This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 5 January 2009 (→Kalajan reported by D.M.N. (Result: ): warned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Reports

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

User:Timeshifter reported by User:Ronz (Result: stale)

• Page: The Thunder, Perfect Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Timeshifter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Slow edit-war over what was originally a spammed link, added 11:47, 16 December 2008 by Aestheteka
• Previous version reverted to: 19:38, 18 December 2008

• 1st revert: 06:01, 29 December 2008
• 2nd revert: 06:23, 29 December 2008 At this point, two editors had removed the link. His edit summary is, "I read the linked article. It is thoughtful, and concerns Thunder, Perfect Mind. It is a relevant external link. If you remove this again, I may report you to WP:ANI)"
• At this point, the three editors begin discussing the matter on the article talk page.
• 3rd revert: 21:35, 31 December 2008 With the other two editors arguing against the link on the talk page, he reverts it again with the edit summary, "Revert personal vendetta against another user. See talk" This is what caught my attention in my watchlist, so I stepped in to try to deescalate the situation.

• In response to my effort to deescalate the incivil edit-warring , Timeshifter has assumed bad faith on my part and threatens to continue edit warring writing, "I will return the link in a few days when you two have cooled off."

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:37, 31 December 2008

Ronz (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is some history between us. Please see this diff: . I have not done 3RR, and have no intention of doing so. Please see also the discussion in context: Talk:The Thunder, Perfect Mind#Aestheteka. I have this problem once a year it seems with Ronz. See WP:Wikihounding. He acts alone, or sometimes tag teams with another spam-fighter, concerning some external link that he notices has been spammed by some newbie with a WP:COI. I then add the link myself and Ronz or another spam fighter gets mixed up about Misplaced Pages guidelines, and thinks I am spamming the link too. Neither of the spam fighters have usually done any editing of the article in question previously. So they mostly ignore or badmouth the merits of the link, or wikilawyer about guidelines until they wear out the regular editors of an article. Since they don't really care about the content of the article I can usually come back days, weeks, or months later, and add the link if it is a good external link. Some external links are bad, and I don't add them. If they continue to give me a hard time I don't add the link. Even if it is a good link. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that Timeshifter holds grudges, and uses them as excuses for his misbehavior. Looking at his talk page history, I see that my last discussion with him there was over a year and half ago, over his edit warring 21:31, 18 June 2007 . --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Aitias // discussion 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking out my decision above per this. I don't see edit warring here, but another admin opinion would be appreciated. — Aitias // discussion 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added comments to the second and third diff listed above, and indicated when the talk page discussion began and when I joined the dispute. Apologies for any confusion it may cause. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronz left multiple messages on my talk page today. I kept removing them, but he kept adding more. See my talk page history: . On an article talk page a long time ago I asked him to stop wikihounding me. I can hunt up the diff if necessary. I had to repeat the request today on his talk page. See the diff I left in my previous comment here: . The "personal vendetta" I mentioned in the edit summary and on the article talk page concerned the seeming grudge against the newbie that originally added the link in conflict with WP:COI. As I said earlier I am not wedded to the link, "even if it is a good link", and I have not committed 3RR. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the definition at the top of this page, "Edit warring features a confrontational attitude." I got involved in this because of the accusations of a "personal vendetta" in an edit summary (noted above with the 3rd diff). I believe these edit summaries and the comments he's made on the article talk page demonstrate quite clearly a confrontational attitude that is at odds with WP:CON, WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering. Here is the diff from October 2007 that I said I could hunt up: In that article talk page comment I asked you to stop wikistalking me. Wikihounding is now the correct term. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You assume bad faith of me over a year ago, and that justifies your bad faith today?

Let's get this straight. I hadn't made a comment on Timeshifter's talk page in over a year and a half, and have interacted with him little if at all, as far as either of us can tell, in well over a year. But because of this, Timeshifter feels justified in responding to my attempt to deescalate his misbehavior with personal attacks and threats to edit-war further. Note that I only commented on Timeshifter's talk page AFTER he made these comments. Yes, there does appear to be some personal vendetta's here, all held by Timeshifter to justify his continued problematic behavior. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not deescalate anything. As in the past you threw around a lot of misinterpreted guidelines. This time you piled on multiple messages in a row on my talk page. But getting back to this noticeboard, I am not edit warring. I am not wedded to the link. You jumped into the talk page saying that the link was a spam link AFTER I pointed out that I had added the link, and therefore it was no longer a spam link. See this diff of your first comment: . it shows that you were piling on without understanding or acknowledging my point. How is that deescalation? There is no edit warring. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The immediate context for this noticeboard incident can be found at The Thunder, Perfect Mind. Timeshifter added an EL which myself and another editor consider spam, and the situation then escalated. Ronz then entered the fray, and Timeshifter seems quite defiant and obstinately unwilling to acknowledge that consensus mightn't go his way. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You again insulted my by saying that I am adding spam. You might say that an article is not worthy of being added as a link to a Misplaced Pages article. But an article is not spam. The act of adding an article by someone with a WP:COI is spamming. Then the article is spam. But since I am not spamming, therefore when I add the article the article is not spam. This is the fundamental problem here.

New info: Talk:The Thunder, Perfect Mind#Edward O'Toole. The 3 spam fighters are indirectly insulting a published book author (more than one book, too) in their quest to punish this evildoer newbie for making the mistake of going against WP:COI. I bet User:Aestheteka is Edward O'Toole. But hey, I am not wedded to the link. I do think the 3 spam fighters owe Edward O'Toole and User:Aestheteka an apology, though. Maybe a better use of this noticeboard thread would be to copy the whole thing over to the Spam WikiProject as a lesson. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If the article violates WP:ELNO, I consider it spam. I am not calling you a spammer, I am calling the article itself spam. It is not my intention, I repeat, to insult you.

Nor are we insulting O'Toole. He has repeatedly spammed WP, and his repetition in doing so is inexcusible. He was hastily indef-blocked today for his actions. The ice will melt in Dante's ninth circle before I apologize to him for defending WP against his shameless self-promotion and spamming, after he had already been warned against it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hastily" is the correct word. He has no user contributions since Dec 16, 2008 when he was warned about WP:COI. See his user contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Aestheteka --Timeshifter (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what you find objectionable about the haste nature of the block; the admin is to be commended for his action in blocking him so quickly. He is a spammer and used socks in an AfD debate. Nothing beneficial was going to come from him. This was a good move to pre-empt future vandalism from him. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

His user talk page says he was blocked for his username. It doesn't say anything about sockpuppets in an AfD debate. If that is true, then of course he should be blocked after being warned. Was he warned about socks? Socks are allowed in some circumstances. And all of this has nothing to do with my addition of the link. You can call it spam when you think an article link I add violates WP:ELNO, but you would still be wrong. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the socks to demonstrate the sort of user you uphold; help show others your judgement. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you are insulting my judgment through guilt by association. I don't uphold the user. I just pointed out Misplaced Pages guidelines about warning users first. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Knowingly adding a link that had been spammed is indicative of poor judgement. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not logical. One does not follow the other. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What part of supporting spammers is good? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a spammer. I do not support spammers. Adding a link is not spamming when there is no WP:COI. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding the link of a spammer (User:Aestheteka) is supporting spammers, even though you yourself are not a spammer. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not logical. There are lots of overenthusiastic fans of various people, topics, movies, you-name-it. We don't block articles and links about all those things just because of some crazed fans. You guys really don't get this, do you? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There is no infallible method to decide whether a particular external link belongs in the article. There is only consensus. Timeshifter seems to be in the minority on the article's Talk page. If he doesn't want to accept this particular consensus, he could initiate dispute resolution. One possible step is an article RfC. He has actually suggested he might take it to the Spam WikiProject, a curious choice because that set of folks is unlikely to sympathize with a link to O'Toole, who has promoted his own work rather widely here. I think we need to hear from Timeshifter as to how he will pursue dispute resolution. If he won't do this, and won't accept the local Talk page consensus, he could indeed be edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to know how another spam-fighter such as yourself happened to pop in here. I agree I am in the minority. I don't mind being in the minority. I might take this thread to the Spam WikiProject because I believe some spam-fighters are more reasonable than others. Therefore they might learn some lessons from this thread. You have pointed out the heart of the problem though: "that set of folks is unlikely to sympathize with a link to O'Toole, who has promoted his own work rather widely here." That is not a justifiable reason to block a link I add. Because you don't personally like the author of an article. By the way, there is no wikipedia requirement that I accept the article talk page consensus. I am not wedded to the link, though, and will not add it while there is significant opposition to it. People change their mind over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I'm an admin who often closes cases at this noticeboard. I'm unlikely to take any action in this case, since I know Ronz. I still don't see how you escape the charge of edit warring, since you are unwilling to accept the Talk page consensus, and you've made no commitment to follow dispute resolution. The modus operandi that you outlined above, whereby you reinsert a disputed link into an article later, apparently hoping that people will not notice, does not sound like a good-faith effort to find consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually it is just one spamfighter or 2 who oppose the link mainly because it was originally added by a spammer. Later, or even much later, one of the regular editors of the page decide to add the link back as an external link or reference. The other regular or newer editors of the page go along with it. This is not edit warring in any way. It is evolving consensus. And as I have repeatedly said I am not wedded to the link, and will not add it as long as there is significant opposition. One person opposing is not significant opposition, and can be overruled by multiple editors. As I am being overruled now. You don't go to dispute resolution just for a single external link. The only reason I am wasting time here is because Ronz went forum shopping rather than waiting to see if there really was a problem later. If I had added the link in a couple days after people cooled off (a common occurrence) and there was still opposition, then I probably wouldn't have wasted any more time. Spam-fighters are ruining Misplaced Pages for many regular editors of articles.

Since you have threatened me with a block, then I flat out say that I will never add that link to any Misplaced Pages page. Happy? This intimidation by spam-fighters is totally insulting to the Misplaced Pages guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I initiated discussion about all this here:

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Intimidation by spam fighters --Timeshifter (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has broken 3RR, strictly interpreted. Both sides have edit warred. I can't care much whether the link is in or not. Stale William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And again, no one is claiming 3RR has been broken. If other editors are at fault for edit-warring, let's add them to the report. However, it seems we have some real problems here with actually dealing with edit-warring, or at least defining what it is. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR is clear, and not very subjective. Edit warring is not. You will find both kinds of reports here. We certainly have problems defining edit warring. Its not clear we have any great problems dealing with it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dismissing a edit-warring report because 3RR has not been broken is a real problem. I agree, though, it's not a great problem since this board has been 3RR only until recently.

I'll take Timeshifter's edit-warring problems to a different venue the next time they occur. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree (Result: BLP removals are exempt from 3RR)

This user is removing comments from the talk page of Joseph Farah rather than responding. He's reverted my posts three times now:

I can't revert or else I'd also be in vio of 3RR. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He also removed my warning to him from his talk page. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Being cited by a racist website does not make someone a racist. Your claims about this individual are incorrect and are to be immediately removed from any page on Misplaced Pages. If you continue to add them without valid evidence, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't presume to tell me that my claims are inaccurate. I expect more out a Misplaced Pages administrator. You're either agenda-pushing or incompetent, possibly both. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that must be it. Either that or your claim is utter nonsense. --B (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with B, especially on the latter assumption. Dayewalker (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You should reread BLP. There's a whole section about the talk pages of BLPs. You're applying a policy aimed at artices to a talk page, even though there's a whole section of WP:BLP that is much more germane to this discussion, and that my edit was in accordance with. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Read further down on WP:BLP on "Talk pages": Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). --MASEM 06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I was just posting that, good work. IP, please stop. If you want to discuss the issue, bring proper sources and discuss it on the talk page with NPOV language, otherwise, it will be reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC) (EC)

I hold that the information I posted was both poorly sourced and contentious, but not especially problematic. It's neither a telephone number or libel. It is, at worst, a POV. As such, the policy does not provide for the blanking of my talk page comment. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is both contentious and libelous, and multiple editors have reverted you and discussed the matter with you here. Again, please stop. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously ... this has gotten silly and has wasted far too much otherwise useful time. --B (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a word of thanks to the folks who got my back on this. Cheers! --Tom 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship Friedrich Nietzsche reverts, poss sock puppet (Result: Not blocked for now)

CABlankenship reported by kjaer (Result: Not blocked for now)

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

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261333082

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261333695
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261334899
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261334899

Also suspect below user:abrhm17 may be sockpuppet, refered to admin:

• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261337968
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261338828

• Diff of 3RR warning: user was warned on article talk and in summary as well as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&oldid=261343260 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&oldid=261343765

CABlankenship reported by Alcmaeonid (Result: Not blocked for now)

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

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Both sides have violated 3RR, but they seem to have stopped for now and are talking it out on the talk page. No need for a block for the moment unless they start reverting again. Of course, that all changes if the checkuser comes out positive. --B (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the 3rr rule until the warning was posted on my page. The logs will back me up on this. I immediately stopped reverting the page after I saw this rule. CABlankenship (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress reported by User:Taivo (Result: Article protected; warned)

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

• Previous version reverted from:

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

My edits (above under "Previous version") were a compromise to end an edit war over whether or not to include Malta in the list of countries. I took advantage of the Language Infobox option of using |region instead of |states to solve the problem. One of the participants in the edit war accepted this as a reasonable solution. The other did not have a chance to respond before the reverting by Middayexpress began. I suspect that Middayexpress' reverts are the result of a confrontation we had in Swahili language. His only arguments for his reverts on the Talk page have to do with what happened on the Swahili page and not on the merits of the Region designation on the Arabic language page. (Taivo (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Both sides violated 3RR, but the reverting has stopped and it is being discussed on the talk page. Work it out there. --B (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DonaldDuck reported by Piotrus (Result: seven days)

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

• Previous version reverted to: (itself a revert)

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

• Blocked for a week and final warning for an indef block Spartaz 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

71.178.193.134 (result: no vio)

This IP has gone to 4rr today (i think) on the Open Voting Consortium article. I've tried to talk on talk, not getting anywhere. Full disclosure, did not warn before coming here. Latest diff is: ] piors are ] ] ] ]

The dispute appears to be that a name of a subsidiary of a company called Diebold referenced in a 2004 article was later changed, something the IP (which seems to be an elections-systems focused SPA -- go figure) knows; but that wasn't true in the time period refered to. At any rate, i think i'm at 3rr myself or so (i always get confused on what counts).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An appallingly badly formatted report. Doesn't look like a vio to me, and since you are now both talking on talk I think thats the way forward William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In future, what would be a better format (unless you've used "format" to mean i was wrong to come here on the substance, in which case i understand your meaning)?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see up top the link that says, "Click here to add a new report". You should click on that link, then follow the instructions therein. --B (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Untwirl (Result: No action)

A single purpose user, and perhaps a sock, has been edit warring on Self-hating Jew. I moved the disputed material to the talk page for discussion, but Untwirl continues to return the material to the article, and to make other changes that need discussion to resolve the problems. I left a notification, but for some reason it did not seem to take on his user page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is at WP:ANI now. — ] (] · ]) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring has stopped, no action taken for now. All parties should remember that a topic like this is going to invoke some high emotions and care should be taken to respect the views of others and discuss contentious issues on the talk page. --B (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

my "single purpose" is to provide NPOV. i invite other editors or administrators to examine this dispute. another editor added germaine, sourced material which was removed wholesale by malcolm schosha. in addition, the definition of "self-hating jew" restates the term rather than explaining it, and he refuses to respond or make other suggestions - he just reverts anything i attempt to change. i would appreciate the involvement of other editors.Untwirl (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice reported by Inclusionist (Result: 24h)

• Page: Talk:Stereotypes of Jews (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:
• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor has a rich history of being blocked 3RR violations.

1. User:Seresin deleted some racially strong words I had cut and pasted from the mainspace to discuss.
2. User:Deeceevoice reverted this.
3. User:AniMate then deleted the comments again.
4. Reverted by Dee once
5. Attempting to create a compromise, I then restored the comments, but put the comments in a collapsible table three times, which Deeceevoice deleted three times. travb (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with a darned good reason not to, I'm inclined to delete this thing under G4. There is an ANI discussion going on now about this, by the way. --B (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete it, and I will happily withdraw the 3RR complaint.travb (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on how this 3RR complaint should be closed, an AfD on Stereotypes of Jews is running here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is pure unmitigated bigotry and I have removed it from the talk page. If Deeceevoice restores it again, further violating 3RR, he/she should definitely be blocked. Unless/until then, I offer no opinion and will, obviously, not handle this one myself. --B (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Deeceevoice reverted again. This is getting ridiculous. AniMate 22:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin, please note the above. --B (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:VulgarKeynesianMilitarism reported by Lucian Sunday (Result: indef)

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

• revert
• revert
• revert
• revert
• revert

I have been reverting the above banned editor (]) . He has been reverting back & has exceeded 3RR. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really belong here as a sock block, but I've done it anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lou Sander reported by Dlabtot (Result: warned; reverted)

• Page: Minimum wage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lou Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Dlabtot (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning postdates last edit. Re-warned; reverted article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reported by User:dayyanb (Result: No violation)

• Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Intellectuals_and_Nazism&action=history
• User: multiple

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Dayyanb (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• No violation that I can see or stale. You need to clarify what the problem is. --B (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Karnak666 reported by Tennis expert (Result: 24h)

• Page: Andre Agassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Karnak666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is edit warring about whether Andre Agassi has Assyrian or Armenian ancestry. Have a look at his discussion page, particularly the allegations of racism and other incivil activity. Tennis expert (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and incivility: 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BalkanHistoryExpert reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User has arrived here on some kind of self-professed crusade , expressing contempt for reliable sources , with legal threats for added pzazz . AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

24h for 4R. Didn't do anything with the legal threats William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cliché Online reported by Falcon9x5 (Result: 48h)

• Page: Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Cliché Online (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

(much else has changed since then, the problem is the resolution section in the infobox)

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

Wording varies, but intent is the same.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User has repeatedly added 1080p as the native resolution to Metal Gear Solid 4, despite comments within the article, on his talk page and on the article talk about what constitutes a verifiable source.
Native resolution is a tricky thing to find, as it's the resolution games are rendered at by the console before being outputted to the TV. Between the render and the TV there's a process called scaling which changes the rendered resolution into something the TV can display.Current-generation games generally use 720p as their base display resolution, and this is usually assumed to be the native resolution too, unless proved otherwise. As an example, Halo 3 is rendered at 640p, but outputs in 720p, hence the article states the native resolution is 640p. For this reason, what TVs display, back of game boxes etc aren't reliable. Establishing what the native resolution is is often done by "counting pixels" (examing how many pixels make up an image displayed on a screen).
Beyond3D forums are a decent source for this (meeting WP:V I feel), with recognition in Joystiq - it's also used as a roundabout source on GTA IV (for the PS3's native res - PC World->PS3Fanboy->Beyond3D Forum) and Ninja Gaiden II (N4G->Beyond3D Forum), the second of which User:Cliché Online himself added as the source.
Also a ridiculous number of personal attacks, on the article talk, his own talk and edit summaries.
Thanks! Fin©™ 15:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyond3D's used as a source in Project Gotham Racing 3 too. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

48h, due to form William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

195.210.193.193 reported by Taivo (Result: Rangeblock 1 month)

• Page: Talk:Chuvash language (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 195.210.193.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

as User:195.210.193.238

• 1st revert:

as User:195.210.193.3

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

as User:195.210.193.210

• 5th revert:

as User:195.210.193.33

• 6th revert:

as User:195.210.193.197

• 7th revert:

as User:195.210.193.32

• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:

as User:195.210.193.197

• 10th revert:

as User:195.210.193.193

• 11th revert:

Here is the history of this page so you can see the pattern: ]

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This anonymous IP is continually stripping the Talk page. He has been warned and the page has been semi-protected several times by User:Kwamikagami. As soon as the semi-protection expires, the anonymous IP is right back to deleting information on the Talk page. (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Range block 195.210.193.0/24 for 1 month. Please notify me of any collateral damage. If this doesn't work, I recommend six months of semi-protection for the Talk page. This has gone on for too long already. (Another admin tried the same range block back in August, though for just one week). EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Melonbarmonster2

Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been attempting to enforce his opinion on the article Korean cuisine over the subject of dog meat. The general consensus has agreed that the subject is pertinent, and that it should be included as such in the way it has been presented. Melonbarmonster2 has consistently deleted or tagged the section of the article with {{disputed}} and {{POV-section}} tags which have been reverted/removed by at least seven different contributors. He has refused mediation and is in violation of the WP:3R, WP:Edit warring and WP:Disruptive editing policies for which he has been warned against repeatedly on the Talk:Korean cuisine page.

I would ask a non-involved administrator to please investigate this and make a decision over the behavior of this individual. Also, please see the previous alias of Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for other histories of this user

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note Could you provide diff links please? — Aitias // discussion 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Revert 1
• Revert 2
• Revert 3
• Revert 4
• Revert 5
• Revert 6
• Revert 7

There are least two dozen more, these are just the ones in the past week or two. Also please look at the talk page for the gist of the argument. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Although I strongly disagree with Melonbarmonster's edits on this dispute of the article, two facts should be noted here. Two other editors such as Kuebie (talk · contribs), and KoreanSentry (talk · contribs) support his edit (actually, one of them has initiated the current issue) and there were no 3RR violation. Moreover the issue is not matter of whether the dog meat section should be excluded from the article, but he and other two users claim that the section is not in a fitting categorization; Dog meat is not part of Korean common diet unlike beef, pork, chicken. I think the block request is not a good way to solve the dispute.--Caspian blue 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Tag addition is not exempt from 3RR. Editors who find themselves in Melon's position are supposed to start a wider conversation instead of reverting. If necessary they should start an article RFC. Since at least three different editors have been reverting Melon, he can't claim consensus for his view. I think he should be blocked for edit-warring. His last such block was for 4 days last August. By the principle of escalation the next block should be one week. Since I issued the block last August I hope that a different admin will take action this time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Please not that there has already been an RfC(which I fully participated in) resulting in other editors besides myself who have expressed disagreement with Jerem43. There is no consensus for either view! That's the nature of disputes and hence the need for these tags and dispute resolution protocols. I have also participated extensively in widen the discussion, taking time off from making edits per WP:Truce, and am working on a mediation request, etc..

• Comment - this report is not an attempt to "get back" at melonbarblaster or to resolve the dispute, it is because of his behavior in putting his position forward: His constant reinstatement of the tags is a violation of the 3R policy, his refusal to engage in mediation on technicalities, his inability to accept compromise and his refusal to consider the position of others all amounts to disruptive editing. The sum total of his behaviors is edit warring which is the problem we are dealing with. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the time, date of reverts reported above, this is not a 3RR violation but Jerem43 has stopped being reasonable for some time now. The reverts are spread beyond a 24 hour period. Furthermore, what Jeremy and others have been reverting is deletion of dispute tags. Jerem43 claims that in spite of multiple editors including myself disagreeing with him, that there is no "dispute". He has continuously deleted the dispute tags. Mind you that there was an RfC where the comments were split(no consensus) and there have been mediation requests and a mediation request being drawn up right now. How that doesn't constitute a "dispute" is beyond me. What good is existence of tags and RfC if editors are not going to respect RfC results??? I have asked Jerem43 to stop reverting and allow dispute resolution steps to resolve the edit disputes and leave the tags while proper protocols are taken to no avail.

Please note that I asked for a

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Korean_cuisine&diff=260623905&oldid=259731575

Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Response - I've made very few comments in this issue as I have mainly been a passive observer in the dispute. After 1/2 dozen or so editors, myself included, had removed his tags multiple times is when I stepped in with my first major comment regarding disruptive editing. In my posting I clearly stated that I believe his behaviors constitute disruptive editing and that from hence forward I would treat him as a vandal and suggested other editors do the same. In my followup posting I stated to him that was exasperated with his failure to act in good faith and engage in a meaningful conversation with other contributors.

Additionally, I have never stated there was not a disagreement over the issue - there are at least three other contributors that hold the same opinion as Melonbarmonster; however none of the others have resorted to pattern of behavior that he has exhibited. His participation in the RfC really did not exist as all he did was repeatedly state his position and ignore out of hand the comments and suggestions of those who did not agree with his positions. The same can be said for the mediation request, he did not agree to it because it felt that the request was improperly worded. These are not good faith behaviors, and are contrary to the spirit of WP. My problem is not with the subject of the consumption of dog meat in Korea but with Melonbarmonster's behaviors. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For sake of not continuing dispute here, please find my response here].Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't quite 3RR, but its close. Also M2 seems to be the only one pushing the tags at the moment, with spurious edit summaries. If he continues, I think he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The results of the RfC should be respected. There are a group of editors who are claiming consensus in spite of RfC and talk page discussions. They outnumber and outedit editors with differing views so have been reverting in collusion while refusing to listen to opposing views. We are currently attempting to agree upon a list of issues to be mediated. There certainly has been reverting but it's most definitely from both sides within the boundaries of the 3rr principle while dispute resolution steps have been followed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be respected, but no-one is bound by it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Defender of comic justice reported by Geg (Result: )

• Page: List of One Piece episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Defender of comic justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert: After this, it's noted that the subject of the edits has already been discussed in the article's discussion page before, which the user ignores.
• 3rd revert: After this, the user is warned about the 3RR.
• 4th revert?: I have to assume that this is the same user attempting to bypass the rule since this anonymous user made the same edit as Defender of comic justice and hasn't made any other edits. If it's not the same person I guess this can be ignored. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

I also suspect that this account is a sock puppet of User:Dragonmaster88 due to using the same emoticons in edit summaries (such as =^-^=) and similar edits on The Spirit (film) .

• Diff of 3RR warning:

I understand that we're both in violation of 3RR now, but I've made several attempts to move the conflict to the discussion page and have been ignored each time. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan reported by D.M.N. (Result: warned)

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

• Previous version reverted to: Not being reverted to anything, the user is adding material in violation of WP:RECENTISM, which several users have reverted.

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

D.M.N. (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not 3RR, as you say, but disruptive. User appears to have got the message; will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:71.191.7.3 reported by OrangeMarlin (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.191.7.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 16:50, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* Investigational medications */ updated material related to cannabinoids: deleted theoretical considerations, incorporated results of recent RCT")
2. 17:14, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262119076 by Orangemarlin (talk) go for 3, sherriff. Git'em!")
3. 18:21, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262131049 by Orangemarlin (talk) that's 2...")
4. 18:34, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* Investigational medications */ More fun on the wiki-playground; only now the bully has called the monitor...")

• Diff of warning: here

—OrangeMarlin 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring