Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russavia (talk | contribs) at 20:35, 12 January 2009 (Biophys reported by Russavia (Result: no vio): rsp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:35, 12 January 2009 by Russavia (talk | contribs) (Biophys reported by Russavia (Result: no vio): rsp)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.


    Forsena reported by Angelo De La Paz (Result: 48 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: 7 Jan
    1. RV 1
    2. 8 RV 2
    3. RV 3

    Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, actions evidently indicate a Serb nationalist account.There are enough proofs show this user is against Albanians and Kosovo. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring, not 3RR. Though this complaint was made two days ago, the edit warring is still going on. Forsena systematically changes the terms used to refer to Kosovo by other editors, paying no attention to existing consensus. From one of today's edit summaries, Kosovo is NOT A COUNTRY and it will never be. Stop promoting idiotism in this article! When this user returns from this block, he should take note of his one-week topic ban from Balkan-related articles and Talk pages that was enacted over at WP:AE on 10 January. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective reported by User:Novangelis (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Further signs of non-collaboative behavior: profanity threatening to delete article suggests banning users he disagrees with accuses other editors of lying

    There haven't been any reverts since the warning was issued. I suggest we leave this one open for a bit and see what happens. --B (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Hi, those are lies, see my categorical refutation of all allegations in the talk section at that page, or alternatively I can post it here if you like? Can I 'counter sue' Novalis for his lies? Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

    As to the profanity, that was my son, who is at an age where that kind of thing is funny to him. I apologize on his behalf.Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

    I was told I was welcome to oin the discussion; There doesn't appear to be one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talkcontribs) 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

    Your son shouldn't be using your id. You shouldn't be calling people liars are you are doing here and on the talk page. You clearly broke WP:3RR and are fortunate that no one blocked you. The only allegations I can see are that you broke WP:3RR, that you threatened to wipe out text, that you said users should be banned, and that you called others liars. These are backed up with difs which seem to back them up. I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL and make sure that you don't break WP:3RR again - and note that 3RR is not an entitlement. dougweller (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

    I categorically refuted all those claims and proved he was lying, why do you continue to repeat his baseless, slanderous personal attacks? (I didn't know about the three revert rule btw, I am waiting 24 hours before I make any further alterations) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talkcontribs) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

    Interim result: Magnetic has not edited past his first 3RR warning. However, when invited to comment here, he has left a number of personal attacks on the noticeboard. I've invited him to retract his 'liar' comments. If he does not do so, he may be blocked for personal attacks. I don't have a good feeling about this editor's future on Misplaced Pages, but if he is willing to retract his comments, that would be a good sign. I am thinking of issuing a long block if he does not do so, and I invite comment on that. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Ed. If I proved Novangelis's numerous personal attacks and allegations were unfounded lies, why can't I say he is lying? Please answer this. Thanks. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

    Result: After an extended discussion over at User talk:Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective and after quoting of Misplaced Pages policy, Magnetic could not be persuaded to remove his comments above about 'lying' editors, so he is blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Pedrito reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: 55 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert: - edit summary is "Undid revision 262728176 by ליאור (talk) "
    • 2nd revert: - edit summary is "Undid revision 262737445 by Wehwalt (talk) "
    • 3rd revert: - same as #1. edit summary says "removed".
    • 4th revert: - edist summary labels it a revert.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: user is very aware of 3RR, having filed a report today, and blocked for 3RR previously.

    The edit summaries clearly indicate the editor knew he was reverting every time.

    information Administrator note 55 hours. — Aitias // discussion 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    Note: Pedrito has asked to have his block reviewed. I'm not an admin, but if one is out there, could you please take a look at his request. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 24h)

    The "reverts" relate to the map in the infobox, which this editor is taking offence to, but for which I received positive feedback from other editors.

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • User acknowledges that they know about the rule
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning 6 Jan:
    • Diff of 3RR warning 8 Jan:

    The fourth revert came - sadly - after this exchange between us where it looked like we might make progress on the talk page, but instead he decided to revert a 4th time when he didn't like my response.

    I should have kept a cool head this evening and not reverted myself, but I've been having constant issues with this editor ever since he joined the project a couple of months ago (see Wikiquette alert ). The latest example from this evening: after requesting he provide written sources for a map that he had drawn, I get this reply . As someone who cares a lot about making Misplaced Pages better (I took British Empire to FA status the other week) it pains me to deal with people who think they are above providing sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    Ok let's make something clear before anything happens, User red Hat of Pat Ferrick has been insulting and trashing me since the first day i joined Misplaced Pages, he is always asking me (WHY ME everytime?!) to give him sources as if he wants to make my experience here in wikipedia miserable and i have to say he is succeeding, sometimes he is able to drive me away from articles because i dont like the way he directs at me , he is very disrespectful and rude towards me (but not limited to, many users have said the same)if im allow to say.
    Today he says i reverted 3 times and i did because he wants to put a map that has gained no popularity or acceptance on the Talk page of the Portuguese Empire, what he did was to go to the talk page of the British Empire and asked if his proposed map was "okay" but shouldn't he be disscussing that in the Portuguese Empire talk page? out of 3 times he's asked for acceptance in the Portuguese Empire talk page he has been denied the 3 times, other users want to keep the current map until his map is fixed (i say the same , there are way too many errors on his proposed map), so in short he wants to put a map before asking any of us, i dont think that's fair to us .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    It's not that i don't provide any sources at all, in fact i do most of the time he asks me, but today i told him to go ask somebody else for sources, apparently to him, when he doesn't know something he believes whatever is not sourced is wrong, in normal cases i give him sources but this time im sure he can ask somebody else oh BTW I GAVE HIM SOURCES ABOUT THAT ALREADY, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE CAN'T ACCEPT THEM(!!), only the sources he likes he is able to accept, the source was very accurate but he just can't accept, he says because its too old but i seen him doing the same, using maps from OLD ATLASES! my source was from the 1930s or 1950s but his source for a fact in the British Empire article was from 1897!!! but i dont know why he can't accept MY sources... .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    Ibaranoff24 reported by Prophaniti (Result: no vio)

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


    User:Ibaranoff24 continues to remove sourced material from the mudvayne page. See diffs. I have accepted changing the opening line to a more general term, and expressed willingness to discuss other matters on the talk page. Ibaranoff24 is leaving the published book source, but continues to remove an NME source and a Rolling Stone source, both published music magazines, and citations also from popmatters and Metal-Observer, not ideal sources, but accepted review sites due to meeting the criteria of having an editorial and writing staff, and as such acceptable in support of other sources. I apologise if this is not the correct place to put a complaint about reverts removing sourced material, and if so would appreciate a link to where it would be appropriate. Prophaniti (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    This is a content dispute and needs to be handled through some type of dispute resolution. This is the correct place to report edit warring, but this user has not violated 3RR. You need 4 reverts within a 24 hour period to violate 3RR, only two of these reverts are within 24 hours. There is no violation here. Landon1980 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    No vio. Try (all together now...) WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    The user has not violated the rule, but as the rule states, that isn't the only way to edit war. Top of this very page: "Remember, 3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring." Ultimately, he's simply removed sourced material repeatedly. I'm bringing it here because I've no doubt if I revert again I'll be the one getting done for edit warring. So if nothing is being done here, I want one of two things: a guarantee from an admin that if I continue simply to restore these sources I won't end up getting blocked for warring, OR a pointer to where precisely I should take this, as the user in question will not listen to me on the talk page, so what else can I do about this removal of sourced material? According to wiki rules it isn't vandalism, so please tell me precisely where to take this. Prophaniti (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    This usually means that you have to build your case a little more. Try a few more times to discuss the matter and if the reversals and the refusal to discuss persist you can reopen the case. Dr.K. (logos) 11:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks Dr. K. I'll continue on the talk page and try to end it, if Ibaranoff persists I'll bring it back here. Prophaniti (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    It was my pleasure Prophaniti. I've been in a few situations like this one myself. It just takes a bit of patience. Take care. Dr.K. logos 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, and I just noticed Landon helping restore the material. Thanks Landon, much appreciated. Prophaniti (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Honest Green reported by Chasingsol (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Also using:

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

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

    Repeatedly re-adding unsourced and biased content. --Chasingsol 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    2009-01-09T11:58:45 EyeSerene (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Honest Green (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule on) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:78.30.163.113 reported by User:Mayalld (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    Smatprt 3RR violation (indef)

    Could you possible help out on Shakespeare authorship article. Smatprt is agenda pushing his Oxfordian theology into the article and is now guilty of 3RR violation. Thanks very much for your time. JohnsonTrewA (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    Indef William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    To clarify, JohnsonTrewA was indef blocked, not Smatprt. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Home352 reported by Voltorb (Result: Indef blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    These user(s) have been repeatedly vandalising the Asterisk page. I know for a fact that these user(s) are part of a group of trolls from another site that emphasize "proper" use of asterisks. I noticed they moved to Misplaced Pages and started reverting it. After my third revert, I warned him of the three-revert rule. He then started reverting it from an IP. I reverted it again, but remembered the three revert rule and quickly changed it back.

    I am not sure if he can be punished due to no specific IP/account reverting more than three times, but they are clearly the same person. -VoItorb (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    Account indeffed, article s-protected. Blocking dynamic IPs isn't necessarily a fruitful endeavor, but if he/she trolls elsewhere, please let me know. --B (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. One question, if I accidentally violate the 3RR without realizing it, should I revert it back as I did in this situation? -VoItorb (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    In general yes, but in this case, when the edit is unquestionably vandalism/trolling, there is no need to. On an unrelated subject, it looks like your user name has been changed. Please log in using your new user name - it makes it incredibly confusing when you use the old one and they are so similar. --B (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'm on a computer that had "VoItorb" (with an i) still in the "Log in" screen. And I didn't know if it would be classified as blatant vandalism. -Voltorb (talk here) 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    Well, that's true - other admins might look at it differently, so I can only speak for myself - I wouldn't have blocked you if you had reverted it 50 times - it was obvious enough to me that it was trolling/vandalism. --B (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:ElSaxo reported by User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: 12h each)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    An old dispute dating back to late November. I requested a dispute resolution via WP:3O . The user later wrote that he didn't actually care all that much about the template and agreed to leave the then-current revision as it was. Then he changed his mind.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    You both have 4R. Neither of you have made any attempt to discuss this on the talk page. 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

    user:Gimmetrow reported by user:NancyHeise (Result: No Vio)

    Since early November, I have had a long running discussion with over 17 editors about note 1 of the article Roman Catholic Church. user:Gimmetrow, an admin, has perisitently opposed the consensus version of this note. A very nice Wikipediean, user:Richard has been trying to work out a compromise and has agreed, along with myself and other users to a form of the note that explains things more clearly and to the use of an author named Patrick Madrid as one of the POV's to include. Gimmetrow has eliminated my insertion of this agreed upon WP:RS book three times.

    • Version previous to reverts
    • 1st revert ,
    • 2nd revert ,
    • 3rd revert
    • Diff to warning

    He has done this without even coming to the talk page to explain or argue his point and does not seem to care that we, on the talk page, have discussed this. I am only making changes that were suggested in the compromise. . Those opposing the consensus version are Gimmetrow and two new accounts with very little activity except the RCC talk page. and I suspect they are sockpuppets of someone, no I don't suspect Gimmetrow but honestly I don't know now. NancyHeise 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    update: he has come to the talk page after I posted this. However his tone is not conducive to working toward a compromise which he seems adamant against considering his persistent opposition to consensus including this present set of reverts. NancyHeise 05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    No violation The above list only shows three reverts. Four reverts are needed to break the WP:3RR rule. It seems possible that you could ask for advice at WP:RSN as to whether the Madrid source is reliable. The other side has been claiming that the Madrid source is not academic and is not an official church document. From a quick look, it is not obvious to me that the Talk page has reached a clear verdict on this matter. You might be able to find ways of bringing in outside opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    I will echo the above, might I recommend WP:DISPUTE and WP:30? Tiptoety 06:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you I contacted WP:RSN. The opposing side has listed the matter at RFC twice already and the article was at FAC which is why we had so many editors chiming in on the matter with consensus in agreement over the use of sources and text that Gimmetrow disputes. He is abusing his power and not respecting either consensus or WP:RS. NancyHeise 07:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Dodo_bird reported by User: Bob98133(Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is the second time in the past few weeks that this editor has reverted and changed text 3 or more times without explanation in the edit summaries while ignoring requests to discuss. Editor previously redirected his talk page to avoid being able to send him a message. He deletes any talk on his talk page almost immediately. Bob98133 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:ElSaxo reported by User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: 24/31h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Same as this. Apparently, the 12-hour block wasn't of much use for either side, the reverting spree restarted as soon as it expired, albeit this time I did try to discuss the question, but, alas, without success.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    So, you've both gone back to edit warring straight off your blocks, so you're both blocked again, but for longer this time. You've made a token effort to talk (though I detected no real signs of any compromise) so you get a very slightly shorter block in recognition William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Special:Contributions/91.130.91.84 reported by User:THF


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Will not discuss civilly or respond to evidence that his idiosyncratic edits are improper. Appears to be POV-pushing a separatist agenda. Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#.22Indian.22
    • Has started edit-warring at Adi Shankara, , without explaining deletions.


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Discrimination against atheists (result: no vio)

    Ok, we really need to discuss what the correct attitude concerning this controversy is. I would agree that there are some issues with the article, but those aren't wrote than similar ones at several other articles from the Template:Religious persecution. Other editors were bold enough to remove several sections of the article because they didn't show sufficiently that what was discussed in that section was actually discriminating. Well, I though, if they are so bold to do this, then I may be so bold to simply move the whole thing to 'Situation of atheists. I was reverted instantly, and asked to discuss controversial edits first. Well, other editors didn't do that when they removed the sections, so why should it? It didn't even get the time to justify the move on the talk page, and actually, I had suggested it before... Zara1709 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    This appears to be a pointy nomination, which this board is clearly not designed to deal with. Discussion on the article talk page should be attempted first, which the nominator has stated they haven't tried. Verbal chat 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    It wasn't me who started to make controversial edits without justification. Since this simply happens again and again, I don't see a reason any more to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Find someone else to clean up your junk. Zara1709 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    I think you have to at least pretend there is edit warring, and maybe trouble yyourself to present a diff or two, if you want anyone to take a report seriously. This is not WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'm an involved editor, but I will point out that there is a huge amount of discussion on the talk page (it takes up most of the talk page) about OR and synthesis which led up to the removal of what was seen to be OR. The discussion was the 'justification' that Zara1709 doesn't seem to think took place. dougweller (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Orangemarlin reported by HighKing (Result: Withdrawn by nominator )


    I am an uninvolved editor that came across this editor at a recent WQA. This editor has breached 3RR multiple times on this article, and an attempt to discuss this on the users Talk page was met with an accusation of being a sock (edit summary) , etc.

    • 6:40 7th
    • 16:33 7th
    • 18:29 7th
    • 18:36 7th
    • 19:05 7th
    • 01:38 8th
    • 04:05 8th
    • 16:37 8th
    • 21:55 8th


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    I count only 3 reverts in those diffs, which span a period of over 24 hours, and no edits were made after the very rude warning which involved personal attacks. I suggest the nominator be warned for civility and not to abuse the 3RRN. Verbal chat 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    You are correct about the diffs spanning more than 24 hours - this was to show the amount of reverting that this editor has done on this article, but if you count them up, you will see that the first 7 reverts are within 24 hours. All of these diffs are reverts (please read the definition of what constitutes a revert). Finally, please substantiate your accusation of "very rude warning which involved personal attacks" or withdraw the remark which in itself is a breach of WP:CIVIL. I have included the diff above for the warning, I leave it for other editors to draw their own conclusions on behaviour standards here. --HighKing (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    I guess once was accused of being a homophobe, I should expect this type of attack. What the editor fails to notice is that the vandalizing editor attempted to put in material against consensus, put in "joke" edits, and couldn't spell. Moreover, another admin blocked the editor for several violations of whatever. This is laughable. Completely laughable. Reverting a vandal is completely acceptable. OrangeMarlin 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Withdrawn - it appears that this case was already reported and the decision was not to block Orangemarlin here. Apologies to Orangemarlin, although it would have been simpler all round if he had merely pointed this out. --HighKing (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    I don't have time for this crap. I expect an editor to do his own due-diligence before making these types of accusations. I do apologize for calling you a sock, since you obviously are not after my own due diligence. However, I was harassed by two meatpuppets on the same topic. It was suspicious go through this again. OrangeMarlin 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Arthur_Kemp reported by Verbal (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    1. 09:32, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    2. 16:18, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    3. 16:31, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    4. 16:49, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    5. 16:52, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Diff of 3RR warning: here

    Note: Several more reverts have been made while preparing this report. There are also obvious WP:COI issues. Verbal chat 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    All I have asked for is a chance to add a refutation to a pack of lies put up about me. This is only fair, is it not?

    I see that you yourself have now agreed to allow me to refute the allegations. So why, if I may ask, if you have now agreed to put it in, did you object so strongly to me putting them in the first time around? Anyway, as long as it stays like that, I am satisfied. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    This users disruptive editwarring is ongoing, on a page he should not be editing anyway. He is far beyond the 4R allowed in just a few hours, after many warnings and commenting above. Verbal chat 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    31 hours. — Aitias // discussion 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Cerejota reported by Brewcrewer (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I don't like ratting other editors out to noticeboards. However, I really don't know what to do. I would not do this if not the fact that the templates are nonsense and disruptive. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the quick unblock. Brewcrewer is misrepresenting his behavior and actions. I am and endless river of good faith. But lesson learned: AGF goes only so far.--Cerejota (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Baxter9 reported by bogdan (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Csangos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Baxter9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 20:43, 10 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv "some webpage" LOL! Check it: it is the website of the Organization for the European Minorities.")
    2. 20:56, 10 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv. please dont remove reliable referenced material")
    3. 21:42, 10 January 2009 (edit summary: "added other sources (Registered foundations)")
    4. 22:09, 10 January 2009 (edit summary: "Please add your reasons before you remove referenced material from tha article.")
    5. 22:51, 10 January 2009 (edit summary: "LOL! Sure "not insufficiently" 2 reliable sources were removed by the user")
    6. 22:58, 10 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv vandalism. Sources are reliable.")
    24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Croctotheface reported by LarRan (Result: Not blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Hi folks.

    You're not going to believe what this user does. I've been doing a lot of work on disambiguation, redirection and date unlinking, whenever I've come across it. Well, this user writes to me, and asks me to stop, referring to WP:R2D. So I read it, and find that, well, ok, there might be a point - if correcting a (one) redirect were the only thing I was doing. Most of the time I make dozens of changes, as I take the trouble of fixing every flaw I find while I'm on the page (typos, camel-case, inconsistent date formats, etc).

    Ok, only correcting redirects might not be very helpful. But then what does he do? He reverts my "unneccessary" change, re-inserting redirects instead if direct links, re-links dates, "re-ambiguates" links, or whatever changes I've made! (Told you you wouldn't believe it, didn't I?)

    If my changes were unnecessary, then what are his? I can't even begin to describe how stupid I think that is: going back to what both he and I agree on is a worse version than that which I created. He's motives for doing this is that he wants to discourage me from continuing to do my work. In addition to violating the 3RR rule (in fact he has reverted me four times), I think WP:POINT and WP:DBF come into play.

    He's at least acting in good faith, I can give him that.

    LarRan (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Comment: There is quite a bit of discussion taking place, mostly at Talk:New York Islanders#WP:R2D but Croctotheface is continuing to revert even though the most relevant discussion seems to be leaning against his view. It is accepted that the articles on the hockey players will use the version of their name *with* diacritics. Introducing a piped link to each player's name, though it doesn't appear logical to me personally, seems to be the version that the WP:HOCKEY editors are in favor of. Some of those joining in the discussion have pointed out that this compromise was originally adopted within WP:HOCKEY to put a stop to *revert wars*. So here we have Croctotheface engaging in a revert war. Something isn't right. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm generally loathe to comment on things like this, as the record should speak for itself, but much in the above comment is just false. I did not "continue to revert even though the most relevant discussion seemed to be going against my view." My last edit to the main article occurred BEFORE I posted on the talk page, and all talk page discussion occurred after that comment. I see no evidence that the other editors are in favor of introducing piped links, just that they don't see the point in reverting them. Djsasso and RGTraynor take that position. GoodDay agrees with me that we should use redirects. Croctotheface (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Also, to further explain the record, when Djsasso wrote, "And that is not an ok situation as needless edit warring between versions is what our compromise was trying to stop. While this isn't an edit war between diacritics and not diacritics, its still an edit war. Ironically over the same links but for a different reason." That comment does not refer to a "compromise" regarding using piped links. The compromise is about using diacritics for player names in certain articles and not using them in others. The past edit warring he refers to was over whether to display or not to display the diacritics. This edit war is over R2D, nothing more. Croctotheface (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    And since I'm here already, I may as well point out that of the four linked reversions above, two occurred four days ago. Additionally, LaRan reverted each of the reversions he linked above, as the page history shows. Croctotheface (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    This page isn't dispute resolution, but if I may attempt to resolve the dispute, LaRan is seeking to link to ], which is unquestionably wrong under R2D. If that's the direction that WP:HOCKEY is going, then WP:HOCKEY is wrong. This only causes maintenance annoyances down the line. For example, suppose that some time down the line, it is discovered that the wrong a is being used and it should be a different a. If you directly link to the correct title, then links that need to be updated can easily be found with whatlinkshere. But if you pipe the link, then it's much more difficult to find the link. I would think using the guy's actual name with no piping - ] would be correct, but whether you use the Americanized spelling or the correct spelling, piping it is a bad idea. In any event, there's no threat of disruption here and blocking would be purely punitive, so not blocked. --B (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    67.169.4.255 reported by Čeha (Result: 24 hours)

    User 67.169.4.255 broke 3 revert rule on this page --Čeha (razgovor) 01:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    TO ADMIN: I invite you to please visit Republika Srpska page history to see who started reverting things. While undoing my edit, and then complaining about me the user Ceha is a constant provocator on the RS page, doing nothing but decunstructive harm. While he complains about 3RR he had the decency to remove additional links which I have added to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.4.255 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    We need some professional help on this page. People like user Direktor have in their profile a wikibox that openly says that they DO NOT SUPPORT HE RIGHT OF R.S. TO EXIST... so they are preemptively biased against the page that they are edited. We need serious help and need to stop this propaganda and nationalism that these people are trying to add here. (LAz17 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
    Yes we need help. User 67.169.4.255 broke 3RR and User Laz17 is guilty of incivility. User Laz17 was also warn for serbian bias. If both users have something constructive to say about the map or improve it in any way, they are welcomed. Hower they do need (as everbody else) to stick to wikipedia rules. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    I already told you of your biggest fraud on the map, and it was so big that you changed it at once - it was not like your bosnia map where you never changed anything until and insisted it was okay until it got deleted. You cite the ICTY as the map data source... shit son, then why do you misname every detention camp center as concentration camp? You did not even look at what the ICTY had to say, you designed the map on purpose to spread your nationalistic agenda. Your agenda has been seen nonstop, regarding your maps. We are in the process of cleaning out your 1991 ethnic maps because they are fraudulent. The point is that you are of anti-serbian biase. I am not of any biase that you accuse me of. I may react bad to bad things, but you are the one that is causing it. (LAz17 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
    No. You are responsible for uncivic behavior and user 67.169.4.255 for break of 3RR. Do I need to qoute the warnings where you were warned or your own words?
    As for detention/concentration map issue, have you read map log? Let me repeat it for you; Human rights watch declered them as concentration ones, for example | . Moreover this is changed. Map is correct.
    For we issue, I did not know that you are a plurality. Sorry your higness. Every document which I made is sorced. If anybody can show me that I'm wrong or that I'm using wrong data I'll correct it. That's called cooperation. Nationalistic yelling and your behavior is not cooperative. If you read anything of wikipedia's policies you would know that. --Čeha (razgovor) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Ridiculous. Ceha who is obviosuly biased toward RS has decency to say that we are biased toward RS (since we are serbs), and yet he's the one who goes tarnishing RS page everyday. It seems that imrpoving things calls for 3RR while obviosuly being biased against is great. If you feel like you should post any RS criticism do it under Fed. Yell and complain all you want over there.67.169.4.255 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    LAZ is there a way to talk to mods and maybe lock the site until provocators disperse.67.169.4.255 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. It is not up to admins to decide whether the contested map belongs in the article or not. It would be good if the editors who favor including the map would spell out on the article Talk page exactly where the data came from. (The map image file itself has no link to a source; it just says 'ICTY'.). EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Added some internet links and sources on . Going to update (spread) list of detention camps when I get the time... --Čeha (razgovor) 06:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:JAF1970 and User:Bomberdude'02 reported by Elbutler (Result: watched)

    The two have started an edit war about, out of the most silliest of things, Jonah Falcon's penis size. JAF1970, claims to be Jonah Falcon and thus keeps reverting the edits. Which Bomberdude'02 counteract's with "you don't want to degrade yourself". Please break this up before the page is fully protected. Elbutler (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:J.delanoy seems to be dealing with this William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Eminencefront aka 72.134.63.246 reported by Law (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    The registered user and the IP are indeed the same user, as the registered user uses their IP talk page for discussion. User has been warned (has warned me, apparently), and will not use the discussion page of the article. Thanks. shoot! 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Please note that Eminence Front is now at 4RR tonight, even without the IP. I've left him a comment below as well.

    User:Law reported by Eminencefront (Result: EF blocked 24 hrs)



    I am linking an adult fan site for Max, being an adult site it requires a logging for Google (email address for age verification) user Law is removing said site saying it does not have anything "bettering" the article, he points to a rule about avoiding lo in pages, this rule is clearly intended for news paper and such article amendments, not for fan sites that are specific to the article as noted in:

    What should be linked Misplaced Pages articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.--Eminencefront (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    EF, I've also reverted you, fan sites don't belong as per WP:EL. I agree with Law that this site falls under that category. In any case, it's not worth edit warring over. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Please note that EF has now reverted my opinion without discussion, and is at 4RR today. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Amadscientist reported by User:DionysosProteus (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This theatre was recently involved in a controversy, the details of which constitute about a quarter of the article's total length. Editor persistently removes all reference to those events from the lead, apparently in a desire to protect the theatre's reputation. I understand the wikipedia guidelines on leads to say that they should summarise the important elements of the article; as a section constituting such a large proportion, it is clearly important enough to summarise. My own non-investment in the theatre's reputation--good or ill--is detailed on the talk (I live on another continent for a start). DionysosProteus (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    information Administrator note Indeed a violation (there were four reverts), but I feel that page protection is a better course here. Open to a second opinion. Okiefromokla 05:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why. AMS clearly violated 3RR, the others didn't. Blocking AMS rather than protection seems more natural. Furthermore AMS has been distinctly incivil (Consensus is required. Don't waste my time or my effort and don't be an ass) and appears to be appealling to a non-existence consensus William M. Connolley (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see the fourth revert sir. The rule is three reverts in a 24 hour period. Dionysis was very biligerent and uncivil as well. There was no consensus for the addition of the text and he was just as wrong for not waiting for a consensus to be formed. ANd no one thinks his calling me a vandal over reverts wasn't incivil? This doesn not make sense to me at all and I request someone please point out the four reverts.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    William, you are correct, a block would have been a better choice here than protection. Not sure what I was seeing late last night, but Amadscientist's behavior was more questionable than I realized. However, given my initial actions here, and the fact that Amadscientist has at least attempted to work things out with Dionysis by means of a comment on his talk page since the page protection, I've left a note asking Amadscientist to make some promises if this block is to be waived. If other administrators agree, that would be my suggestion. (Note: here is the fourth revert: .) Okiefromokla 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    This must be a matter of my not understanding dates as the 4th revert you just linked is from the 9th not the 11th. I will admit I seem not to understand any of this. I request simply inblocking the page and blocking me. I may not understand any of this, but i would rather the page be open and I be blocked.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours My offer was declined by Amadscientist, and the 3RR violation stands. 24 hour block is appropriate. Okiefromokla 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Comment. Since Amad said he did not understand the complaint (above), here are the four reverts that I noticed (all times UTC):
    03:03, January 11, 2009 'Undid..'
    02:23, January 11, 2009 'Undid..'
    00:40, January 11, 2009 'Reverting..'
    20:01, January 10, 2009 'Undid..'
    Since the four reverts are within a 24-hour period, they do break WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Reidlos reported by User:LauraAndrade88 (Result: 24h)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Posturewriter reported by WhatamIdoing (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: Note that this involves partial reversions, plus additional comments: the edit war is over his determination to restore a subsection head that attacks me.


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    I frankly didn't think that Misplaced Pages's rules said that editors had to wait for repeated personal attacks to rise to the level of 3RR, but that seemed to be the drift of the (non-admin) comments at ANI. I've removed this particular one from my user talk page four times in less than 24 hours. Attacking me is the only thing this editor has done during this time. I would like someone to block this user before we make it a fifth, sixth, or seventh time. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:81.23.54.165 reported by User:Ynhockey (result: 24h)

    -- Ynhockey 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Duncan John Murray reported by JGXenite (Result: protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    The page has now been protected, so I haven't had chance to 3RR warn this user. However, here are my two warnings about adding unsourced information:

    This user has been warned before (back in December) about the addition of unsourced information to other pages. Despite this, they have ignored all warnings and refuse to discuss their edits. ~~ 09:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    2009-01-11T23:12:24 Spartaz (Talk | contribs | block) m (45,519 bytes) (Protected Duffy (singer): Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)) (expires 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)))) (rollback | undo), which is fortunate for you, otherwise you'd be blocked. The page has now been protected, so I haven't had chance to 3RR warn this user - you do realise this is twaddle, don't you? If you don't, I'll be happy to explain William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    I am quite confused by your reply. Not sure whether you are responding to me or to Duncan John Murray... (except for the 3RR warning bit, which is obviously aimed at me). ~~ 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm talking to you, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Oh. I don't quite understand why I would have been blocked? I was reverting the addition of badly sourced material. ~~ 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Biophys reported by Russavia (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    This is a somewhat volatile article, with its scope under much contention, and what material should and shouldn't be included. There are quite a few editors, as evidenced by the talk page, who believe that Biophys is assuming ownership of the article and linking other alleged or real internet teams or whatever to give this conspiracy theory more credence. It would appear that Biophys is intent on having only his version of the article without addressing concerns that other editors have. --Russavia 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    • My edits after the revert by Martintg (3rd diff by Russavia) do not represent a revert/edit warring. To the contrary, I removed materials , suggested to be irrelevant by Russavia . These removed materials were previously inserted by me, not by other users, as one can see from edit history. I would be happy to self-revert, but my new version has been already reverted by other users. There is a discussion at this article talk page. If recommended, I can stop editing this article for a couple of days. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Please also note this: .Biophys (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
        • The fact that other editors have also reverted your changes demonstrates that there is much contention as to materials in the article, and the article history demonstrates that you are asserting ownership of the article. And yes, I put a message on both Ellol and Offliner talk page, as they have both been involved in discussions on the talk page, and it was a notice advising them of the re-inclusion of your preferred text. And I would also ask that admins look at this, in which Biophys continues with his insinuations that others (this time me) are members of Russian government propaganda teams. This is in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned (of which Biophys is aware); accusing people of being Russian government propaganda agents create battleground conditions. --Russavia

    18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

        • Just one other thing, one will notice that none of the two editors who I contacted have done any reverting, they have instead gone to the talk page, as I suggested, and are continuing discussion there. --Russavia 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Why is the first revert a revert to the version-reverted-to. It doesn't look like it to me William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Please explain --Russavia 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    No, shan't, you explain William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Explain what William? Read the talk page of the article concerned to see that there is absolutely no consensus for the re-insertion of information by Biophys. He knows its contentious, and yet he does it anyway?! --Russavia 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This 3RR report is malformed as there was no 3RR warning given and hence no warning diff supplied. Note that Russavia has been blocked for two weeks for harassing Biophys in the past. This report appears to be following a similar pattern. Martintg (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Without prejudice to the result, you are wrong: B has been blocked for 3RR before and needs no warning William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Martintg, that is so far in the past it is not funny. If you wanna bring that up, then perhaps your stalking of myself needs to be brought up also, yes? It could also be said that your revert of myself has been done as a team situation, using the "there is no consensus" reason, when if you would have cared to look at the talk page, there is a heap of objections to the revisions which Biophys has done in the past on this particular article. --Russavia 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    No vio: don't see why first-revert is a revert, nor the third William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Then can one explain how all of the editors who have never expressed an opinion on the article talk page before, are now rushing in to revert and re-include information into the article. Wait for it, the Arbcom is now a WP:RS....yes, you got it, the Arbcom is now a RS for WP purposes. Check if for yourselves, and one can clearly see there is a shitload of disruptive editing on this article. --Russavia 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Additionlly William, the third is a revert. I was BLOCKED for 48 hours, remember, and the basis of some of that is that I actually did legitimate copyediting. I asked, and never got the decency of a response, as to why there is one rule for one, and another rule for others (on that occasion Biophys also was clearly guilty of breaching 3RR, but got off). I don't expect much of a response now either, mind you. --Russavia 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    ADKTE reported by Caspian blue (Result: no vio)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 2009-01-10T22:39:12
    • Although the editor in question registered his account on January 10th 2009, s/he knows rules quite well, and even guided me how properly to file AFD. Aside from the matter, s/he has never tried to gain a consensus on his removal of massive contents, but just insists that her/his edits without discussion or consensus is "improving" the article, and anyone who objects to her/his edits are vandalism". The fact that the closing admin of the AFD on History of Joseon Dynasty which ADKTE created to sit the article of Joseon Dynasty, suggested us to discuss for merging as closing AfD, does not mean that s/he get a permission to revert more than 3 times in a period of 24 hours and disregards "consensus". When I spot ADKTE's massive removals and 3RR violation, I did not report her/him here from good faith. Moreover, when he violated 3RR again right after the AFD's closing, I also did not reported ADKTE in hope that s/he comes to discuss the thing, but ADKTE just kept reverting the article. In spite of the fact that more than two editors are against his removal and relocation, he reverted today just a few minute after his last revert. This practice constitutes gaming the system. Therefore his repeated 3RR violations should not be condoned further.--Caspian blue 18:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    No vio. This isn't 3RR. You need to talk coherently on the talk page and drop the accusations of newbie-hood and sockpuppetry. OTOH, A should stop relying on "the result was keep". The result was "make redirect" which means keeping the content on the JD page. Explain this carefully and politely on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    I do not understand as to why the more than 3 reverts by him within 24 hours are not 3RR violation. As for civility, he first accused me of doing "vandalism" as me restoring his deleted contents without a consensus. He even quoted various policies on his first day, so in my experience, I can not think that this user in question is okay to just skip the rule with the excuse of him being a newbie. Besides, I've explained to him many times (which were all deleted from his talk page) that the article should remain as it was until he gets a consensus. Since my attempts to continue a discussion have failed, perhaps you can instruct him? --Caspian blue 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Categories: