Revision as of 12:15, 23 November 2008

Template:Moveprotected

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

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Reports

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

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

• Three-revert rule violation on Richard Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 2:48 AM

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son

User1389 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: 8 hours & 24h & 72h)

• Page: Šarplaninac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: User1389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: (newest)
• Warning one month ago from user:William M. Connolley :
• Original 3RR warning, circa one month ago:

Serbia/Kosovo edit warrior took a month off and has now reengaged. Is blind-reverting general article fixes as well as country names. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Now off his block, the user has re-reverted the article again . keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And...he's back. With a somewhat amusing edit summary, considering his behavior: . keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gave notice; further reverts will result in an extended block. seicer | talk | contribs 14:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

86.11.175.170 reported by Kevin Forsyth (Result: 24h)

• Page: Grimsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 86.11.175.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This editor appears to be the same person who has performed the same edit in the past, from this and one other ISP: see , , and . Repeated requests for a reliable source have resulted in edit warring accusations and profanity. Their response is always the same, reverting with shouted warnings about "edit waring" while themselves violating 3RR. The edit in question is their attempt to add a term for Grimbarians that is intentionally derogatory. (The term has also been denied by an editor who claims to be from Grimsby.) Each time their edit is removed, it sets them off with these results. Truth be told, I have violated 3RR myself to revert this edit which I consider disruptive, but as far as I can tell only I and editor Keith D seem to be aware of the disruption. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

2008-11-20T17:56:27 Keith D (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 86.11.175.170 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: first violation of 3 revert rule) (Unblock). Consider yourself lucky not to get a gentle tap yourself; the claimed vandalism exemption is dubious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Simon2239 reported by User:User:71.178.193.134 (Result: Protected)

• Page: Freebiejeebies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Simon2239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert (done in 3 continuous edits): , &
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has become belligerent and refuses to discuss any edits. He appears to be taking ownership of the article and is reverting other good faith edits as well. This article is also up for deletion with overwhelming support for deletion. He has since deleted the 3RR warning.71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have already protected the article and we usually allow new users a little slack. Deleting the warning is fine. He knows the score now and will get blocked if there is further edit warring. Spartaz 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole

• User: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warning diff: 2008-11-17T05:06:48

Dabomb87 is performing dozens of edits (and if you go back further, hundreds) which are currently disputed at WT:MOSNUM. Specifically, he is unlinking full dates and despite a good faith discussion and RFC forming, he is refusing to stop his automated edits pushing his POV. I believe this is "edit warring". —Locke Cole • t • c 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment – Abstaining from any action on this subject due to prior interaction with Locke Cole, but other parties should note WP:AN#Special:Contributions/Tennis expert, WP:ANI#Locke Cole. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Coment. Date-linking is something on which the community has not yet made up its mind. Admin action taken from this noticeboard might have trouble winning general support. I suggest that you add any complaint about this editor's work to the existing thread at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there's no harm in stopping these mass edits from being performed is there? It doesn't help the ongoing discussion and debate when you have this editor (amongst others, I might add) using a single script (created/maintained by Lightmouse (talk · contribs)) to make so many automated edits that the opposing side just throws its arms up in disgust. See my notification diff which quotes a recent ArbCom decision stating that just these types of acts are wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So that makes your nearly-automated edits (and that of Tennis Expert) correct or more respectable? Conducting such edits in a matter of seconds over dozens of pages hundreds of times is just as nasty as an automated account. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually my reverts, when I was doing them nearly a week ago, were done entirely by hand. Trust me, if I chose to address this as my opponents do (mass scripted edits with little or no actual checking of their work) I could probably do a thousand edits a day. But that would be just as disruptive as the edits I'm reporting here. Or do two wrongs make a right now? Give me the word and I'll proceed immediately to automatically undo all of their edits. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, can you tell me how Dabomb87's actions are not in violation of this ArbCom decision? — Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli —Locke Cole • t • c 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, there has been consensus to not link dates since August. See the MOS archives, Featured Articles and Featured Lists, and this page. I do check my work, the thing is, do you (Locke Cole)? See these edits ( and ); not only did you link the dates against MOS, but you introduced inconsistencies in date formats within the article. If that is not an example of making an edit without checking work, then what is? (P.S. Locke Cole, you could have informed me about this thread instead of letting me find out for myself) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Twelve editors in an unadvertised straw poll are not consensus to undo something across the entire wiki. Fascinating as the idea may be, it just doesn't work. Especially when at least as many editors have came to the page since this was "decided" and registered their dislike for the change (only to be told, effectively, to go away; or simply ignored). Now I invite you again: stop unlinking dates and join the discussion/RFC at WT:MOSNUM. This would 1) cease your disruption of Misplaced Pages and 2) allow you to voice your opinion on date linking. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You forgot this. seicer | talk | contribs 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. I just don't see the relevance. I asked them to stop for a week or two before finally caving and joining them in their disruption. I'd really rather NOT be disruptive though, and despite being asked (often times repeatedly) to stop, they choose to continue. There's an RFC being discussed and more at WT:MOSNUM and it's clear (to all but the most arrogant) that this practice is disputed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is edit warring, without implausibly stretching the definition. Provide clear evidence of edit warring if you believe otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's edit warring date-delinking record and intentions, as evidenced by his edit summaries, are clear. For example:

Casey Dellacqua: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).

Jessica Moore (tennis): (1), (2), (3), (4).

Hurricane Fifi-Orlene: (1), (2), (3).

Air raids on Australia, 1942–43: (1), (2), (3).

Roscoe Tanner: (1), (2), (3).

Steve Shak: (1), (2), (3).

Chuck Jones: (1), (2), (3).

Christina Fusano: (1), (2), (3).

Jamal Sutton: (1), (2)

Robert Ssejjemba: (1), (2).

Diplomatic history of Australia: (1), (2).

List of surviving veterans of World War I: (1), (2).

Darlene Hard: (1), (2).

Tennis expert (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You forgot this (and more). seicer | talk | contribs 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unbecoming of an administrator. Tennis expert (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise and dispute resolution, I am willing to voluntarily stop my delinking edits with the script. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is part of the solution. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

done Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Hmm, OK, from it seems quite clear that TE, LC, D87 and 2O are indulging in edit warring. appears to confirm this. I can't see any reason to single out D87. It is clear that the issue should be settled on the MOS talk page and that no further linking/unlinking should be done till that discussion is settled on way or the other William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, William; that sounds like good advice. While the community decided on the removal of date autoformatting and links to irrelevant date-fragment pages in August and much earlier still, respectively, there's a small band of loud complainers—none of them representative of WPians or readers at large. I note that these complainers are increasingly resorting to dramatic techniques to shout down hard-working editors who are striving to assist general users to bring their articles into compliance with the style guides. This page is just one of those techniques, which include the posting of threatening, bullying messages on talk pages; I'm sorry that your time and that of others has been taken up in dealing with it at this point. Tony (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

195.210.193.210 reported by Eklir

• User: 195.210.193.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warning diff: 18:22 2008-11-02
• Vandalized page: Chuvash language

This IP has reverted a legitimate reference source four (4) times so far: , . , ; for no apparent reason other than that its language is German instead of the English or the Russian used in the other references. I came accross these edits on patrol on issues in languages and linguistics. I have checked out the legitimacy of the contested reference.

This user is also engaged in blanking historically attested alternate names for this language. Eklir (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

2 reverts in last 24h, none subsequent to your warning, no discussion by anyone on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

75.64.248.238 reported by CH52584

• Page: Egg Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 75.64.248.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

• I warned him about ownership of articles on his talk page: , which he blanked before making his most recent revert.
• I then warned him that he is not providing an argument against the current consensus on the discussion page:

He's insisting that because the Ole Miss-Mississippi State football game wasn't called the Egg Bowl before the 1930s, all games before then shouldn't be listed on the page. There is no precident for this practice for any other named rivalry, and I've asked him to take it to the discussion page to build consensus, which he has not done.

I have also noticed that he is making the same changes to the Jackson, Mississippi article as well, using the exact same message in his edit summary, quote, "restore original content and original flow of the article before it got all mucked up." This has been his exact edit summary for all three reverts of Egg Bowl and the exact edit summary for several reverts of Jackson, Mississippi. CH52584 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You've reverted just as often. You've made no attempt to discuss it on the talk page. You haven't warned the anon of this report. I could just as well block you, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The same subject was brought up on the talk page several months ago. I don't think a final agreement was ever made, but since I've been editing this particular article, this is the first time that this particular issue has come up. I have responded to that discussion on the discussion page, and have enouraged the anon to do the same. He has, however, blanked his own user talk page twice since I first posted this alert, so I'm not expecting a response from him. I think he is content to continue arguing that the page is "mucked up" in his edit summaries. CH52584 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Srkris (result: 24h)

• Page: Rigveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Srkris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

(listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Too late, he reverted too quickly for me to issue an advance warning.

User:Dbachmann removed academic references and reverted one of my edits. I inserted the reference back and time and again he removed the same without any justification. He seems to be quite rude and obstinate and made the reverts in very quick succession before I could warn him about 3RR. I could not understand why he was removing a reliable academic reference, and he doesnt seem bothered to explain any of his reverts although I tried to bring sense to him, no avail. He accuses me of pushing POVs, but the very version before his reverts will show I sought to establish NPOV and reliability to that article.­ Kris (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see his simultaneous violation of 3RR for Vedic Sanskrit also below

• Page: Vedic Sanskrit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Srkris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

(listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)

Too late, he reverted too quickly for me to issue an advance warning.

He seems to have reverted this article too, making it a double-3RR in a single hour.­ Kris (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

24h. No 3RR vio, but edit warring, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

May I enquire why Srkris was blocked, but not Dbachmann? PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight, this editor has been nothing short of disruptive in the past few weeks. Calling him a "good editor" on his talk page as you did is simply not accurate. Edit-warring is one thing; making this sort of commentary is another, and then allowing it to slide is not something we can afford to be doing. There's been wikistalking/wikihounding concerns too in addition to inserting factual errors in Misplaced Pages. He clearly is a net liability to this project if he continues editing and making unacceptable comments in this atrocious manner - his edits on his talk page since being blocked clearly show that he's going to continue to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground. Given the variety of concerns, I'd like the duration of this block to be increased so that if he is to return to editing, this is not going to continue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't give PK a particularly good answer. Now 3RR has become edit warring, the lines are blurred, and things become more a matter of judgement. I reviewed S's edits, and the ANI thread, and decided he was at fault. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of block becomes more common, if the feature creep here continues. I'm still comfortable with the block William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. I would have probably given Dbachmann a shorter block - perhaps 12 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block for User:Srkris, could have been much longer. Good call, William. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Tocino reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 72h)

• Page: Timothy F. Geithner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Tocino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: More or less

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: ,

All additions are violations of WP:RS and WP:BLP as well. Thanks, Grsz 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Veecort reported by User:McJeff (blocked 24h)

• Article: ITT Technical Institute

A very brief synopsis of the events. Veecort was previously very active on the ITT Tech article, but took a several-month break from editing. His first edit upon return was to revert the article to the last version he had edited, as seen here. He then continued to revert war by readding the things he wrote in the "controversy" section.

• First revert
• Second revert
• Third revert
• Fourth revert (please note that Veecort posted this from his IP address; his attempt to justify the edit by a bible verse should be sufficient to establish that the IP was him)
• 3RR Warning Dif
• Fifth revert
• Sixth revert

McJeff (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours due to disruptive editing – as a side note, McJeff (talk · contribs) looks like he might have violated the 3RR; however, I'm ignoring this, since it's clear that Veecort (talk · contribs)'s edits were substantially more disruptive in that several editors also thought it necessary to revert Veecourt over several days (e.g., ). However, I highly advise McJeff (talk · contribs) to also be wary of his reverts in the future, for even when consensus seems to back you, you should still avoid breaking the three-revert rule yourself. --slakr 08:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that I was only at three reverts, and I was being conscious of my revert count as seen here, where I asked another editor to step in. I'm familiar with 3RR (having once gotten myself blocked for getting careless and forgetting it) and the clause that one isn't entitled to 3 reverts per 24 hours. McJeff (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Roaring Siren reported by Collectonian (Result: 12 hours)

• Page: Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Roaring Siren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link (in edit summary he states "we could be at this all day")
• 3rd revert: link (edit summary of "thanks but no thanks")
• 4th revert: link
• 5th revert: link

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

Despite three other editors reverting his addition, Roaring Siren continues to revert, ignoring the 3RR warning and making edit summaries, as noted above, indicating he intends to continue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 12 hours. If this carries on the next one will be much longer. Spartaz 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Date delinker reported by Locke Cole (Result:No action taken)

• Page: editor performing massive edits despite an ongoing dispute (warning diff here, Date Linking RFC here, more discussion on the dispute at WT:MOSNUM)
• User: Date delinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Account operated by: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st edit: 2008-11-22T03:10:11
• 2nd edit: 2008-11-22T03:09:06
• 3rd edit: 2008-11-22T03:08:54
• 4th edit: 2008-11-22T03:07:20

• Diff of dispute warning: 2008-11-17T05:05:26

• This editor has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chose to enforce their POV by performing massive edits to hundreds of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does however meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

— WP:EDITWAR

and

Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

— WP:EDITWAR

—Locke Cole • t • c 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot has seemingly stopped delinking dates, so no use blocking it; however, I'll make Ohnoconfucius aware of this discussion for his input. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, this may be a subject better covered at Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's already indicated it's not a bot performing these edits (or at least, that was the original reason for his unblock) so the Bot owners' noticeboard wouldn't really apply. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• This complaint is just part of a campaign mounted by certain users against anyone who dares to do anything which they disagree with, and includes various types of harassment such as spamming our talk pages, reporting us to WP:AN. I refuse to submit to the bullying of people who habitually use edit-warring to get what they want. No, I do not use a bot, and have been cleared of such. It can be see from my Mission statement, the pattern of edits, and what is actually being changed that I am executing the policy of removing links which do not belong in articles. I may also be changing date formats to ones agreed upon for country-specific subjects. No-one has validly pointed out in what way my edits are in breach of any relevant policies and guidelines. Whatever "warnings" have been issued to me by certain individuals are founded on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and policy- and guidelines- 'wishful thinking'. I believe previous dismissal of complaints they have made against other editors performing similar tasks, and the decision here not to take action against me are sufficient vindication. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is really quite simple and I fail to see how you can't understand it: Misplaced Pages operates on consensus. The present wording at WP:MOSNUM is disputed and currently going through an RFC. You have been asked to stop performing these disputed edits until the situation is resolved (at the end of the RFC). You have chosen not to. This is edit warring. It is disruption. It's violating a previous ArbCom decision with regards to forcing your changes during an ongoing dispute. Whatever else you may think of me, my actions or whomever does not change these singular truths. There is no excuse to continue making disputed and disruptive edits especially when you're aware of the ongoing dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• You are trying to pick off your opponents one at a time. You failed with User:Dabomb87 and you have also failed here, so why don't you quit while you are ahead! ;-) I am inclined to tell you to do something to yourself which is physically impossible, but I realise behavioural guidelines prevents me from doing this, so take "GO AWAY" as the civil response. God spede, Ohconfucius/Date delinker (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully anyone following this will note you've failed to address my statement as to which policies and guidelines you are violating by performing these edits. Hopefully they will further note that you don't appear to be agreeing to stop but rather seem to be taking joy in bringing disruption to hundreds of articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it would be a misunderstanding of the situation to suggest that simply because you weren't blocked that it's a "vindication". You were spared because you "seemed to have stopped", not because what you were doing wasn't a violation of policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius: please stop with the ad hominem. Attacking Locke due to his block log or whether he's out to get you or not is not the purpose here. If there isn't consensus on changing something, do not use your other account (I thought it was a bot but that has been clarified now) to change it anyway. Oh, and stop it with the incivility. I'm not blocking anyone now but that can change if you keep putting out veiled insults. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not vindicating anything you've done. I didn't block your account (just to be clear, your main account would be blocked in this case as you are the one facilitating the content dispute, not the alt account) because it stopped disputed activities. This doesn't mean it can continue; sort this out first. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

190.10.226.137 reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: )

• Page: James Hetfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 190.10.226.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User has not reverted since being advised of the three-revert-rule. Not closing this yet though since his last edit was less an hour ago. CIreland (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The TriZ reported by User:Hakkari (Result: No action)

User continues to delete sources and changes articles w/o using citations on several articles.

Article 1

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

Article 2

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

Article 3

• 1st revert:
• 2nd article:
• 3rd article: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkari (talk • contribs) 03:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ADMIN NOTE: Hakkari (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Am6212 (talk · contribs). Confirmed by CU Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). لennavecia 04:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No action. This result is not carte blanche to edit war on the Assyrian/Syriac naming issue, but there is no evident 3RR above, most of the reverts being stale. Some articles may need protection if this continues. (The sock Hakkari was not auto-confirmed and would have been stopped by semi-protection). Editors who think they may be participating in such issues in the future should be sure they can link to a Talk page discussion to justify their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Elysander reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: )

• Page: 2008 South Ossetia war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Elysander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:39, 22 November 2008

• 1st revert: 10:41, 22 November 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:49, 22 November 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:14, 22 November 2008
• 4th revert: 20:28, 22 November 2008
• 5th revert: 20:35, 22 November 2008
• 6th revert: 20:45, 22 November 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Elysander has been warned more than once about 3RR. He very rarely ever gives a viable reason in the edit summary for his reverts other than the fact that he believes his version to be the "stable" version. Although he can change the article in which case his changes become the new stable version. He also accuses people he disagrees with of making disruptive edits. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Switchintoglide is a new user, like me, and is not responding to requests to stop removing my content from . I am attempting to add a well cited *Legal History* section to the article and requests for citations. The new section has had a Third opinion and mostly all of the recommendations were implemented with the exception of once which was not relevant since the information it requested was clear in the context of the article, but the review read the addition out of context. I have warned the user just now about the 3 reverts rule and have reverted the vandalism, putting me in violation of the 3RR myself. Please advise. I'm trying to play by the rules

Cassandrar (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam.J.W.C. reported by Noodle snacks (Result: no vio)

• Page: Sydney Harbour Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Adam.J.W.C. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: (There may be intermediate changes, the thing here is the taxobox image)

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

I have not warned the user, however he is well and truely aware of the rule and has a history of similar behavior in regard to placement of images he has uploaded. If you dig through his talk page there are deleted discussions on such matters.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Since I tuned in and reverted at the sydney bridge article these reverts at urban exploration have occured as "revenge" only minutes later:

• 1st edit:
• 2nd edit:

Despite clear consensus for the other image at Talk:Urban_exploration#New_image_that_was_just_added Noodle snacks (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No violation The third revert listed is not by Adam.J.W.C. and I cannot find another that you could have meant instead. CIreland (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse reported by Tennis Expert (Result:)

• Page: Lightmouse is performing massive edits despite an ongoing dispute (warning (1) diff here, warning (2) diff here, Date Linking RFC here, more discussion on the dispute at WT:MOSNUM).
• User: Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Diff of dispute warnings: (1), (2)

• Lightmouse has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the five diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does, however, meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

— WP:EDITWAR

and

Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

— WP:EDITWAR

• Not only is Lightmouse making these disruptive edits, he is using AWB to make clearly controversial edits in violation of the AWB rules of use, which he has also been warned about.

— Tennis expert (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring