Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:24, 8 December 2008 view sourceProtonk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,727 edits →User:TheSickBehemoth reported by User:Fair Deal (Result:)← Previous edit Revision as of 04:32, 8 December 2008 view source Brendan19 (talk | contribs)670 edits →User:Collect reported by Brendan19 (talk) (Result: no vio): corrected collects dateNext edit →
Line 706: Line 706:
:::6:10 7 Dec :::6:10 7 Dec
:::3:59 7 Dec :::3:59 7 Dec
:::22:20 6 Dec :::22:20 6 Dec (actually 05 december 2008- ''brendan'')


:::] :::]
Line 743: Line 743:


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! ] (]) 02:03, 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! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


==] reported by ] (Result:72 hours)== ==] reported by ] (Result:72 hours)==

Revision as of 04:32, 8 December 2008


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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Reports

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


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

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 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
    Lets try with a current date... it is still here. —— nixeagle 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    Lima reported by LoveMonkey (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 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. —— nixeagle 20:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    No violation --B (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    Viven reported by Roadahead (Result: protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    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,--RoadAhead 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    2008-12-03T21:50:13 Ioeth (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Sikh extremism: Full protection: dispute. (using Twinkle) ( (expires 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)) (expires 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Expand to see full text of report
     


    • 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", Misplaced Pages has a code of conduct: please review it. You are also preventing other opinions and concensus from being heard.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 
    "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, Misplaced Pages.

    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 )

    • 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 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 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 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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



    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • After I spot edit wars at Koreans, a newly added information by a newbie named Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk · contribs) 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 Lazylaces (talk · contribs) 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 Misplaced Pages rules, I don't believe this user is not a newbie to disrupt Misplaced Pages. --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)

    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. ] (]) 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

    Page protected 1 week by User:Jossi. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Just a note that tiptoety blocked Grant.Alpaugh for 24 hours. —— nixeagle 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)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety 17:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Edited this article 14 times and still keeps going, including: HairyPerry 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)

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

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

    123.211.81.249 reported by Andrew c (Result: 24h)

    • 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  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)


    • 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. —Politizer /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. —Politizer /contribs: 10:01, 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, —Politizer /contribs 14:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    74.4.222.208 reported by Ilkali (Result: 24hours )

    • 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 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Til Eulenspiegel reported by Student7 (result: no vio)


    • 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)

    Che Guevara (photo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Redthoreau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    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".   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


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


    • 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.   Redthoreau (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 Misplaced Pages 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.   Redthoreau (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.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week 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)


    • 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:

    1. 22:07 Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) adds an inappropriately sourced statement: it's sourced to a self-published blog by the article subject
    2. 22:28 Reverted by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) as per WP:SELFQUEST, Misplaced Pages:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source
    3. 23:15 One hour later, massive restructuring by Mosedschurte (talk · contribs), deleting 5+ KB of sources and content
    4. 23:25 Reverted by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) 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:

    5. 23:29 Reverted by Mosedschurte (talk · contribs)
    6. 1:16 A VA IP reverts to the version before the restructuring and deletions, restoring 5 KB of sourced content
    7. 1:17 Cirt (talk · contribs) leaves a warning not to edit-war on User talk:Jayen466, who has not edited the article in two hours
    8. 1:18 Reverted by Mosedschurte (talk · contribs), reducing article size from 34,305 bytes to 28,744 bytes, with edit summary "anomymous IP deleted huge sourced parts of article"
    9. 1:20 Same IP reverts again
    10. 1:23 Cirt (talk · contribs) leaves a warning not to edit-war on User talk:98.149.75.138
    11. 1:23 Cirt (talk · contribs) actively joins the edit war
    12. 1:31 Same IP reverts again
    13. 1:34 Reverted once more by Cirt (talk · contribs)
    14. 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. Jayen466 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Users notified: Jayen466 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. ;-) Jayen466 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Troubling edits by Jayen466 in a BLP article

    Mr. Rick Ross has complained in multiple forums about troubling edits by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) 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 Mosedschurte (talk · contribs). And I thanked Mosedschurte for helping to cleanup the article from Undue Weight in a WP:BLP article. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

    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, Jayen466 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 Misplaced Pages to denigrate a living person and insert undue weight into an article about a WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment

    I noticed these edits by 98.149.75.138 (talk · contribs): , , . 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)

    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 William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) for this evaluation. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    NickLenz19 (talk · contribs)

    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 it now. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Hm.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    Truthfulness acts reported by Shannon Rose (Result: )


    • 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 20:21, 5 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).

    Igorwindsor reported by Bosonic dressing (Result: 24h)

    • 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)

    • 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)


    • 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)


    • 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)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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


    • 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 Misplaced Pages 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:Collect reported by Brendan19 (talk) (Result: no vio)

    Joe the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    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:

    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)

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

    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 , , , .

    Black Kite reported by 2008Olympian (Result: )


    • 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.--2008Olympian 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?--2008Olympian 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)
    Categories: