk)
 * Support a block, but feel the length is far too short. I would have gone with indef. Tiptoety  talk 06:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Slow edit warring at Tatars (result: block; semi)
This has been going on for ages, and there is little sign of any attempts to discuss. Can someone protect the page or something?--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked User:Fnr Kllrb 48h for edit warring etc. Also SoWhy (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Tatars: IP edit-warring ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)))) (undo) which should help William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Daly reported by 74.4.222.208 (Result: user warned)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Daly refers to the Talk page in his edit summaries, but during his deletions of fork history in the "Axiom (computer algebra system)" and "Comparison of computer algebra systems" articles--in addition to, in the latter article's case, replacing said information with minor information that would best be handled in the Axiom article (in this case, a request that people search for a video, and later on a link to the video)--he had refused to engage in discussion on the "Axiom (computer algebra system)" Talk page, wherein it was already explained why his deletions and substitutions are inapproprate.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User warned William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Number_57 reported by User:Tiamut (Result: Israel-Palestine arbitration remedies enforced)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Please note that the first three reverts delete over 1,000 bytes of sourced material, relevant to the article, but that the 3RR report pertains to the replacement of the word Palestine (the word used by the source cited) with Palestinian territories. The fourth and fifth reverts are just the replacement of the terms, without the deletion of sourced material, which was done instead by User:Jayjg. No attempt to engage in discussion at the talk page was undertaken, despite my request to Number 57 that he do so. Instead, he made personal attacks at my talk page, accusing me of "bad judgement".


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No need for a warning, since Number 57 is an admin and knows full well what 3RR is. In any case, it seems he was warned by another userhere and his response was this. I did inform him of this report after it was filed. .  T i a m u t talk 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a complete nonsense. An article on a foodstuff is being turned into an attack article by the insertion of completely undue material (describing the "humiliation" of Jews for one thing). According to Tiamut, three editors (I assume including herself) have worked hard to include that kind of material, which I think tells you all that needs to be said. As such, I have absolutely no regrets, and were such material reinserted into the article, I would have no hesitation in taking it out again per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
 * As for the more recent edits, its nothing more than a couple of editors POV-pushing by trying to get the word "Palestine" into the article rather than the proper term "Palestinian territories", another action which should be reverted at every possible opportunity. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm really disappointed by Number 57's approach here and at the article. Regardless of whether there is any merit to his editing position, the way he went about trying to get his concerns addressed violated Wikipedia policies - core among 3RR. He s not reverting vandalism. This is a content dispute that involved many editors, most of whom have taken the trouble to discuss their positions at the talk page. Number 57 has not and has reverted a number of time to pursue his POV to the exclusion of all others. This is not acceptable behaviour by any Wikipedian, least of all an admin.  T i a m u t talk 12:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I might further note that he's just reverted a sixth time now here. Are admins not subject to the 3RR or edit-warring restrictions at all?  T i a m u t talk 12:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism in the sense of replacing the page with "F**K YUO ALL", but it is certainly vandalism in terms of completely messing up an article to push forward someone's twisted world view. As for it being described as my "POV", the existence of somewhere called the Palestinian territories is actually commonly referred to as a fact. It also worth noting that aside from a brief couple of edits back in May (actually to fix the same issue of misplaced terminology), this is not an article I am involved in editing - I saw the state of it yesterday and noted that something needed to be done. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, your opinion on what the correct name for the area being referred to is irrelevant here. The source cited uses the words "Palestine and Jordan", and not "Palestinian territories". We use the term used by the source and since "Palestinian territories" is not a synonym for "Palestine", your change is WP:OR. It is in fact you that are politicizing a food article with your persistent changing of this word to accord with your world view.  T i a m u t talk 12:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There you go again, trying to push your idea that it is my "opinion on the correct name". It's not an opinion, it's a fact, and until editors such as yourself learn to differentiate between the two, your edits are not going to be very helpful. And, I'm sorry, but the claim that I am politicising the article, coming from someone who "worked hard" to include material about humiliating Jews in an article about Hummus, just shows how ridiculous your argument is. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not add that edit and actually removed the word "humiliating" completely when I restored a copy edited version of that other editor's additions (see Do you see the word "humiliating" anywhere?) But that's beside the point.
 * This report is about your inability to respect 3RR, which is contributing to all out edit-war at Hummus. Until you learn not to be so disdainful of the opinions of others, including the reliable sources we use to compose articles here, your editing will continue to be disruptive to the project, as it has been on the Hummus page.  T i a m u t talk 12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be frank, there is no way that 3RR should apply to clearing out nonsense from articles, as there are cases where little-seen articles can be dominated by a clique of a few POV pushers and attempts by occasional bypassers to weed out such crap need to carry more weight than those of the problematic editors. My editing is clearly not disruptive as anyone familiar with my editing history will know; however, due to the fact that much of my work is on Israel-related articles, there are occasions in which I come up against nonsense such as this, and have to deal with it in the way described above because there is no alternative. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The terminology comes from the source, whereas your terminology comes from your holier than thou opinion that the existence of the Palestinian territories is a fact, while the existence of Palestine is not (and that people who cannot see that hold a "twisted world view", as you stated above). Stop trying to pretend your edits protect the article from disruption. They don't. There are always alternatives to edit-warring and if you don't know that, then you shouldn't have the tools.  T i a m u t talk 12:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm reviewing now. My first thought is that this case falls under the Israel-Palestine arbitration remedy and the possibility od discretionary sanctions. Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Do all 3RR cases involving I-P articles get referred to WP:AE?  T i a m u t talk 12:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It states at the top of WP:AE that: Three-revert rule violations are best reported on the 3RR noticeboard (WP:AN/3RR). Even if an editor has an arbitration ruling about reverts, you will likely get a quicker response there.  T i a m u t talk 12:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isra Let me get this straight. I report Number 57 for violating 3RR, something they have clearly done. In response, Spartaz decides to give four different editors, who reverted Number 57's edits, warnings pertaining to the I-P Arbcomm decision. Meanwhile, Number 57, an admin who violated 3RR, and continued to do so after this report was filed (see above discussion), gets no warning. What is going on here exactly?  T i a m u t talk 13:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * *Cough* Spartaz Humbug! 13:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Not.  T i a m u t talk 13:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I have warned all users edit warring over the material of the Israel-Palestine arbitration remedies and locked down the article for 48 hours to allow discussion for a consensus on the matter. Once consensus is reached any editor trying to edit the article away from this will be topic banned under the discretionary sanctions. Number 57 is guilty of a breach of the 3RR and would normally be liable for a block but I would also wish to block some of the other combatants. Since the arbitration forbids blocks without prior warnings in related articles I feel that a singular block of Number 57 is unfair although I was sorely tempted to go ahead anyway. The bottom line is that Hummus is for spreading on my toast not a place for extending the Israel-Palestine conflict and I will be watching and taking steps to ensure that there is no further disruption to the article over this matter. Tiamut and Number 57 are already aware of the case so have not been warned. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So let me understand what you are saying here. Number 57 is guilty of a breach of 3RR and is already aware of the I-P Arbcomm decision, having been a party to it. Four other editors, most of whom made one revert each, who have not been warned of the I-P Arbcomm case before, got a warning from you. You decided that it would be unfair to block Number 57 for edit-warring because the other editors, most of whom who again, made one edit each, cannot be blocked, since they were not previously warned of the Arbcomm decision and have not violated 3RR. Further, no sanction will be given to Number 57 for flouting 3RR both before and after this report was filed. Spartaz, you blocked me for 3RR over a year ago, even though I had only made three reverts and there were other editors warring with me. Could someone else maybe take a look at this report? I think your decision is patently unfair and sends a poor message to new editors. i.e. Admins can edit-war, break 3RR and not be blocked, but newbies who make one edit reverting their actions get a warning about being blocked for possible future disruption.  T i a m u t talk 13:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it possibly be because, as an admin who had never heavily been involved with this article before, I was merely trying to impose WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV on an article which sorely needed attention? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no excuse for breaking 3RR. Because you were not blocked for breaking 3RR, you may think that there is. Which is exactly why this decision should be reviewed by another administrator. I think you've been let off far too easily. You show no remorse for your actions at all. In fact, you seem to think they are justified.  T i a m u t talk 13:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually no, its only because if I feel that parties on both sides deserve block then I won't block one side if I can't block the other (as enjoined in the arbitration finding that users should not be penalised under the discretionary sanctions without a prior warning and some of the users are new as well). Experience on Israel-Palestine related articles is that blocking one side and not the other leads to major DramaTM. Since I had locked the article anyway to force debate a block would have been slightly punitive but Number 57, mark my warning, There is no right or wrong in 3RR. Just a crossed bright line and being an admin gives you no dispensation to cross the expected norms of community behaviour. Can you two stop arguing over this here. Its causing the page to flash like crazy in a million users watchlists and I have closed the report. if you don't like it take it to ANI or AE but if you carry on I'll block you both. Spartaz Humbug! 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get off the 3RR high horse nonsense here. That's just wikilawyering to mask the fact that Number 57 was acting as an admin to preserve a neutral consensus in an article. There was clear tendentious editing going on here, and to frame Number 57 as the bad faith actor is simply ludicrous. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't how admins should behave. Protecting an article is sometimes justifiable, continuing an edit war isn't. I think Spartaz's handling of this situation has been spot on. PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Spartaz did the right thing. I'm just showing some empathy for Number 57 getting rung up by a tendentious editor. I think there needs to be a greater definition of what an edit war is, and is not. Afterall, we probably make a bigger deal about this, than if Number 57 had just issued a block. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we don't agree. I think the opposite happened. Also, I don't think continuing this discussion is helping matters. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agreed with you that Spartaz handled things correctly. Of course, if Number 57 had simply reverted and protected in the first place, we'd also be discussing that. If he had requested another admin's help to do that, he probably wouldn't have received it. That we have different views on the larger issue, I think, is just a matter of what we have experienced as individuals on the Wiki. At the end of the day an admin was trying to depoliticize an article on food. Food, I say! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Otterathome for repeatedly deleting content on uTorrent (Result: no violation)
I'm reporting it here even though it's not technically a 3RR, mostly because Otterathome has been blocked for reverting/deleting edit-warring in the past, and I've tried twice to reinstate my edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Otterathome#3RR_warning (and because to be brutally honest, I've got better things to do with my time than spend an hour researching where this goes. If some "wikipedian" would like to file this in the right place, be my guest.)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%9CTorrent&diff=255498103&oldid=255490013 ....apparently, it's "original research" to state that bugs have been reported (as opposed to stating that the bugs exist!), and then link to the bug reports as references. Note his comment in the edit: he doesn't like it because "bug reports are normal". WTF? We don't cover "normal" in Wikipedia?

and see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%9CTorrent&diff=250218782&oldid=250213369 for another example of Otterathome deleting content wholesale from the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.200 (talk • contribs)


 * Added unsigned and links above as a convenience to examine --B (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Result: no violation - he has two edits in nearly a last month. His policy interpretation is also correct - we do not report things only sourced to message boards. --B (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added unsigned and links above as a convenience to examine --B (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Result: no violation - he has two edits in nearly a last month. His policy interpretation is also correct - we do not report things only sourced to message boards. --B (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tookyman| reported by Spotsbooks342 (Result: Indefblocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:




 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

3rd party mediation requested. -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to mediate. I have indefblocked the user for repeatedly adding unsourced nonsense to a BLP. --B (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Word. -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made a checkuser request at Requests for checkuser/Case/Bostbart. I take a rather dim view to Wikipedia being used for advertising and there are six accounts that have been used soley to advertise this book. --B (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Abog reported by Wrad (talk) (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:48,  2 December 2008  (edit summary: "re-adding item of international notability; see talk")
 * 2) 04:39,  3 December 2008  (edit summary: "rv; 2 or 3 vs. 1 or 2 is not a consensus")
 * 3) 05:08,  3 December 2008  (edit summary: "rv - 4 wrongs don't make it right; also adding Finnish shooting.  please discuss before reverting")
 * 4) 22:20,  3 December 2008  (edit summary: "to be consistent with the other year articles, these two well-sourced globally notable events shall remain until a consensus regarding school shootings overall can be reached on the talk page")
 * 5) 23:57,  3 December 2008  (edit summary: "reverting until a consensus on school shootings overall has been reached")
 * 6) 00:20,  4 December 2008  (edit summary: "revert; please come to an agreement before engaging in an edit war and please stop with the sarcasm and cyncicism")


 * Diff of warning: here

As you can see, this user has reverted changes made by multiple users 5 times in less than 24 hours, despite being warned. He has argued about making his addition before and has come back, even more insistent that it be added in, despite other editors' opinions to the contrary.

—Wrad (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This user is clearly edit warring against what appears to be consensus. Tiptoety  talk 01:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 2:48 AM


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son
 * Lets try with a current date... it is still here. ——  nix eagle  18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lima reported by LoveMonkey (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Lima has repeatedly engaged in editing that is not collaborative and appears to be to frustrate and or censor additions into the East-West Schism article. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see 3 reverts, it takes 4 to technically violate 3RR. However if this disruptive editing continues without discussion on the talk page (more then just this section about this report) I will be blocking those involved. ——  nix eagle  20:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation --B (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:Newbie, not yet registered (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * And Multiple Other Reverts by same user to different sections of same discussion page:

"Collect", Wikipedia has a code of conduct: please review it. You are also preventing other opinions and concensus from being heard.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

"COLLECT" Please Stop Deleting Opposing Opinions From Your Own.

I feel my points are just as valid as yours; please give others a chance to weigh in with their discussion instead of deleting them. (unsigned)

"Turd Gurgler" and the like "Plumbers Ass" are not valid topics for improving an article. You want your immortal words here? I suspect that will not last long, oh unsigned one. Collect (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"COLLECT" - it is inappropriate to attempt to BULLY your way through what is supposed to be an open discussion and consensus process for improving the main page. You have immediately deleted - repetitively - various content, opinion & sources as it was posted, which also violates the purpose of this forum.

If you don't like someone else's humorous use of contemporary language to make their point (exactly opposite of what your "about user" section says - you sound positively distraught about simple puns), then just say so, but allow others a chance to weigh in, too. Someday you might be surprised to realize that not everyone has the same opinion or sees the world the way you do. Hence, Wikipedia.

Keep in mind too that you have not been appointed the personal watchdog or sole overseer of this article. It's one thing to state your own opposing opinion; it's quite another to continually suppress & prevent anyone else's from being heard or posted. (unsigned)

Ah -- so you find your deathless prose of "turd-gurgler" and the like to be relevant to discussion on improving the article? I suggest you read the guidelines at the top of this page to see why Talk pages exist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is relevant to suggest improving the main page by adding a section which is neutral in nature, yet acknowledges the many, many, sources, citations etc., that deal with Wurzelbacher’s chronic credibility issues. It is descriptive of how the man in perceived prior to, then post-election, and so on.


 * One cannot research sources, citations etc. about him without coming across a tremendous amount of credible references to the many fabrications and tall-tales he has spun for the public then later at least recanted. It is a solid part of his public persona and so I suggested including it. It is astonishingly appropriate for discussions of Wurzelbacher's public image.


 * If your concern is with the contemporary phrase “Turd-Gurgler”, it is referenced here as a legitimate word and is growing in common usage. Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Turd%20Gurgler


 * If your concern is that it is possibly libelous to write that the man behind "Joe the Plumber" is seen by many people to be chronically lacking in credibility, rest assured that the legal defense against libel is: truth.

Your posts are beyond any description. And it appears you have no interest in actually improving any article on WP. Thank you most kindkly. Collect (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for simply stating your own opinion this time, instead of deleting mine. 70.58.88.104 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

63.226.213.157 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

{"Collect" then went on to delete my suggestions for improving the article, etc., AGAIN. A little Admin oversight here would be greatly appreciated.} 63.226.213.157 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not blocked - unhelpful commentary that has nothing to do with writing an article is routinely removed from talk pages. --B (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum reported by Gimmetrow (Result: No block - watching page in question )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * History

This is a report for "edit warring" of a personal attack, not a 3RR. "Edit warring features a confrontational attitude." Malleus Fatuorum confrontationally posted a personal attack on me phrased under the guise of a "question". I have attempted to remove it. Rather than constructively address the issue, MF has made three reverts in 13 hours including a threat. I avoided this editor after he attacked me and insulted me a month ago. Since then this editor has disrupted a GA nomination of mine,  and now edit warred to repeatedly reinsert a personal attack. This editor has previously been blocked for disruptive editing and incivility, and barely one month ago had a Wikiquette alert after this. There is obviously history between the two of us, but MF is not helping to resolve anything. Gimmetrow 03:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am looking into this. I ask that other admins hold off for a few minutes (though comments are more than welcome!) Tiptoety  talk 03:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. The personal attack appears to have been removed by a third party, and has yet to be re added making a block purely punitive at this point. If MF reverts or continues to make such attacks he will be blocked. MF, consider this your only warning. Tiptoety  talk 04:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: there's no personal attacks here, as far as I can see. I suggest Gimmetrow gets a grip, and starts acting in a manner expected of an administrator. This dispute is ridiculous beyond words. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess "personally directed critical comment" would be a better phrase than "personal attack." HDYTTO, I guess I am was more concerned with the edit warring and would have blocked either party if they chose to continue. Seeing as the issue appears to be resolved (using discussion *what an idea!*) I hope everyone can just move on. Tiptoety  talk 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Kuebie reported by Caspian blue (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-12-03T17:20:14


 * 1st revert:2008-12-04T01:41:58
 * 2nd revert:2008-12-04T01:56:08
 * 3rd revert:2008-12-04T01:58:29
 * 4th revert:2008-12-04T02:04:43


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * After I spot edit wars at Koreans, a newly added information by a newbie named was contested for its dubious contents. So I gave a 3RR note to Kubie, and a "no original research" warning to the newbie. But I got an insulting message from him.. The removal of the contents by Kubie gave an impression to  a kind of vandalism. After reverting it, I visited to say that he gave him a wrong warning because the content was disputed for the reason. The newbie even confessed that he knew his content contains"original research" but deliberately inserted it He also had shown he would not be willing to take the matter to the talk page and then violate 3RR. After that, Kubie also violated 3RR. The both did not even care about the warnings, so well there should be consequence. But the most upsetting thing is that the seemingly newbie made an absurd threat to me with very disruptive behaviors. Given his in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia rules, I don't believe this user is not a newbie to disrupt Wikipedia. --Caspian blue 04:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

in case you didn't notice, i took out the original research, plus you DID mention the wrong article, you said Korea, not koreans. and first of all, kuebie violated 3RR first, and after my original first edit i rewrote the whole thing.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=255758338&oldid=250755342 Caspian Blue falsely accused me of editing the article Korea. I did not touch that article.]
 * You made disruptive edits with original research contents. You know I typed a typo, and you ridiculed me like learn how to spell plurally. Koreans not korea. [[User:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk|Mustafa Kemal Atatürk] (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC) ] You even blatantly harassed me for your wrongdoings and accused me of a liar. You must apologize for your disruptive behavior. --Caspian blue 04:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * you did lie. you said i repeatedly reverted back to the original version WITH the Original research. i did not. i changed the content and rewrote it, and there was nothing wrong with it.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never lied unlike you. Nothing wrong with it? You might have explained your edits first to talk page since it was contested. Even after you got the warning, you violated 3RR for your POV. You also altered "Korean immigration in China" without any backing up source. That is also original research. A good editor who wants to develop articles does not intentionally insert "original research" unlike you. Your hoax allegation is just to divert attention from your own fault which is indeed a gaming the system. Anyway, you and Kuebie violated 3rr regardless of my warnings to you. --Caspian blue 04:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how my edit to "korean immigration in china", somehow enhances my POV. and it is disconnected to what Kuebie repeatedly reverted for. from the edit summary, kuebie accused me of copying and pasting from the source. i had reqrote it by that time, and it did not match the source even before that.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue lies about his block record Caspain blue's extensive block record, 3RR, edit warring, "Gaming the system". he just denied he had this block record
 * This is a 3RR report on your violation because you violated so after ignoring my warning. Read the log carefully and do not make such personal attack misquoting it. Besides, This in-dept-Wiki-knowledge newbie, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk clearly is gaming the system to cover up his wrongdoings WP:DISHONESTY is very unhealthy.--Caspian blue 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Caspian this is the 3RR noticeboard, please report edit warring here, and nothing else. This is not a place to have long drawn out whining sessions about how an editor must apologise to you. User name/Article/Orig version/Revert diffs/Warning Diffs - done. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As you see, this is the 3RR noticeboard, and why are you even here? --Caspian blue 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue is clearly with kuebie and has his POV
 * Caspian blue's name calling and incivility.
 * Do not lie on the diffs. You can't cover your behaviors.--Caspian blue 05:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mind showing me where i lied?Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keubie

I initially made a report regarding the above user, but then I noticed this one. Blatant breach of 3RR by a user with past history of edit waring. The following are diffs for Keubie on Koreans article.


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

Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

note this is not a 3RR report, this is just additional information, related to the above case
 * 1 week by User:Jossi. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Grant.Alpaugh reported by User:Gateman1997 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Just a note that tiptoety blocked Grant.Alpaugh for 24 hours. ——  nix eagle  18:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User continues to revert a consense decision that was come to on the talk page while refusing to discuss his objections on said talk page. Insists on continuing his edit war in the face of a minimum of 4 users who oppose his viewpoint. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 17:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

38.116.202.115 reported by User:HairyPerry (Result: already blocked for vandalism)

 * Page:

Edited this article 14 times and still keeps going, including:   Hairy Perry  18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for vandalism. --B (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lordelvis666 reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Viven reported by Roadahead (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 5th revert:
 * 4rth revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 1st revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

A detailed analysis if problem with this content (that Vivin) is stubbornly pushing on by reverting has been given here awhile ago. Still Vivin keeps reverting without addressing the problems. He has editing experience on Wiki and very well understands the 3RR rule. Thanks,--Road Ahead  =Discuss= 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2008-12-03T21:50:13 Ioeth (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Sikh extremism: Full protection: dispute. (using Twinkle) ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC))))  William M. Connolley (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

123.211.81.249 reported by Andrew c (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:02, 4 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid See talk page")
 * 2nd revert: 02:26, 5 December 2008 (edit summary: "Undid Talk before blanking Andrew.  The Trinidad Guardian is a reliable source.")
 * 3rd revert: 03:23, 5 December 2008  (edit summary: "A formal, published MHWA letter is a reliable source. The statements mirror exactly thise made by the authors. I will tweak a little.")
 * 4th revert: 04:48, 5 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* History */ I have a copy of the press release by Harrack, given to me by Mr. Gouldson.")

This case involves reverts that happened on the same article, but with different content each time. This user has undone almost all the work I have done to the article, including continually removing notice tags that I placed. I'll go over the reverts: I tagged the article needing a rewrite, and that was reverted (#1). I rewrote the lead, and that was reverted (#2). I removed content that was sourced to what appeares to be a private correspondence, and the section had severe tone and encyclopedic issues, and that was reverted (#3). Finally, I tagged another sources as dubious (instead of outright blanking) and that was reverted (#4). I am editing in good faith, and not re-inserting my contributions after they were reverted. I've been using the talk page (but please, scrutinize me as well just in case I have lost sight). Despite my good faith, my efforts to improve the article are being blanket reverted, and this user continued to revert after being warned of 3RR.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: here

-Andrew c [talk] 05:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony May reported by MickMacNee
At the start of this edit war at LNER Peppercorn Class A1, I actually 3RR warned Tony May twice,, but he did not break 3RR, returning only now and again to the article. The lengthy discussion since this all kicked off has got nowhere, so at the behest of another editor, I opened an Rfc. We have all commented and await outside opinion, however, Tony May on his latest return continues to edit war even while commenting in the Rfc. This is extraordinarily bad faith and disruptive, so I requested page protection to allow the Rfc to proceed, which was declined, advising other venues. So, while not a technical 3RR violation, can somebody please stop Tony May from edit warring while the Rfc is open. MickMacNee (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This looks quite symmetrical to me. You're both edit warring: why exactly is TM expected not to revert during the RFC but you are allowed to? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody should. I will merely invoke the principle of first mover. He was first to revert after a warning, and he was first to revert after the Rfc was set up. He has shown many times already that when his version is intact, he does not return to the article to reply on talk or to defend his preferred version, he only returns when he needs to revert, and then afterwards comments along the lines of 'I am still right' (often merely a single dismissive few words), moving now into the 'whatever you said about me is true of you' region, with no diffs at all. I am not acting alone either, two other editors early on rejected his 'I am right' reasons, but they simply did not stay around to enact consensus by edit warring with him. But their opinions are on the page nonetheless. MickMacNee (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want an idea of what he is like, look at this 'vandalism revert' of re-adding a redlink to a dab page. And compare the statement on his user page. MickMacNee (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And as I was typing that, he performs a 'vandalism revert' of the very page we are discussing here . MickMacNee (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yournumbertwofan reported by Politizer (Result: moot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has already been reported at AIV for vandalism in addition to this, but I figured I should open a report here for his edit warring as well. I have given him links, explanations, and warnings several times about edit warring, and he has stated twice at my talk page that he doesn't care and isn't interested in learning what edit warring is. Has demonstrated a persistent refusal to engage in discussion with other editors. Blocking will probably not be necessary, as he is already blocked for 31 hours, but a reprimand from an administrator, or a longer block, might be useful. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also add that the user's first edit was an addition of unsourced and non-notable information that had already been deleted earlier by J.delanoy and others (this user had added it before, several times, from an IP address); I removed it originally for being unsourced and not demonstrating notability, and explained that to the user at length on his talk page. It was after this discussion that the user began to engage in edit warring again and purposely ignore 3RR. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs: 10:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User is already blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment" by Tikiwont. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but he will be unblocked in another 24 hours and I won't be surprised if he starts again, so I figured I should at least get the ball rolling. Thanks for your message, &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 14:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

74.4.222.208 reported by Ilkali (Result: 24hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (01:20, 5 December 2008)
 * 2nd revert: (03:39, 5 December 2008)
 * 3rd revert: (03:49, 5 December 2008)
 * 4th revert: (04:38, 5 December 2008)
 * 5th revert: (06:18, 5 December 2008)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: None given, but user is assumed to know the rules since he/she has previously filed a 3RR report.

Ilkali (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The 5th edit is not a revert. I am however concerned by this user's approach to collaborative editing. -- lucasbfr  [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk ]] 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel reported by Student7 (result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (doesn't seem to be the same as others baseline. Sorry. I don't see how this is done)


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:

Two editors are attempting to get a citation (fact) on a statement that contains a percentage. The reverter has taken this as an insult! We really need to get his attention that this is an objective request not a subjective one.Student7 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, only 3 reverts from me yesterday, discussion now underway, 'warning' delivered (to article talkpage!) only just now, no further reverts since yesterday. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No vio. Please don't use rvv when you're not William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau reported by Damiens .rf (Result: Both editors 1 week)
. : Time reported: 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * 1) 15:36,  5 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 256039165 by Damiens.rf (talk) Find someone else to endorse your hysteria about good research")
 * 2) 15:51,  5 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 256055804 by Damiens.rf (talk) if it's so obvious, find someone to endorse your view")
 * 3) 16:43,  5 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "The template declares definitively that the article "contains too many quotes", this matter is under dispute on the talk page, and not agreed upon")
 * 4) 17:02,  5 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "It was no mistake, the tag you are trying to place on this article declares definitively that it contains "too many quotes", this is disputed on the talk page with a vote of 1 to 1")


 * Diff of warning: here

User has been insisting in removing a "quote-farm" from the article he owns, despite many efforts on the talk page to pass through his denialism, and convince him that 60 quotations per article is too much even for an Wikiquote entry.

—Damiens .rf 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Redthoreau has made four reverts on December 5, while Damiens.rf only made three. I believe that both of them are edit-warring. Redthoreau is actually making edits to the article to address some of the objections, while Damiens.rf's recent edits only seem to restore the tags about 'Too many quotes'. Putting full protection on the article is an option but might not cause these editors to change their behavior. I encourage the closing admin to consider blocking both, unless one of the editors participates here with an offer to change his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Redthoreau is making no attempt to fix the over-quotation problem (he actually denies the problem exists) . Since he would revert any tentative fixing I would do to the article text, I used the quotefarm template to call the attention of uninvolved users, and stated my concerns on the talk page. I even had to list all the 61 quotations used in the article to try to make him stop denying the article has too many of them.


 * The point is, he's edit-warring to remove a warning-tag that could bring attention to a problematic article he believes he owns. --Damiens .rf 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction Damiens, I am trying to prevent you from misrepresenting our dispute. The template you are attempting to add says definitively that "This article contains too many quotes" ... I dispute this. You are the only editor thus far to want this tag, thus I believe it is wrong to have this claim of yours at the top of the article --- especially until there is some consensus on whether in fact it does contain "too many quotes".   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

-(Counter)- Damiens.rf reported by User:Redthoreau (Result: Both blocked )

 * Three-revert rule violation on Damiens.rf
 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st (5th) revert:
 * 2nd revert (6th):
 * 3rd revert (7th):

+


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Damiens was Blocked twice recently for edit warring (once with me) and harassing other editors. Numerous editors have been driven off by his antics. Red thoreau (talk) RT 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since neither editor shows any interest in changing their approach, I'd now support a properly-escalated block for both, which would probably be one week in each case. Both users have a block history for edit warring.  If either one would sincerely join in creating an article  WP:RFC all this nonsense could be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's disingenuous to equate my block log with Redthoreau's. He has a problem with that. Also, where do you took the idea that I show any interest in changing my approach? I would be edit warring if that was the case.


 * I would be completely in favor of a. Attracting other user's to stop Redthoreau's ownership of the article (and his bad writting style) is what the tag was for. But I wonder how would it progress with Redthoreau reverting everything he disagrees with, using his newly acquired 3rr immunity. --Damiens .rf  18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * EdJ, I would be more than happy for a reasonable resolution, but I think it is important to realize that Damiens has played this game before as seen here ---> His report that backfired when others outed him as a Troll. Some quotes ....

Please keep Damiens.rf watchlisted and report him if he takes advantage of anyone else - he does not deserve to edit on Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned and I can't stay on here while he is let loose. JRG (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We saw him (Damiens) at the Austrlaian project a number of months ago where he seemed to have an obsession with getting images deleted. Some of the text of the nominations was just straight out nasty. Orderinchaos 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way and he is also editing against policies. Please take this into account for the next block. --Enric Naval 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf's edits need to be looked at by people on this board. I'm not saying that they are all bad but this is clearly trolling. Theresa Knott 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For more of Damiens antics (I would argue he should be banned for good) see Damiens at it again. Damiens drives people into retirement with his tendentious pestering.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I believe it is crucial to understand the disingenuous nature of everything Damiens does. His current "over-quote" dispute with me, is merely his next weapon in the arsenal of harassment. Damiens began this "crusade" by merely deleting any quote 2 3 etc etc (I could go to 50) that I had previously added to an article. His rationale on those also shifted from them being "decoration", to "unallowable", to "copyright violations" etc etc. Once he was shown to be wrong on all those fronts, he simply shifted to "too many" of them. if he is overruled through consensus on this front, I am sure he will challenge quotes on the basis of not agreeing with them etc (whatever he can use next) As with most trolls, to him this is a game, and he gets enjoyment out of pestering fellow editors ... while ignoring my pleas for him to actually ADD anything of substance to an article.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring. My attempt at negotiation went nowhere. Other admins, feel free to modify the blocks, but keep in mind that both users have edit warred in the past, and neither party gave any hint of willingness to compromise, or pursue WP:DR, in what they have written here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Cirt, User:Mosedschurte, User:Jayen466, and User:98.149.75.138 reported by User:Jayen466 (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: and subsequent versions based on it


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Please examine the sequence of diffs below for evidence of edit-warring and/or inappropriate admin behaviour

Timeline:
 * 22:07 adds an inappropriately sourced statement: it's sourced to a self-published blog by the article subject
 * 22:28 Reverted by as per WP:SELFQUEST, BLP
 * 23:15 One hour later, massive restructuring by, deleting 5+ KB of sources and content
 * 23:25 Reverted by with edit summary: "pls discuss major revisions on talk page", as per the article's talk page header At this point, there should have been the discussion stage of the WP:BRD cycle. Instead:
 * 23:29 Reverted by
 * 1:16 A VA IP reverts to the version before the restructuring and deletions, restoring 5 KB of sourced content
 * 1:17 leaves a warning not to edit-war on User talk:Jayen466, who has not edited the article in two hours
 * 1:18 Reverted by, reducing article size from 34,305 bytes to 28,744 bytes, with edit summary "anomymous IP deleted huge sourced parts of article"
 * 1:20 Same IP reverts again
 * 1:23 leaves a warning not to edit-war on User talk:98.149.75.138
 * 1:23 actively joins the edit war
 * 1:31 Same IP reverts again
 * 1:34 Reverted once more by
 * 1:34 Cirt leaves another warning not to edit-war on IP talk page

What troubles me is that Cirt at no time encouraged Mosedschurte to seek dialogue, but instead – As an admin, especially one with a known history of edit warring in this topic area, Cirt's priority should have been to foster dialogue between users on the talk page. Instead, Cirt's priority appears to have been to win the edit war. Jayen 466 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * expressed agreement with Mosedschurte's edits and sought to establish e-mail communication with Mosedschurte,
 * warned other users not to edit
 * and then joined the edit-war himself.

Users notified:    Jayen 466 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record: I am not in VA, I don't know anyone in VA, and I did not ask anyone in VA or anywhere else to edit the article on my behalf. ;-) Jayen 466 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rick Ross has complained in multiple forums about troubling edits by and Jayen's attempts to utilize this article to denigrate a living person and use dubious sources which themselves have direct conflicts of interest relating to the subject of the article. As for my actions, I reverted non-constructive edits by an IP and warned the IP. I warned Jayen466 when he had engaged in an edit war by undoing constructive edits by. And I thanked Mosedschurte for helping to cleanup the article from Undue Weight in a WP:BLP article. Wikipedia should not be a tool used by those frustrated with Mr. Rick Ross in order to take out perceived frustrations on him by using his Wikipedia article to skew content towards as much of a negative portrayal as possible in this article about a living person. Cirt (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Troubling edits by Jayen466 in a BLP article


 * Response: There have indeed been recent threads on the NPOV, BLP and RS noticeboards, which did not result in changes, and in particular did not support your notion that academic sources have conflicts of interest (while on the other hand, you have no problem mis-citing celebrity gossip weeklies to "source" salacious content about Scientology). Indeed, some of the edits now made in Rick Ross (consultants) go against the advice we received at these noticeboards (i.e. we are now using a primary source we were told not to use). Having said that, I don't think all the changes made yesterday were bad, it's just that the process sucked. One could have discussed this in a civilised manner, could one not? I shan't engage in further discussion here though. Cheers, Jayen 466 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we all should have engaged in further discussion, and I am sorry we did not and I will do my part to make sure we do in the future. I admit I am frustrated at attempts to utilize Wikipedia to denigrate a living person and insert undue weight into an article about a WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed these edits by :, ,. What I should have done is reported this to a noticeboard to seek out fresh eyes on the situation. I did not do that and for that I apologize, and I will do so in the future. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment

I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is. Reverting large controversial anon edits is hardly strange. Cirt hasn't used any admin tools that I can see, so I don't know why you're dragging in the "admin" bbit into the issue. The 3RR rule is for edits by one person, you should have noted in your diffs that they were by two separate users. The closest to 3RR appears to be the anon, who doesn't appear to be contributing to talk. If they revert again, I'll block William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you to for this evaluation. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was made here about adding notes to wrestlers' articles in the championships section. This guy continues to do it and gets warned three times and he's still doing |doing it now. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Acanthocephala (Result: No violation)
Stevenhuynh3 and 211.30.235.69 have been starting an edit war on the page Acanthocephala. --Reported by Commander Lightning  of the  WSP   —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC).
 * No violation - one series of edits from each user, not an edit war. --B (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Igorwindsor reported by Bosonic dressing (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Comment: Despite explanations and a request to stop (see diffs), this user continues -- without any comment -- to insinuate excessive lingo about who the GG and her 'boss' (the Queen of Canada) are, as opposed to what the position's basic role is in the context of this dispute (head of state). Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a 3RR warning? Oh come on. Nor do I see any attempt by you to discuss the issue on the article talk page or with Iw. You are both edit warring, but since Iw clearly broken 3RR and you haven't, then... oh, I don't know, he can have 24h and you can have a Stern Warning William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing reported by Brattysoul (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

It would seem this "editor" has me marked as "spam again" when all I did was exactly as the other editor did. I replaced the external link since I was not finished discussing the website in question. The editor decided that she would remove the external link while there was still discussion going on. I did have a problem when I was editing;hitting 'save' instead of 'preview'. It's obvious that was what happened and I find that my being marked as spamming the article as nothing more than vindictiveness on the part of WhatamIdoing. I was also not informed that I had been reported or marked as 'spam again' and only found out when I added another comment to the talk page without changing anything in the article. I did not always change the links every time I added discussion, but WhatamIdoing made it appear that was what I had done and that I was engaged in some kind of edit war, when all I did was flub my posting. I would like the spam template removed please. Brattysoul (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you know what a revert is. Read WP:REVERT. All the "reverts" you link to are discussion on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore:


 * None of the so-called "reverts" involve deletion of any material. (The links are just to comments being made on the talk page.)


 * The editor re-added the website despite uniform opposition by every commenter on the talk page, and now asserts here and on my user talk page that the repeated addition of this dreadful website was just an accident in the context of other minor edits (do click that link to verify for yourself that zero other changes were made in this edit) so it shouldn't be counted as actually "adding" the link to the article.


 * The discussion that was "still going on" has a three-month gap in it, from my last comment (at the beginning of September) to Brattysoul's new comment today. Having zero comments for three months straight hardly counts as an active, ongoing discussion.


 * I think that Brattysoul might actually benefit from WP:Mentorship. A mentor would be able to explain things like "A talk page header of ==Spam again== does not label your user account as being anything."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is apparent you DO NOT READ everything! Those edits ARE MINOR EDITS. Not every one was my adding the website back to the article. Just because there is a "three month gap" in a discussion doesn't mean its over and done with. I have seen discussions pick up after a year. Sometimes people do other things besides spend every day on Wiki. The fact that at least one person was disputing the discussion doesn't mean it was over and done with. I added the website while it was being debated by me with anyone who wanted to debate its inclusion. I may have put in the incorrect links to WhatamIdoing's reverts, but they are there in that article's talk page. Each time I put the external link back during the debate, WhatamIdoing removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brattysoul (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson reported by User:Jwjkp (Result: 12h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Clearly states on 2KSports website that there is no release date set besides "Early 2009". Reference this dude is using is basing its release date solely on past trends. Its very likely March indeed will be the month, but nothing has been released yet and his claim is pure speculation Jwjkp (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm frequently surprised by the lack of introspection in some reporters; and this is one of those cases. You are *both* edit warring and have *both* broken 3RR and its over *trivia*. 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Pankration2008 reported by Cordless Larry (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor keeps reverting to a poorly referenced version of the article despite warnings. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

CautiousWalk reported by Dr.K. (Result: undecided)

 * Page: Article is perennial target of socks and SPAs. In its current incarnation user:CautiousWalk is aiding IPs in edit warring which started from 4 December.
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * I really don't know whats for the best here. I could protect the current version if you like? There is no technical breach of 3RR, but clearly there is an ongoing dispute about whether it should be a redirect or not. More talk would be good William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you William. I saw this dispute from its infancy. The first time I saw it was through DYK. It was suggested for DYK but its candidacy was withdrawn after its status was disputed and its main author was accused of sockpuppetry, wp:or etc. Then it was downgraded to a redirect by a consensus of some users. I was just doing community service here by reporting this and only because of the amount of prior sockpuppetry, wp:spa, and because I was inclined to defend the present (past?) consensus. In no way I want to be involved actively in this dispute because it involves issues I am not familiar with or interested in. I actually agree with your decision which I find elegant and diplomatic for many reasons including asking my opinion and allowing more discussion. Allowing more discussion allows more democracy and displays wp:agf at its finest. It also serves Wikipedia well IMO because it may well be deleted and if so its history will not exist any longer and therefore future edit wars will be avoided. Conversely if it stays a new official consensus would have emerged. Well done William. Thank you very much. Nice meeting you again. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

User:TheSickBehemoth reported by User:Fair Deal (Result:72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 23:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:34, 5 December 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:29, 6 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:43, 6 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:19, 7 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:41, 7 December 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:59, 7 December 2008
 * 6th revert: 15:13, 7 December 2008
 * 7th revert: 19:43, 7 December 2008

Comment User:TheSickBehemoth has been warned for edit warring here and has chosen to ignore the warning and reverted the article for the sixth time. Fair Deal (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note User is also 6 and 7RR on four other articles, , ,.


 * Blocked for 72 hours. No excuse for edit warring that much with that many people on that many articles. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Truthfulness acts reported by Shannon Rose (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Truthfulness acts, who is most probably the same as this guy due to the self-evident nature of this blog entry is completely unstoppable. Just have a look at this mess which pretty much explains everything. Please help! – Shannon Rose (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While the actual edit war appears to be a bit stale, the account does seem to be a SPA. Tiptoety  talk 20:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 06:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite reported by 2008Olympian (Result: protected User:2008Olympian warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Each time he has reverted, I have attempted to address his concerns with this image. I think it meets WP:NFCC, and he does not. I added a discussion to the talk page of the article to get consensus, and he has simply reverted me each time without waiting for any other editors to weigh in. I took pains to explain that these characters solely exists due to their appearance and that I thought that they could not be adequately described by textual descriptions. He removed the images simply citing WP:NFCC. I removed four of the five images and kept only the main character. Again he simply removed it. Each time he raised a concern, I directly addressed it on the article's talk page or on his or my talk page. I made other edits to the article to address those concerns as well. For example, the last time he reverted, one of his criticisms was that the character was not mentioned enough in the plot summary. So I added material that showed that the had been in the show at another point then the one that was mentioned. Yet he blindly reverted that change as well.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing images in order to comply with the non-free policy is an exemption from the 3 revert rule. PhilKnight (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about removing images that are in compliance with the rule?-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 03:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Anyway, I've protected the article for a week. I guess the image could be listed at IfD to establish whether it should be included. PhilKnight (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The exemption is Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. If this is being done, they should probably be blocked for it. Page prot makes the 3RR moot William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say moot. He got what he wanted, the page is protected without the image he didn't like, and now that image is orphaned and will be deleted before the protection is over.  Pretty strong deterrent to violating 3RR: get the article exactly as you want it.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 09:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Removing copyrighted images that blatantly fail WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR and EW. This image clearly fails NFCC - it's not even close (and ironically the user has proved it by describing the appearance of the character perfectly in a single line of text, proving that it fails WP:NFCC).  Protecting the page is pointless - the only thing that needs to be done is to block User:2008Olympian if he keeps re-inserting it, because he's clearly not capable of reading the policy which I've pointed him at numerous times.  He can't "address the concerns" of the image, because it's simply an WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC failure.  Reporting me to this board was simply trolling - and I've removed it from my talk page as such, because I pointed out the exemption to him. Black Kite 12:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going for unprotect and warn O William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I addressed both of the NFCC criteria on Kite talk page. I think that a picture is necessary to adequately describe a character whose whole reason for being is his physical appearance, and that a textual description is insufficient.  Kite disagreed.  No matter how many times he can write that it "clearly" fails does not make him correct.  The point of this reporting is that I took it to the talk page to get input from other editors on the image, whereas he refused to wait for consensus.  From what I understand, it is bold, revert, discuss, correct?  And I would thin that an admin would know this.  Why should I be warned for following the rules?-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't. You assumed that your version of WP:NFCC was correct, and kept re-inserting the image on that basis.  You were repeatedly told that you were wrong and were editing against policy, but you ignored this.  You can't really blame anyone else for that. Black Kite 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, just not under your interpretation. And the "rules" I am talking about is the rule to discuss contested changes.  That means getting input from someone other than yourself and the party you disagree with in a dispute.  You should know this rule, you are supposedly an admin. Just because Kite wanted to remove the image doesn't give her the right to have her way without getting input from other editors.  I took it to the talk page to get input from other editors, she refused to do so.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 19:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is over. Let it go and move on. EW board is not the place for discussions. Scarian Call me Pat!  19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nogrudges, Mrnhghts, & 208.120.89.198 reported by GateKeeperX (Result: 24h all round)

 * Page:
 * User(s):


 * Previous version reverted to: I haven't reverted to any version, but this version from May is before all the edit warring took place.


 * Reverts by Nogrudges & Mrnhghts
 * 1st revert: | 05:03, December 8, 2008
 * 2nd revert: | 04:52, December 8, 2008
 * 3rd revert: | 04:26, December 8, 2008
 * 4th revert: | 04:20, December 8, 2008
 * 5th revert: | 04:18, December 8, 2008
 * 6th revert: | 04:16, December 8, 2008
 * 7th revert: | 04:07, December 8, 2008
 * 8th revert: | 04:06, December 8, 2008
 * 9th revert: | 03:57, December 8, 2008
 * 10th revert: | 02:59, December 8, 2008
 * 11th revert: | 02:51, December 8, 2008
 * 12th revert: | 02:30, December 8, 2008
 * 13th revert: | 02:27, December 8, 2008
 * 14th revert: | 02:18, December 8, 2008
 * 15th revert: | 02:17, December 8, 2008
 * 16th revert: | 02:15, December 8, 2008
 * 17th revert: | 02:15, December 8, 2008
 * etc, more reverts from same day on history page.
 * Reverts by IP 208.120.89.198
 * | 13:14, December 8, 2008
 * | 01:12, December 8, 2008
 * | 01:10, December 8, 2008
 * | 01:07, December 8, 2008
 * | 01:01, December 8, 2008
 * | 00:37, December 8, 2008
 * Additional reverts on December 7th and earlier days.

Users battling over the inclusion of "In 2000, NCSY came under fire for protecting Baruch Lanner, a senior staff member who had sexually and physically assaulted teens for decades. "


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * User_talk:Nogrudges
 * User_talk:Mrnhghts


 * User_talk:208.120.89.198


 * Comments


 * User_talk:Mrnhghts, previously warned for edit warring in May 2007 at the same article, in that particular case this kept being added/removed :

"NCSY enabled and protected Rabbi Baruch Lanner, a child molester and abuser, ensuring his continuing to harm, and resisted teen calls for intervention, with staff at Yeshiva University even silencing those teens who protested in order to protect the high level rabbinic counselor. This went on for decades until the NY Jewish Week finally exposed NCSY. "

-- GateKeeper(X) @ 13:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I suspect that 208.120.89.198 is a sock puppet of one of the two user, probably Nogrudges, and has been involved in reverting.
 * The recent warring began on December 1st, but really took off after December 6th.

An impressive revert tally, don't think I've seen better. 24h all round William M. Connolley (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dual Freq reported by User:12.76.153.27 (Result: 3h)

 * Page: Ashton Corners, Wisconsin
 * User: Dual Freq


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I'm not sure I added the links correctly above, so I hope you can take a look at the Ashton Corners, Wisconsin article. Dual Freq has reverted the article 3 times. I've provided excellent documentation (4 sound references) that Ashton Corners is actually called Ashton (In fact, there is no Ashton Corners.), and he keeps vandalizing that. Each time he has reverted the edit, I've added more citations to the information I added. I've listed my evidence on the article's talk page and on Dual Freq's talk page, and he insists on reverting the page to totally inaccurate information.


 * 3h. I think he just needs reminding not to break 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970 reported by Jwjkp (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

This issue the guy is/was debating was pretty much already agreed upon on the talk page for the article as the source passing the WP:Verify therefor being valid. Jwjkp (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Protected until you can all learn to talk together William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

2008Olympian reported by Hammersoft (Result: 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I originally removed Image:Seattle Seahawks Tampa Bay Buccaneers helmets.png from the article because the image is not necessary to understanding the article; the teams in question are linked in the page, and anyone who _really_ needs to see their helmets can do to the team pages. We don't need to scatter helmet images all over every article in the project that deals with the NFL. Since then, User:2008Olympian has rigorously fought to include the image.

I do not feel that the helmet images are necessary for the reader to understand the article. Even so, I've offered a compromise position in this edit summary which was rejected by User:2008Olympian with the statement that it looks better if the helmets face each other. I rejected this argument stating it's not a reason to upload more fair use content. He reverted this, and I've undone his reversion, this time putting the right facing helmets in the same position in the article. This will most likely be reverted.

Also note that the image in question was deleted and restored today by admin East718 after User:2008Olympian pleaded with him to restore the image.

I don't intend on editing the article further. The edit war is now pointless as User:2008Olympian is insistent his version is correct, and will revert anything I do, thus making the attempted progress in the article fruitless and destructive. Also note that User:2008Olympian was recently involved in another edit war at The List (South Park). More details above on this page, at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither has technically broken 3RR, both are edit warring, 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked Hammersoft because he's agreed not to continue the edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agreed to it in my original reporting of this edit war. I find it inappropriate to block someone who is asking for help in resolving an edit war involving fair use abuse. I came here looking for help. Instead, I was slapped. I won't come here looking for help again. I've also asked for User:2008Olympian to be unlocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Planth reported by Zetawoof (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Note that these edits weren't all in a 24-hour period. (Quite the opposite, in fact; they're spread across a week.) However, this editor's complete lack of responsivity to requests for discussion poses a real issue - as does the fact that they're trying to reintroduce a section which was deleted at AFD as an article due to a complete lack of sources or notability.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring. Repeatedly restores questionable material, whose lack of referencing was discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/VAIBS. Good-faith discussion of this topic might be possible, but is not attempted by this editor, who does not communicate. The only Talk comment he has ever left asserts: "Los688 vandalized part of Racial issues in Japan. It should be restored." EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 03:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reality Maker reported by TEB728 (Result: 55 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * User has been blocked previously for 3RR

Image names are different but user is adding the same copyvio image. —teb728 t c 01:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 04:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

72.192.71.48 reported by Pentasyllabic (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Not technically a 3RR violation, but user has been warned on their talk page to stop and discuss the issue; warning seems to have gone unheeded.

The IP editor has repeatedly removed a proposed merge tag, claiming full consensus in an ongoing discussion where there is only partial consensus, namely that the articles should be merged, but unclear as to where. Possibly a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Pentasyllabic (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Kuebie reported by Bukubku (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

I sent message to his talk page twice, but he don't reply and continued his reverts. --Bukubku (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * # 2008-12-10T17:07:35 Nihonjoe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Kuebie (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: edit warring (WP:3RR) on Korea under Japanese rule) (Unblock) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bukubku reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 2008-10-24T14:06:02


 * 1at revert by Bukubku on the conventional title used in Korea without any discussion nor consensus.2008-10-24T15:09:38
 * 1st revert: 2008-12-10T09:47:31
 * 2nd revert: 2008-12-10T11:16:53
 * 3rd revert: 2008-12-10T11:19:50
 * 4th revert: 2008-12-10T11:47:25


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The edit war over the conventional name used in Korea is not the first time. The user in question has been warned numerous time for possible 3RR violation previously, and the user knows the rule clearly as reporting his disputer above. In fact, the edit wars over the conventional title was initiated by Bukubku on October without any attempt to take it to talk page regardless of repeated suggestions to him until he violated 3RR today. The above report by Bukubku is also a gaming the system to block his opponent along with his dishonest edit summaries because he violated 3RR first but he has insisting as if his reverts have gained a consensus; that is not. This practice should not be condone further.--Caspian blue 12:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Muscovite99 reported by Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) (Result: 48h all round)
. : Time reported: 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:56, 10 December 2008  (edit summary: "Unilateral removal of legitimate material")
 * 2) 18:24, 10 December 2008  (edit summary: "All statements in the article are presented as sourced opinions -- perfectly in line with WP:NPOV that is if you read what it actually says there")
 * 3) 19:00, 10 December 2008  (edit summary: "BBC is a neutral source as such -- your opnion is not!")
 * 4) 19:09, 10 December 2008  (edit summary: "Russavia, you are just imposing your POV on the article: you cannot question neutrality of SOURCED opnions. Your haven't read NPOV")
 * 5) 19:22, 10 December 2008  (edit summary: "You cannot put tags inside the attributed quote")
 * 6) 20:57, 10 December 2008  (edit summary: "...and therefore you have cherry-picked the bits thereof you like?")

Muscovite99 is edit-warring in, removing NPOV dispute tags and is the only one who restores a quote 4 different editors voted against on the talk page. You can count me as the fifth one against it, even though I did not comment on the talk page yet.

-- Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

48h for R and M, who have form. Not sure about Dp: you are advised to be extremely cautious in future William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by Brendan19 (talk) (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 07:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:51,  4 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* See also */ no RS notable quotes on wikiquote. Link when it has a bunch of quotes [lease")
 * 2) 18:43,  5 December 2008  (edit summary: "licensing not in lede -- leave to separate section")
 * 3) 13:43,  6 December 2008  (edit summary: ""plumbing" is pipes, "plumber" is the common word for a plumber, honest!")
 * 4) 13:45,  6 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Plumbing career */ relevance tag improperly removed.  Debate as to whether anything about the license is relevant at all")
 * 5) 13:45,  6 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Plumbing career */ ty")
 * 6) 19:15,  6 December 2008  (edit summary: "primary def of plumbing is pipes.  occupation is "plumber",  if a person is an editor, we do not say his occupation is editting etc.")
 * 7) 19:21,  6 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Plumbing career */ replaced both irrel tags and fact of union endorsement - tags are discussable. Thanks.")
 * 8) 23:35,  6 December 2008  (edit summary: "aslk in BLP/N if you want -- just do not keep changing to a non-consensus term. Thanks!")
 * 9) 05:27,  7 December 2008  (edit summary: "plumber ref date 6 Dec 2008 "after Republican nominee John McCain made a Toledo plumber named Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher a theme"")
 * 10) 05:28,  7 December 2008  (edit summary: "curlies")


 * Diff of warning: [256317344 here]

not sure if i did this properly, but please take a look at the jtp article and discussion page. this guy is not working well with others and makes quite a lot of edits/reverts that seem to be hurting the page. i would say this is a pattern that is unlikely to change. i have tried reasoning with him and warning him about his excessive edits, but it doesnt seem to work. i am not the only one frustrated. all i want is help- not asking for a block, per se, but maybe we could convince him to let others have some say as well? —Brendan19 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First -- most of these are not reverts but specific attempts to prevent problems by finding consensus (in some cases, consecutive edits). Alas, one editor repeatedly has inserted contentious material repeatedly discussed on that talk page and on BLP/N as well (in fact, I had just asked on BLP/N last night again). And I declined to use "turd-gurgler" or the like as an "occupation" <g> Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't see a vio here. Contiguous edits count as one. Last edit in particular seems to just insert }} - are you really complaining about that? Please read WP:REVERT William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * no, i am not complaining about a }}. i am complainin about his pattern of abusive behavior which should be evident by viewing Joe the Plumber and its talk page, Sarah Palin and Political Machine.  and no, he is not seeking consensus.  he claims to already have consensus anytime others seek it.  this has been pointed out to be false multiple times, but that doesnt seem to matter.  he consistently makes executive decisions about pages as if he needs no input from others.  it is not helping the many editors trying to work together.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan19 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well tell you what, guv. Strike out all the irrelevant non-reverts from your list above and I'll have another look William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * IPOF, Brendan19s reverts seem to be of anything I edit in any article ...
 * Plumber
 * 6:10 7 Dec
 * 3:59 7 Dec
 * 22:20 6 Dec (actually 05 december 2008- brendan)


 * Joe the Plumber


 * 20:08 6 Dec
 * 18:45 6 Dec
 * 04:16 6 Dec


 * Making, if I read these right, a Daily Double of 3RR violations. I do not report folks for editwarring as a rule, but this particular case struck me as funny since he reverted any and all edits I made. He even reverted my edit of a Talk page where a troll entered in saying Joe was a "turd-gurgler" and I thought that was not aimed at improiving any article (an admin protected the talk page as a result). Many thanks! Collect (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * :mr connolley, ignore the above if you like and i will try to show you what i mean below (im no computer whiz). collect, i am not going to address your math errors.  if we could reason w/ one another we wouldnt be here in the first place.


 * 19:21, 6 December 2008 - this was after saying this... @19:18, 6 december 2008
 * which was same as... 1345 6 dec 2008 and 0314 15 nov 2008
 * this was in response to a reasonable compromise request (read what mattnad had to say) 2333 6 dec 2008
 * here is one of the most consistent edits he makes...
 * @1915 6 dec 2008
 * 1343 06 dec 2008 again
 * 1208 20 nov 2008 again
 * 0153 20 nov 2008 again
 * 1806 18 nov 2008 along same lines
 * 1616 18 nov 2008 again
 * 0528 15 nov 2008 again
 * 0218 15 nov 2008 again
 * 2146 11 nov 2008 again
 * 2137 11 nov 2008 again
 * 1842 11 nov 2008 along same lines
 * 1903 09 nov 2008 again
 * 2327 08 nov 2008 again
 * 2317 08 nov 2008 again
 * 1607 02 nov 2008 along same lines
 * basically my complaint is that collect dominates this article (and others) with his opinions. other people try to compromise and he refuses.  he wants plumber and thats that.  we have others (myself included) who disagree strongly.  rather than push for our version (which we have found to be pointless against one who will never stop reverting) we have tried to come to a compromise.  a look at the talk page would show many reasonable suggestions by several editors.  unfortunately, collect wont budge and i think his tone towards other editors speaks for itself.
 * we need to work together and its hard to accomplish that when one person refuses to cooperate. Brendan19 (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see Brendan -- you did 3RR in 24 hours on each of two articles. I did nowhere the number of such edits as you did, yet you complain that I am dominating the articles? Where over fifteen other editors all say "plumber" you seem affronted? Gawrsh! Sorry to point out that contentious edits which go against a consensus tend, for some odd reason, not to remain. Meanwhile I am editing on well over a hundred different articles. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * please check your dates again and see above where i corrected you. also, the way i understand 3rr rule is that 4= violation and 3 does not usually= violation (although it sometimes can).  i do not believe i broke any rule, but thats beside the point because this isnt about me.  and you keep mentioning this consensus which was never really there.  consensus= general agreement.  this has never been the case no matter how many times you reiterate it (or iterate as you like to say).  if there were such a consensus i would argue that you would not have needed to make the same edit over and over because there would be many others on your side to do that for you.  anyway, no need for us to go through this.  mr connolley agreed to give it a look, lets let him.  and i welcome other eyes also.  Brendan19 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

basically my complaint is that collect dominates this article (and others) with his opinions - indeed, which is why it doesn't belong on AN3. As pointed out, you have *more* reverts than C and yet you want *him* banned? You want WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry william, but please explain how you see more reverts on my end. i just showed you at least 15 of his reverts while i havent even made 9 total edits to that article.  i dont understand.  also, i never said i wanted anyone banned.  dispute resolution may help with joe the plumber (thanks), but my point in coming here was to have someone evaluate collects pattern of edit warring.  i appreciate your input, but could we get some other admin eyes on this?  i think it just got archived, but a day or two ago i saw that collect had another user nominate him for edit warring.  maybe he is just pushing peoples buttons and we are wrong about him, but couldnt it also be that the guy has a tendency to edit war?  Brendan19 (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * the following was originally posted to william connolleys talk page...
 * You have 3R this month, C has 2. I'm not going back into prehistory. As I said: this isn't AN3 stuff, its DR. As an AN3 case, its closed William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * actually these are his december reverts so far... and i count five (now eleven)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * and keep in mind the page was protected from november 20 until december 04 (both days in which he was reverting). i see why you say this is DR for joetheplumber, but it seems that you havent looked into anything else ive said.  a quick check of his talk page would show edit warring and bullying complaints from an editor (Factchecker atyourservice) about the sarah palin page, edit warring complaints from another editor (therefore) about the barbara west page, edit warring complaints from another editor (the red pen of doom) about the joe the plumber page, edit warring complaints from another editor (mattnad) about the helen jones-kelly page, a friendly 3rr warning from noroton about the political maching page and then there was my warning.

thats 5 edit war complaints from five different editors about 4 different articles. and lets not forget one friendly 3rr warning about a fifth article from a sixth editor.  and all of this has been within the past month (since nov 10th, i believe). wouldnt you agree that a pattern of edit warring is easily visible? sorry to bring this up on your talk page, but you didnt respond to my last post on the admin page. please look into this for me when you get a chance. Brendan19 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that as an AN3 issue, this is closed. If it recurs, it might be reportable as a new issue. A number of complaints about 3RR are not evidence of a problem. Trying to solve this with the bludgeon of AN3 isn't going to work William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * well, please dont take offense, but i would like some other opinions. how do i go about doing that?  do i just repost the same stuff to the admin page as a separate report or can you reopen it or what?  i realize that my first attempt at posting included irrelevant stuff so i could probably do a more accurate version the second time around.  anyway, let me know.  Brendan19 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to get it looked at again, I would (preferred) post a note saying so to the AN3 talk page or (less so) ask one of the regular admins there on their talk William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

end of quoted stuff from connolleys talk page.

taking his advice i am now asking for other opinions here. and i realize that a number of complaints are not evidence of a problem. thats why i am here. if one were to look into each of those complaints i believe one would find the evidence. i do not feel that connolley adequately looked into my complaint. i realize it is time consuming. if you have the time, please take a look at his talk page and investigate for yourself. please note that today (as of this moment) collect has made 7 edits to jtp and i think 6 of them could be considered reverts (to his credit i think 2 of them were against a sock). Brendan19 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since WMC has marked this report as 'No vio' I'm considering it officially closed. I'm adding a comment just to record my agreement with WMC's verdict above. Though User:Collect's editing at Joe the Plumber has been aggressive, I don't find it has crossed the line yet. He's been joining Talk in good faith, but he'd be more credible if he would wait longer for consensus before doing his own reverts. Reverting while talking is not so admirable. Note that WP:Dispute resolution provides options like an article RfC or a user RfC. Highly-partisan changes are more likely to be flagged as an edit-warring issue, but plumbing->plumber seems rather low-key and is hard to get excited about. Collect is still pushing against the edit-war limits and may actually find them soon if he doesn't tone down the reverting a little.  EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * fair enough, but what about the other articles? my intention was to show a pattern- not to just focus on the jtp article.  for an experienced editor to receive six warnings from six different editors in less than a month seems exorbitant, doesnt it?  Brendan19 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Brendan, open up an WP:RFC/U on Collect if you think there is a wider pattern. He has made only 5 of the last 100 changes to the Sarah Palin article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One problem on the page is IP reversions which fell into a particular pattern (sigh). Also you might want to look at  which opens the possibility of collusion among some editors. Collect (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

the article is now page protected because of edit warring involving collect, again. as i said before, it is a pattern of behavior with this guy and i doubt it will stop. i tried here, with no luck, to do something about it. its frustrating. Brendan19 (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

report by Mark Shaw

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

UPDATE:


 * 3rd revert:

UPDATE2:


 * LittleGreenVolleyball has once again reverted the page (after expiration of the block):


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

UPDATE - user has edited his/her page to remove the 3RR warning; here's the diff:

This is not yet a 3RR situation, but it is a burgeoning edit war. I admit being a participant in this, but my requests that the disagreement be discussed and consensus sought on the talk page have been ignored. I will pull back and wait for a response to this report before making any more edits to that part of the article. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: LittleGreenVolleyball has performed a third revert. This now makes it three in just over a 22-hour period.Mark Shaw (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reported by LittleGreenVolleyball

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Foster_Johnson&diff=257107288&oldid=257101438
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Foster_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=256935543
 * 3rd http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Foster_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=256869520
 * 4th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Foster_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=256828497


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMark_Shaw&diff=257137588&oldid=257137258

He just keeps going and going - thinks he owns the page, refuses to give reasonable discussion, refuses to do anything but remove things from the page despite their being neutral and notable. He is the one going against consensus and continues to remove the items even after being begged by another user to be more specific and offer helpful suggestions on what he wants to see changed, instead just saying "change it" and removing things even when new sourcing is added. He also lies and calls things "vandalism" that are clearly not.

Result
I ended up blocking LGVB for edit warring aggravated by incivility, and warning MS William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

-- I suggest that this was a bad action. Of the two editors, LGVB has so far been the more constructive of the two, willing to edit wording and provide additional sources. MS's involvement has been as nothing more than a vexatious roadblock, which I feel is unfair and is only aggravating the situation. For him to remain unpunished while others verbally and administratively assault LGVB is unhelpful to a collaborative environment and unlikely to help MS become an actual productive editor. I urge you to reconsider your action for the good of the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk • contribs) 23:19, December 10, 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. User:LittleGreenVolleyball has made a further revert at the article after the expiry of his 12-hour block for 3RR. The material that he restored to the article had just been removed by administrator User:Luna Santin for BLP reasons. It seems to me that LGV is inviting further action by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I still say this was a bad, ill-considered, counterproductive action. MS has actually become worse since this happened, down to removing civil warnings regarding his out-of-line conduct and threatening people over being warned. The appearance of favoritism by Connolley who has blocked LGVB again claiming 3RR (I would personally love to see how the count for this works), whether or not actually present, is problematic. Connolley's claim that "AFAIK MS has broken no rules" (see here:) rings hollow when there are 4 reverts listed for MS above and Connolley chose to block the person with less reverts and ignore the clear 3RR violation. It seems every time I come around and take a look at this issue, someone or another is acting the gorilla, and that is not helping the encyclopedia's improvement in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:SJSA (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I invited the user to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy on whether it is acceptable to remove photographs of dead American soldiers when articles like Holocaust, Charles Whitman and John F. Kennedy all clearly show the subject's death. He continued the revert-war after warnings. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewing administrator: The image involved in this edit war has now been deleted at Wikimedia Commons. Risker (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, Risker deleted the image himself and is now facing review for the action. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are very much mistaken. I do not have administrative privileges at Wikimedia Commons, where the image was hosted, and I have NO ability to delete it. I removed the Operation Red Wing image once from the Operation Red Wing article, which you promptly reinstated, and I did not revert you. I removed a poor quality video that did not fit well with the text of Looting, and replaced it with a better quality image that better complemented the text. There is currently a proposal to delete that video going on at Wikimedia Commons, and the administrators of that project will make a decision based on their own policies and processes. Risker (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the image in question is now deleted, it is no longer possible for edit-warring to occur with regard to it. Thus blocking anyone would not be preventative. If a user wishes to contest or endorse the deletion of the image, they should do so at Commons. CIreland (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:71.178.197.11 reported by Dgf32 (Result: 12h block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This anonymous user is engaging in an edit war against all other editors despite being informed of the three revert rule. The user wishes to unilaterally dictate what does and does not go in the arctilce based on his personal ideas, not on verifiable sources. In a recent edit summary he wrote, "Either [my] edits stay or the section is removed." He attempts to enforce his will upon the articly by simply reverting any edit with which he disagrees. Several editors have attempted to undo his reverts today, but he continues to revert. His repeated reverts are disruptive, and he seems complete unwilling to participate without edit waring. Dgf32 (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The user has not reverted since being advised of the three-revert-rule. Come back if the edit-warring resumes. CIreland (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The user was advised of the three revert rule on his talk page on 09:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC):
 * "'In order to prevent edit wars, Wikipedia has the Three Revert Rule, which states that any one making 3 reverts in one article in any 24 hour period will be subject to being blocked.'"


 * Diff of original 3RR warning: Dgf32 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry, only saw the templated 3RR warning. Looking again now... CIreland (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * for 12 hours. CIreland (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

AcademicSharp (result: 24h)
Can someone please address this report at WP:AE:  is edit warring on Khojaly Massacre, an article, covered by the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case. He refuses to take part in the discussions on talk of the article, cites no sources for his edits, and uses IPs and SPA accounts such as to edit war. Urgent attention of an admin is required. Grandmaster (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Book of Lies (album) (result: semi)
An anonomous user (one that appears to be using a generic IP addresss) keeps on reverting a deleted review, the review is not considered to be a 'professional review' as outlined in WikiProject Albums however the user keeps re-instating the review despite comments being included on the edit page as to the rationale why the revert had been made. As it is an anonomous user it is impossible to leave any comments/dicussion on their talk page (as it keeps changing). Dan arndt (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Semi'd for a week in the hope that the anon gets bored. You probably wanted WP:AIV William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:PostBubble reported by Jackw1990 (Result: warned)

 * Page: Citadel Investment Group
 * User: []


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * PostBubble has engaged in edit wars with many of the users who edit the Citadel Investment Group page. This person continues to methodically delete perfectly well cited information from credible sources such as press releases and articles from news sources such as Reuters  that he/she does not "like".  PostBubble immediately deletes the cited information after it has been posted, and continues to remove it even after it has been restored .  And then he/she goes on to post uncited, negatively biased information on the company and its CEO .  Many of the attacks on the CEO are personal and do not follow the Wikipedia policy of neutrality .  PostBubble posts personal opinons instead of citable facts.  He/she speaks about operations and people inside the company, but sites no sources.  Instead of talking with or contacting other editors of the page, PostBubble posts negative comments and removes all new posts.  This person is not allowing any other editors to have a voice on the page, but is instead monopolizing and managing it.(JackW1990)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.222.7 (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute between you two (engaged in edit wars with many of the users who edit the Citadel Investment Group page is falsified by the edit history). Please use the talk page, both of you William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

98.194.194.45 reported by Mark Shaw (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP user continues to harass me via my talk page. I have removed the harassing text, and those removals have been reverted three times. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have been better to have left the warning. Ah well, I shall warn the anon and block on any repeat William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand - an anon editor haranguing someone on his talk page doesn't seem, to me, to be quite the same as, for example, a legitimate 3RR warning on that same talk page (which should, of course, be left in place). Or, did you mean that I should have left the final iteration of 98.194.194.45's "warning" in place as documentation?  I guess I can see that, although I thought the diffs provided here should suffice.... Mark Shaw (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Melonbarmonster2 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC) The user hasn't violated the 3rr rule per se but has engaged in revert warring and is using the 3RR to instigate revert wars while ignoring requests for discussion in the talk page. The user made 3 reverts on Dec 8 th and has made 2 reverts on Dec 11th. The reverts were made not to vandalism but to novel edits made in good faith. If you look at the history[] of this article you'll see that Badagnani's last 5 contributions to the page has been reversions of good faith, novel edits.

I explained my reasons for a series of edits I made in the talk page[] and invited comments and feedback. Rather than responding to my talk page the user reverted my edits twice and has is continuing to ignore my request for discussion in the talk page[]. Please help.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find this report interesting, so Badagnani made 5 reverts over a 4 day period - this sounds like a content dispute not an edit war. On a side note, while checking the history of that article I noticed that Melonbarmonster2 made many edits on Dec 11th, most of which were minor but good edits, however the following four edits seemed to be reverts - some of the four were edits that added information to one section, while removing it from another, that seems to be someone trying to hide their revert by adding some minor details at the same time.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

but not a problem, I'm sure melonbarmonster was acting in good faith when he made the reverts, and it was probably an oversight on his part.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is insufficient disruptive reverting to justify a block of any party at this time. When the three-revert-rule has not been violated we would typically only block for a larger number of reverts over a longer period of time. CIreland (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Junemarlan reported by Ukexpat (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been asked to discuss these edits at the appropriate discussion on the talk page but has failed to do so. – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment A new account Ettahayespirtle arrived to make the same edit after Junemarlan had 3RR explained to it. Possibly it's a sock/meatpuppet of Junemarlan. -- Skarl 18:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the sock. User seems to have stopped for now but has certainly broken 3RR; will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * – ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Armbrust reported by Nick C (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User fails to understand the word "consensus". Look on his talk page, attempts to talk to this user have ended in failure and keeps reverting other user's edits, because his/hers look "better". - Nick C (t·c) 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to have stopped now, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Voooooh reported by Moni3 (Result: 48 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This particular change was performed several times when the article was on the main page November 27. I reverted since then to its previous state, but the user has continued to make this change. An attempt to discuss the reverts was initiated by me here: Talk:Harvey_Milk. Although the WP:MOS does not forbid the use of quotes in subheadings—and the article made it through a very rigorous FAC without commentary on the wording of the subheading User:Voooooh seemed to object on those grounds. I compromised to this example, but made it clear that the "Outing Sipple" subheading was inappropriate for the article per the purpose of the section. Please note the 5th revert eliminates the topic sentence, thus deteriorating the quality of the Featured Article. Voooooh's response to my 3RR warning took place on my talk page, visible here, although I have not been able to engage the user in any fruitful discussion about the wording of this subheading. --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User informed of this report here. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit warring isn't really aggressive enough to justify a block at the moment. I would suggest that a third opinion may be a good way to resolve this good faith disagreement. CIreland (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A third opinion to state something I have already said? If the user declines civil attempts at discussion by one person, what might I anticipate the user will do with two civil attempts at discussion? By absence of such discussion, and by the removal of a topic sentence, I do not believe this is a good faith disagreement. I respectfully request consideration that this is a Featured Article, and the inclusion of what seems to be an apparent minimal insertion skews information to make the article inaccurate per WP:Weight. I wrote this article and I must ensure its accuracy, although I invite all editors who have also read the sources to assist in editing. I can't say what this user has read because discussion has so far not been fruitful, as I previously stated. It seems in order to ensure the article's accuracy, the decision is that I must return to reverting the user's ill-conceived insertions, forcing me to participate in edit warring. I don't understand this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some points: Firstly, a third opinion would not necessarily agree with you or may suggest a compromise. Secondly, featured articles are not sacrosanct. Thirdly, every time that Voooooh has made the change, you have reverted him - if edit-warring blocks were warranted, they would be warranted for both of you. CIreland (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your points. Though a third opinion may not agree, it would still have to take into consideration the weight of sources. That has so far been impossible in the absence of any substantial discussion on Voooooh's part. I have already compromised by changing the wording of the subheading once, but I am emphatic that the wording that has been insisted upon by Voooooh is inappropriate. I also understand that Featured Articles are not sacrosanct; I change mine all the time. A look at the talk page will show that I have engaged editors who wished to change even minor things, but have discussed the changes with respect and civility, and have accommodated them many times. Lastly, if it is true that I must be blocked for reverting inaccurate statements in an article I worked on for four months and researched extensively, then so be it. It is a fallacy, making absolutely no sense whatsoever. I initiated this process to fulfill its purpose by protecting the integrity of the article. My first priority—over a clean block log—is the accuracy of the article. I would hope that would be most other editors' as well. --Moni3 (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 6th revert:


 * User:Karanacs has engaged Voooooh on his talk page here, and User:SandyGeorgia here. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 7th revert:
 * A discussion on the talk page with User:MCB resulted in shifting some information, per this edit. Voooooh then reverted to the previous edit shown here, removing cited information. He then joined the discussion on the talk page, such as it is with this confusing comment. Can a participating admin qualify for me what behavior is aggressive enough to warrant action? --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To let you know, I'm reading over this now. Caulde  16:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * - Reasons for the 48 hour block are explained on the blocked user's talk page. Caulde  17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragonmaster88 reported by nneonneo (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * After being warned once, Dragonmaster88 proceeded to be uncivil towards User:Kraftlos who had warned and reverted him the first time: . The user has a history of edit-warring, for example on Talk:Gaia Online and Punisher: War Zone. nneonneo talk 00:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I affirm that this is all true. I started a conversation on the talkpage after the second revert (and first warning); he has refused to actually discuss the edits.  His talkpage currently contains a personal attack against me.  I'd like to see a stiff block, give him some time to think.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know there's a different page for sockpuppetry, but I figured I'd report his IP along with his username as he's editwarring with that one too: []. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

48h: 3RR, incivility, form William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And after you told him not to replace the personal attack: . nneonneo talk 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

JpGrB reported by Cubfan789 (Result: no blocks 48 and 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tha_Carter_III:_The_Rebirth&oldid=257634714


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tha_Carter_III:_The_Rebirth&oldid=257635649
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tha_Carter_III:_The_Rebirth&oldid=257642657
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tha_Carter_III:_The_Rebirth&oldid=257644134


 * Diff of 3RR warning: He warned me earlier so I'm sure he's aware.

ok this is what's going on. i posted the text below on JpGrB's talk page because he said he wanted to talk to solve the dispute, which i'm sure he had no intention on doing because of the response he gave me. it seems to me like he just wanted to show me how i was wrong. but i want an admin to decide because this is getting bogus.


 * 01. it is better to have the producers/songs in a LIST format rather than a paragraph. all you're doing is saying, "the album is going to be produced by cool & dre. also pharrell said he might be producing a couple tracks. and oh yeah street runner, he's gonna be on the album too" WHY NOT JUST LIST IT???? IT MAKES MORE SENSE.


 * 02. how can you say "youtube is not reliable"? if someone references an mtv news video with a youtube link, is that not reliable? cuz that's what you're basically saying. i don't see what you're trying to prove. it seems to me that you are just a really controlling person judging by all the comments on your talk page. i have reasons for making my edits. i like organization and efficiency. i also like adding relevant information, like an artist who openly says he's going to be on an album in an interview. just because it wasn't reported by mtv doesn't mean it's not credible. all mtv does is take what an artist says and compiles it into an article.
 * Reviewed. Why don't we see if we can sort this out on the talk page -- Samir 06:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that Cubfan789 just violated 3RR on the page in question himself. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Following Samirs attempt at mediation, the reverting has continued unabated, so I have blocked the main reverters. I'm surprised to see no 3RR warning for J, though User:William M. Connolley 12:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:AcademicSharp reported by Grand master  (Result: 48h)

 * Edit warring om . : Time reported: 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AcademicSharp has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on this article: Once his block has expired, he instantly resumed edit warring, making another 2 reverts:


 * 1) 03:37, 13 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 257260680 by Grandmaster (talk)")
 * 2) 17:45, 13 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 257634491 by Jayvdb (talk)")

This user is also discussed at WP:AE:, but since admin reaction to that page is slow, I have to report it here too. Also note the results of this CU:. Grand master  20:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

48h and a little homily that will do no good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wdford reported by Zara1709 (Result: warnings all round)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (Note: I didn't use the template, I didn't know that we had one for it.)

Zara1709 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks to me that there are two sides to this edit war (how unusual). You're both warned. I'll say more on the article talk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second. Here we have an editor, who tried to push his version through with the "confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute." Admittedly, that editor is new to Wikipedia and still needs to learn about this, but he has broken 3RR and I didn't. It doesn't take two editors for an edit war, it only takes one. I had written a justification of the original revision of the disputed section on the talk page, which Wdford didn't take into account. After he had been reverted by me and Twthmoses, and still didn't write anything on the talk page, I made a more elaborate reply on the discussion page: diff and reverted again diff. Wdford reverted again diff, I reverted and asked him to comment on the talk page diff. And only after his next revert, and me again pointing to the talk page in my revert diff, he wrote something there. diff, I don't mind that he called my behaviour "childish", I mean, I consider him rather "ignorant" and wrote that in the edit summary, too, but since Wdfort didn't actually take into account at all what I had written, the edit warring continued. This is just the way with those editors that some people might call 'disruptive'. I tried to talk, but it needed half a dozen reverts (over several weeks) to actually get the other editor to take a look at the talk page. Please, don't imply that I would have something like an 'edit war attitude' or that like. I just like working on controversial topics. I didn't brake 3rr and I don't ever intent to do that in a controversy with another editor (unless I really get sick and tired of Wikipedia and want to get banned.) Wdforf is a new editor and probably doesn't need to be banned for a few hours - but he should be warned, not we both equally. Zara1709 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)