Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Deleting irrelevant section(Tenmei withdrew complaint)
Line 442: Line 442:


: 48h. Rubbish warning though; "see block log" would have been better, but still very lazy [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
: 48h. Rubbish warning though; "see block log" would have been better, but still very lazy [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] reported by [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty}}
* User: {{userlinks|Tenmei}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=275513384&oldid=275495219]

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277311923&oldid=277306586 each dubious sentence needs supporting, or it is liable to be deleted]
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277313022&oldid=277312047 added synthesis tag]
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277313188&oldid=277313022 added original research tag]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277507637&oldid=277506560 adding dubious to sentences which don't comply with with WP:V]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277736031&oldid=277706941 consensus/majority of participants in talk page disapprove map]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277736891&oldid=277736031 consensus/majority view text as dubious -- asking for scanned text in Chinese + translation for cited facts]

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277740561&oldid=277740536 edit war needs to be mitigated] -- more than 3RR

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
I am withdrawing from this venue because it is ineffective and no uninvolved editor has shown the willingness and temerity in wading into this escalating dispute. Instead, the dispute resolution processes of formal mediation appear to be necessary. If that fails, the resort to arbitration may prove helpful. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
<strike> I have no interest in counting 1+2+3, but this has gone on long enough that I have surely reverted the disputed text at least three time. Rather than focusing on whether [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] has earned a reprimand, I would rather settle on restoring the article to a status in which the text is credible. Then, the steps in complying with [[WP:V]] would seem to be straightforward.

However, there is another, more important aspect to the problem the majority participants in this thread confront. This immediate, although relatively minor problem with [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] is perhaps best understood in that context.

===This article is a battlefield===
The inescapable fact-of-the-matter is that real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights have poisoned the genesis of this battlefield and everything which followed. The initial impetus for this article was "[[salting the earth]]" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th centuries in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries. This was not clear at first; but the various talk page threads across an array of articles confirms that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements&diff=250758016&oldid=250757336 "long-term toxic warriors"] are intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history in Wikipedia articles.

This article was created as venue for re-writing the 7th century in order to achieve 21st century goals and objectives. It is impossible to defend any underlying presumption that this [[Salted bomb|poisoned article]] has any topic divorced from unending subterfuge and proxy combat as evidenced by the edit histories of the article and its talk page.

This article has become a [[Sisyphus|Sisyphean folly]].

Reiterating what I said at [[Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Map]]-above: " ... a flawed map is worse than no map at all." The flaws in this [[Scorched earth|toxic article]] make it worse than no article at all ... but the immediate problem is to stop the constant changes which, recently, have been [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]]'s reverts of consensus composed of
* [[User:G Purevdorj|G Purevdorj]]
* [[User:Yaan|Yaan]]
* [[USer:GenuineMongol|GenuineMongol]]
* [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]]

The urgent problem is explained succinctly in one of [[User:G Purevdorj|G Purevdorj]]'s edit summaries -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277465217&oldid=277461475 "... I'm ceasing to know what this is about. Not about history, at the least ...."]</strike>

===Vandalism and disruption of Tenmei and his tag tema===
PericlesOfAthens and Me have already discussed this article and he is a featured article editor, he says nothing is wrong. Also, article is completely cited and correct. Your attempts to delete sourced material is nothing short of vandalism. Oh ya, and Yaan never questioned my material(I think...). THis editor has already admitted he knows nothing about the subject matter; yet he continues to revert my material without any explanations, adding any sources, or contributing a single sentence. I have asked for outside editors such as Arilang1234 and PericlesOfAthens to take a look, peer review the article and they have confirmed its correctness. The above three editors have not contributed a single explanation, fact or any reason for deleting my material/ the article. I would like to report a tag team operating.

Also, Tenmei attempted to merge this article [[Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty]] with the article [[Salting the Earth]]. This violates WP:POINT and I believe this warrants intervention, as this is clearly violative of both WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS, by deleting an article that the community warranted to keep. None of the above editors have so far contributed a single sentence to the article, but have disrupted it thoroughly by deleting sourced content.

In addition, the above tag team has ignored the opinions of other editors and me, such as this distinguished editor:
"It's good that the article, although small, is heavily cited; yet all but three citations belong to Li Bo and Zheng Yin's book. More sources need to be introduced to build consensus (not that there's much information in this very sparse article to be contested). I don't have time to scour more sources to improve this article, as I am busy with Han Dynasty topics at the moment. Does anyone have access to a university library or JSTOR? That could really help this article in terms of credible sources used.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)"
In which he clearly said this article was well sourced- contary to the actions of the above tag team who has repeatedly deleted content without explanation, and vandalized both this article and [[salting the earth]] through their attempt to merge it. Their vandalism and determination to compromise wikipedia and impose their own view is heavily misguided, to say the least.
[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 00:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

===<strike>Stable article compliant with [[WP:V]]===
It is impossible for this article or any article to thrive outside a venue in which [[WP:V]] has meaning and substance; and no other option but abandonment seems feasible at this point. In our Wikipedia context, it cannot be wrong to demonstrate a tenacious, repetitive insistence on defending and ensuring academic integrity and credibility of our wiki-encyclopedia-building work together.

At a minimum, I hope to learn how I could have been a more constructive figure in a muddied sequence of edits.

More optimistically, I expect to see some resolution which conforms to [[WP:V]] and inhibits future edit wars having to do with this overly contentious article. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 23:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

=== Objection to Teeninvestor's edits above ===
The modest challenges anticipated in [[WP:V]] were initially posed as requests, but Teeninvestor's choice to respond with drama rather than reason has caused this early concern to evolve into a demand.

Now, in addition, I demand that the edits which conflate my writing with his/hers be removed, reverted, clarified.

* 1. I object to Teeninvestor's striking Yann from the list of those participants composing consensus in the article edits and on the talk page. Whatever he/she had in mind, it needs to be undone. I want the strike-out removed.

:I crafted what I wrote as best as I could in order to minimize controversy; and I can't be responsible for changes by someone else as if it were me.

:I listed those participants in the discussions which informed my decision-making; and I don't need to see the purpose in modifying my words. I just have to say "NO."

:Who's kidding who?

*2. My text has been broken up by Teeninvestor's responsive post. It looks as if "Stable article compliant with [[WP:V]] was written by him/her rather than me.

:This doesn't have to become more complicated than it is. The responsive text needs to be indented or moved below what I wrote so that there is no misunderstanding. I did what I could to minimize this dispute, and that gesture is not unimportant.

:Who's kidding who?

*3. The accusations in Teeninvestor's reply speak for themselves in the context created by the edit histories of the talk page and the article. I can disagree without being disagreeable -- and I guess this is not the venue for much of what Teeninvestor wrote.

Immediate issue remain to be addressed. What version is consistent with [[WP:V]]? How to stop an edit war?

Re-stating: This is the English Wikipedia -- not a Chinese Wikipedia in English for those who read Chinese. The "dubious"-tags were deleted, the "synthesis"-tags were deleted, etc. These are not evidence of a failure to try to work though this problem in some other way than this venue provides.

I feel that I have learned to be less flexible by the awkward process of seeking help here.</strike> --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

=== This user has put up no source===
{{policy shortcut|WP:RSUE|WP:VUE|WP:NONENG}}
WP:V requires you put up a source to verify your claims as well. You have so far not done it, and so far HAS DONE NOTHING BUT VANDALISM AND DISRUPTION(including trying to "merge" the article with salting the earth). You have been universally condemned by a number of users, who have reverted your vandalism. They include:
Me
User:PericlesOfAthens
User:Arilang1234
User:Kraftlos

In addition, this user has no knowledge of the subject matter, yet has reverted without explanation or providing a source, along with his tag team, GenuineMongol and G puverdoj both who voted to delete the article and were convicted of canvassing and other illegal actions during the AFD.
[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 11:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Dude. Tenmei. What are you doing? What exactly is the content dispute over? I see a mile-long rant on the talk page for Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, but little from your end on which specific sentences are "poison". Granted, I am not familiar with every battle in the Tang Dynasty, but if you are going to mention WP:V over and over, then why don't you do just that: verify! Do you have access to scholarly sources? If you doubt anything in that book which Teeninvestor is citing from, then what is stopping you from finding a flurry of sources which could contradict him? If there is a consensus from other scholars that what Li Bo and Zheng Yin are saying is false, then there is either a serious bias problem with that source, or Teeninvestor is twisting their words or misrepresenting material. I doubt either is the case, but you can't prove anything until you bring something to the table, which you have not. All's you've made so far are accusations. It's a little unbecoming, I have to say, considering Wikipedia:Assume good faith"

{{policy shortcut|WP:BURDEN|WP:PROVEIT}}
A comment by user:pericles that I think addresses the situation.[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 11:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::<strike>The policy shortcut boxes represent a non-confrontational, measured response to the extravagant prose above.</strike> --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:69.118.72.18]] reported by [[User:Boston]] (Result: Result: 1 week semi, 1 sock blocked) ==
== [[User:69.118.72.18]] reported by [[User:Boston]] (Result: Result: 1 week semi, 1 sock blocked) ==

Revision as of 00:06, 19 March 2009

    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.

    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:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • 6th revert: [7]
    • 7th revert: [8]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    User:Tommylotto reported by MehTsag (talk) (Result: prot)

    Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tommylotto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    —MehTsag (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tommylotto is clearly aware of the 3RR rule in regards to edit warring, he even warned another editor # 01:53, 6 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Education section is incorrect. */") potentially trying to game the system and frighten off the other editor so Tommylotto could win the edit war. MehTsag (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The original edit and 1st revert as identified above concerned a different topic (the subject's last semester in college). The 2nd revert as identified above was actually the original edit on a totally different subject (the identity of the school attended). Then I made only two reverts (identified as 3rd and 4th above) and stopped and after another editor started an edit war. I left the article with the version that I disagreed with and continued to seek consensus on the discussion page. The warning that I gave to the other editor (being used as evidence against me) was actually issue after my second revert had been undone (by WindyCityRider's 3rd revert) and after I had left the article with the version that I disagreed with. The warning that I issued was not an effort to intimidate the other editor (as I was temporarily conseeding to his version) but was actually coupled with an invitation to discuss the matter on the discussion page to seek consensus rather than pursuing an unproductive edit war. I think this report is totally unwarranted, was not adequately investigated by MehTsag, and was not proceeded by any warning whatsoever. I suspect content bias.Tommylotto (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) m (37,303 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Keith Olbermann": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas reported by Dlabtot (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [12]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

    User:Viriditas is edit warring on this talk page, changing and removing my comments, violating WP:TALK as well as WP:3RR. In my zeal to restore my own comments, I may have violated or come close to violating 3RR as well, if so, I humbly apologize. Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the page history, I haven't edited People's Park since 1 May 2008, and that was only to disambiguate a link.[18] On the other hand, the page history shows that you've been engaged in an edit war while tag teaming with User:Sierralaw, and User:Rkmlai against edits made by User:Apostle12. Most recently, you made a POV edit after starting an RFC. I arrived on the talk page on March 6 to try and mediate, only to be attacked by you and told that I have contempt for homeless people. Now, I discover you are pushing a minority POV in the article. Lastly, you started an RFC when you found that discussion between Apostle12 and Rkmlai was working towards resolving the impasse. Unfortunately, you didn't follow the conventions for article RFC's and you made comments about users instead of the topic. I removed them, you restored them, and then you tried moving the goalposts, claiming that I was invovled in the dispute (I'm not, I've only been mediating on the talk page). And that's where we stand. Article RFC's are not about users, and the RFC was changed to reflect the nature of the dispute, the words of which were written by you and you alone. I will admit, however, that my mediating style was overly aggressive, and had the effect of not one, but two elephants in a china shop, drunk on cheap wine. For that, I apologize. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As the talk page history and the talk page version before you started reverting my talk page comments shows, my comment that you have deleted from the talk page was clearly presented as the comment of an involved editor and was never part of the RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but neither of those links show anything and I'm not involved in any dispute on this page. If you pay very close attention to the talk page, you will notice that I have criticized all parties involved from the very first edit I made as mediator. I'm surprised that you missed this fact. I would be happy to provide diffs if you need them. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I possibly nudge some admin to look at this? I would really like to restore my comments to this talk page but I don't want to do so if they are just going to be deleted again. I was advised elsewhere that this report would have been better made at WP:ANI, but it seems too late for that now. Dlabtot (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would really appreciate some response from someone who is watching this noticeboard. It's been 8 days since I posted this notice. Perhaps dozens of reports have been responded to in that time. I don't understand why this report has been ignored. Tell me I'm wrong to post it, and why, or tell me to post it somewhere eles, or tell me whatever you want - just please don't pretend that this report doesn't exist. Dlabtot (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mrnhghts reported by happy138 (Result: Page protected for a week)

    • Previous version reverted to: [19]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

    Happy138 (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-03-11T17:09:42 SoWhy (talk | contribs | block) m (3,698 bytes) (Protected Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tycoon24 reported by User:MMAJunkie250 (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [21]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]


    Ebenkostbar1 reported by Aktsu (Result: final warning)

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: None, but warned that he was inserting copyrighted material in his edits (diff). Will give him one now.

    This seems to be one part edit warring, one part copyvio and one part COI... --aktsu (t / c) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning given. I reverted him since removing copyright violations are exceptions from 3RR. --aktsu (t / c) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given final warning William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prof.rick reported by Richard Arthur Norton (Result: 12h)



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]

    I am not sure why the contents of the subjects website are notable enough to include, and then add a warning that the information should be disregarded. If an editor wants to argue over the contents of someone's blog they should do it in their own blog, not in Wikipedia. The topic has no third party coverage. I think there may be some personal animus between the subject of the article and the editor adding the material. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    12h, in the hope that is enough to make him see sense. If it isn't, get back to me. Haven't you been around long enough to know that warnings go on the user talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR violation against Philbox17 on Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (result: 24h each)

    • Previous version reverted to: [36]
    • Note: Philbox17 has taken to personal attacks on me (Vfp15) and he has made threats against me, following which following which he was suspended on French Wikipedia, at first for three days, then for longer because he tried to evade the block with a sock puppet/.

    Help would be appreciated. Vincent (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if it helps, but youve both broken 3RR so I've blocked you both. You desperately need to start discussing the substance of the edits concerned on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    76.202.195.129 reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [41]
    • 1st revert: [42]
    • 2nd revert: [43]
    • 3rd revert: [44]
    • 4th revert: [45]
    • Previous version reverted to: [46]
    • 5th revert: [47]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]
    • Comments: User has been edit warring to restore an unsourced network list and trivia over the past few days, only now stepping up his efforts to enforce his version. Been led to WP:BRD in edit summaries and dismissed it. Been warned about 3RR on fourth and continues reverting. He's also reverting obvious corrections: there is no "Jeremiah" in the series, yet his fifth revert is to undo that correction. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    because im not talking about a character.. maybe you need to pay attention. this is why people who dont follow a subject matter should not edit pages regarding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.195.129 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's a city or some sort of location, you should make that clearer, because there is no link indicating it as such. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    or you should stop acting like a know-it-all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.195.129 (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orangemarlin reported by User:Xasodfuih (Result: 24h)

    From 02:56, 15 March 2009 to 10:58, 15 March 2009 OrangeMarlin reverted in whole or in part multiple users on Major depressive disorder with the following edits:

    3RR warning was acknowledged. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For whatever it's worth (WP:3RR says it matters), he also called me an idiot, and CAM POV pusher. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason for the incivility, though please try not to use generic warnings templates on the regulars, ie users with an established history of contributions. I urge everyone involved to use the article talk page and remain calm and civil to avoid future edit conflicts. Nja247 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look like the 3rd one was a straight revert: "no scientifc evidence" and "little evidence" do not actually mean the same thing. Cardamon (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken together there was obvious disruption: the reverts; conduct; not assuming good faith; and the fact that the blocked user had not been using the article's talk page to discuss the obvious dispute. Nja247 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am one of the editors with whom Orangemarlin, supposedly, editwarred. I do not think there was editwarring per se. OM was reverting separate edits, and did not revert any of those more than two times. Moreover, he stopped reverting when I explained my reasoning on the Talk page in detail. It also appears that Xasodfuih agreed with the compromise version. Thus, there is no need to block Orangemarlin. There was incivility but not so gross as to warrant a block. A warning from an admin would have sufficed. Can this block be reconsidered? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your observations, however the edit history tells a slightly different story. Further the conflict was reported by the other editor that you named. Regardless the user is able to edit their own talk page if they have anything to say that will clarify any lingering queries. Nja247 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stradov reported by Dynablaster (talk) (Result: no vio)

    Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stradov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 00:08, 14 March 2009
    2. 01:22, 14 March 2009
    3. 01:08, 15 March 2009
    4. 03:59, 15 March 2009
    5. 08:01, 15 March 2009

    User:Stradov keeps trying to remove notable information published in New Scientist that he personally deems "factually dubious". The information will keep being deleted until he sees some evidence the New Scientist report is accurate. Please read the brief exchange on the main talk page for a complete understanding. Stradov was informed about 3RR on the talk page, "Mind you do [not] break the three-revert rule", with special emphasis in the edit summary: "Be sure to read carefully and follow the links" 03:03, 15 March 2009 I proceeded to post a note of warning to his talk page, offering a piece of sound advice. 03:12, 15 March 2009 Unfortunately, the aforementioned user again deleted reliably sourced information from the article, as the above timeline will show. More recently, I invited Stradov to self revert. 16:18, 15 March 2009. Editors are welcome top see if I myself have done anything wrong, and offer advice/sanction accordingly.

    —Dynablaster (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't look like a strict vio to me, and if we're counting non-strict, you too have sinned. Meanwhile, I'm not really inclined to regad Nude Scientist as a terribly RS. I strongly recommend you find other editors to offer an opinion rather than edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello William. If you examine the page history, you will discover that I have been careful not to break 3RR. In the past, when this sort of thing has occurred, the advice on offer was to take a deep breath, calm down, follow the correct procedure and report rule breakers instead of reverting them. Now that I follow this advice, you disparage a perfectly reliable source ("Nude Scientist") and accuse me of "sinning". What, may I ask, is that all about? Dynablaster (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try again. S has not, in strict terms, broken 3RR. Neither have you. But he has been edit warring, and so have you. from the edit history it looks like recent changes have consisted of you and he reverting each other, so it could hardly be otherwise. And no, NS is *not* a perfectly reliable source William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably then, "strictly speaking", if Stradof has succeeded in deleted exactly the same information (not once but 5 times), but in doing so, he simultaneously moved other words about and shifted a period fractionally to the left, that is not to be considered relevant? If so, then what is to stop me from doing the same thing? Kindly explain why New Scientist is not a reliable source. Ta. Dynablaster (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't understand you. Have you read WP:REVERT? S hasn't got 4R in 24h, is that so hard to understand? As for NS, that is my personal opinion of it, I have no intention of arguing about it here William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The aforementioned user has removed notable information, attributed correctly to a reliable source, 3 times within a 24 hour period. He thinks the information is inaccurate, and until he sees some evidence otherwise, he will keep removing it. If that is not a clear violation, then I'm a banana. Dynablaster (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't go near any gorillas :-). More seriously, if you think your reverts are "right" but his are "wrong" then you dont want AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:User:86.151.123.189 reported by User:Boston (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [53]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [58]

    I'm not really involved with this but I noticed the user in question making personal attacks against another user an deleting what seems to be well-referenced, NPOV text. Requested user not break 3RR but they stated they do not care about this rule. If I shouldn't have reported this or should have handled this differently please advise.--Boston (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, but the rules care about them 2009-03-15T19:27:44 Mfield (talk | contribs | block) blocked 86.151.123.189 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: removal of sourced content, personal attacks) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I caught that one via a request at RFPP. IP seems to be a sock too. Mfield (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User is wearing a new sock already [59] Someone want to revert that edit? I already did 3 times. --Boston (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have blocked all the IPs and semi protected both articles to prevent continual reversion and chasing of IPs. Mfield (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexorg reported by Jayjg (Result: 24h block)


    • Previous version reverted to: [60]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]

    Editor keeps adding a disputed paragraph to the article, claiming a "consensus" on the Talk: page which he will not actually point to. Has been blocked for 3RR before, and in his last revert actually warned me about 3RR. His response to a request to revert himself was belligerent. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dream Focus reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: link
    • Diff of 3RR warning: link (left by User:Sloane, third editor to remove the tag).

    DreamFocus has now reverted three different editors over the removal of the rescue tag from an unsalvagable article. He first tried to claim it doesn't apply unless he's reverting the same person[66] then falsely calls the removals vandalism[67] even though he is fully aware that 3RR does not work that way and that removing the rescue tag is not vandalism.[68] He is also beginning to edit war on Misa Kobayashi, removing a CSD tag despite his not being an administrator and it being obvious the CSD tag was applied in good faith and appropriately. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That isn't edit waring. The tag says anyone who disagrees with the speedy delete, should remove it. Another editor reverted you and agreed with me on that point. A voice actor working on three notable projects is just as notable as a regular actor on a non-animated film. Dream Focus 02:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A rescue tag should remain in place until the afd is over. Removing it serves no purpose at all. It doesn't affect afd outcome and will not save the article from deletion if that is the outcome. The tag merely serves as a flag to guide the 'rescuers' who may be able to improve the article to a point were it may survive deletion. --neon white talk 04:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Completely concur. Removing the {{rescue}} tag is almost always seen as disruptive and impedes the work of the ARS project to then have to deal with enlightening those who don't seem to like what the ARS do - rescuing articles on notable subjects from deletion. ARS and the {{rescue}} tag are not magic wands that fix all problems but instead bring editors who are keen in helping keep articl;es on notable subjects from being deleted. There really is no good reason to remove the tag until the AfD is closed, which usually happens within a week. -- Banjeboi 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it isn't. The template is for articles that have some potential to be referenced and rewritten, and editors can believe in good faith that that isn't possible. WP:ARS's work is good but it's not sacred. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't believe I suggested that ARS' work is sacred, in any case the underlying principle is the same as AFD. That one person doesn't decide if an article is kept or rescuable or not. It is a discussion. If an article will be deleted anyway who cares if the rescue tag is on it when it goes down? Ergo removing a please fix this article if you can tag seem rather pointy and possibly hostile. -- Banjeboi 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or it could easily be a good-faith belief by an expert that the subject cannot be improved in this manner. {{afd}} has the support of years of consensus that removing it is disruptive because it delinks a conversation; no such custom protects (or should protect) {{rescue}}. "Removing the {{rescue}} tag is almost always seen as disruptive" is a false statement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not really relevant that one editor may not think the subject can be improved, if another editor wants to try and asks for help with it, then that's good practice and is an attempt to improve wikipedia which is the goal of every editor. It should be encouraged. I can see no good reason to remove, it serves no purpose or benefit other than to deliberately hinder attempts to improve the project. That is disruptive and above all quite petty. --neon white talk 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Indeed. Editors don't think it should be deleted, so should they remove the AfD template? Rescue templates should not be removed until the AfD is closed for the same reason. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tags are text. Reverting them is not vandalism per se. Whether they belong or not is up to the editors of the article. There is no 3RR exemption for restoring tags, no matter how passionately you may believe they belong. The three edit thing doesn't include reverting Vandalism, which is what removing tags is clearly defined is. is untrue. Give a valid reason why that tag shouldn't be there. would be nice, but failure to do it does not justify breaking 3RR, which is absolute. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That one editor feels an article might be salvagable and so tags it is a Good Faith effort to improve the project, whether the article is saved or not. This does not allow that another may remove it out-of-hand, no nore than it does removing an AfD tag. Removing such tags, whether as a refusal to accept the good faith of the tagger, or in disbelief in the article's slavagability, might reasonably be seen as (unintentional) "good faith" vandalism. Point: Have articles been tagged that did not survive an AfD? Yes. This does not minimalize the good faith of the tagger. Are atempts made to salvage tagged articles? Usually. Were some tagged articles actually saved from deletion? Quite definitely. Does removing that tag, that itself had been placed in a good faith effort to improve the project, work to disrupt the process of improving wiki? Yes. Properly replacing a removed tag acts to improve wikipedia, and should not be considered as a violation of WP:3RR for if the removal of the tag can be seen as vandalism, whether intentional or not, the replacing of the removed tag does not fall under 3RR as its removal was not condoned by policy nor guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Equating removal of an AfD tag and the removal of a rescue tag makes little sense. The removal of the AfD tag needs to be reverted because the process that it is part of will go on even if the tag is missing. Any editor can in principle do an out of process closure of an AfD process, although in general one should be careful about doing this.
    When speaking about vandalism on wikipedia you are making the definite statement that it is intentional. See WP:V. If the person performing the so call vandalism believes that what he is doing is for the good of wikipedia then it is not Vandalism. Taemyr (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dream Focus reported by Sloane (Result: vote delete)

    • Previous version reverted to: [69]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [74]

    Conflict is about the addition of the "rescue" template to the article, I, User:Collectonian and User:TheFarix disagree. I tried warning User:Dream Focus about breaking the 3rr, but he continued anyhow and is now justifying his actions by accusing the other editors of vandalism.--Sloane (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The tag on the Misa Kobayashi says if you disagree with speedy deletion, you should remove that tag. I don't think it meets that criteria, and stated me reason why. Another editor went and agreed with me on that. You don't need to be an administrator to remove that tag.
    • The three edit rule does not apply to revert vandalism, such as tag removal. I read the policy, and that's what it says. Collectonian recently nominated an article for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Just_David which had a rescue tag placed on it, resulting in members of the rescue squadron, including myself, going there to argue keep. The third person who removes the tag is Sloane, who gives the reason, "article is going to go anyway)" and "no need to waste peoples' time" for his two attempts to delete the tag. I believe that counts as vandalism, and reverted it. Dream Focus 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is completely and totally false BS. I did not post on my user page for someone to remove the rescue tag. Provide proof or redact that false accusation please. The only post made to my user page about this article was responding to Artw to let him know that I was NOT the first one who removed the rescue tag and saying someone needed to warn you for 3RR because you were now reverting a third editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hardly vandalism. It's other editor's auditing the use of a cleanup tag. The rescue tag is not except from being audited like any other cleanup tag. The fact that you are assuming bad faith only compounds the problem. --Farix (Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait.. sorry. I misread something. What was I looking at... I apologize, you didn't ask others to go there and delete the tag also. The rest is true though. Dream Focus 02:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone please click on that link. I asked if someone was allowed to remove the rescue squadron tag or not, since I didn't think they could. Still waiting for an answer on that. And that isn't canvasing, it quite relevant to the issue. Where else would I ask it, but the Rescue Squadron's site? Others may have had this same issue come up in the past. Dream Focus 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would just like to point out, as the person who tagged the article for deletion, that the first person I notified (after the automated message from Twinkle to the article creator) was to Dream Focus. I have monitored this deletion discussion closely and have been making sure that there is no canvassing on either side. Dream Focus certainly hasn't canvassed either; I've made sure of that. I would have warned him otherwise if he had. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Removing the {{rescue}} tag is almost always seen as disruptive and impedes the work of the ARS project to then have to deal with enlightening those who don't seem to like what the ARS do - rescuing articles on notable subjects from deletion. ARS and the {{rescue}} tag are not magic wands that fix all problems but instead bring editors who are keen in helping keep content on notable subjects from being deleted. There really is no good reason to remove the tag until the AfD is closed, which usually happens within a week. -- Banjeboi 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Removing the misapplication or abusive application of this template is hardly disruptive. But holding that the template as "unremoveable", especially when the article is clearly unrescuable, however is. But that is beside the point. The point is that Dream Focus had edit warred with multiple editors over the template's application and shows no signs of relenting if another editor removes it again. --Farix (Talk) 11:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be careful about accusing others of edit warring when you are involved in similar behaviour. --neon white talk 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The error here is that someone is putting themself as the judge and jury when a community AfD process is underway. Many "unrescuable" articles have been saved. There really is little to be gained by removing the rescue tag then possibly baiting members of the ARS project or those working to save the article. Seems ironic, IMHO, that certain editors are keen on adding voluminous clean-up tags (despite guidance not to) yet are simply besides themselves when another service tag they find objectionable is also introduced. If you honestly think an article is beyond the help of the ARS project you simply need to do nothing but express your !vote at the AfD. If you're right the article (and tag) will go away in days. If you're mistaken the tag will still be removed when the AfD is complete. Really this seems rather disruptive every time it's brought up. Just leave the tag and ignore the article, one or both will disappear soon. -- Banjeboi 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not do an edit war. I reverted three people who tried to remove the tag, one of them trying twice. I checked the rules, and it says that the three revert rule doesn't count if you are reverting vandalism, such as tag removal. Does anyone believe I violated a rule here? Other than the three who kept trying to remove the tag? How many consider what they did vandalism? Dream Focus 13:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, 3rr clearly states that "adding or removing tags are not exempt". It's not an exception to the policy. And once again, the "rescue" tag is a cleanup tag like any other. It's within any editors prerogative to remove or add these as they see fit (without edit warring of course). This not an afd tag.--Sloane (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not correct, tags should not be removed until the issues are resolved. As i stated above to deliberately try to hinder rescue attempts or any other attempts to improve wikipedia is disruptive. --neon white talk 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    1. (cur) (prev) 02:14, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (The three edit thing doesn't include reverting Vandalism, which is what removing tags is clearly defined is. Give a valid reason why that tag shouldn't be there.) (undo)
    2. (cur) (prev) 02:10, 16 March 2009 Sloane (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (no need to waste peoples' time) (undo)
    3. (cur) (prev) 02:08, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (that is not a valid reason to remove the tag) (undo)
    4. (cur) (prev) 02:05, 16 March 2009 Sloane (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (article is going to go anyway) (undo)
    5. (cur) (prev) 01:28, 16 March 2009 Artw (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (Possibly you should discuss that first?) (undo)
    6. (cur) (prev) 01:25, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (Undid revision 277533128 by Dream Focus (talk) not salvagable; per Rescue groups REAL goals, should not be added) (undo)
    7. (cur) (prev) 00:50, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (And an editor can put it back in if they believe it is valid. Form a consensus with other editors before reverting again. Use the talk page) (undo)
    8. (cur) (prev) 00:44, 16 March 2009 TheFarix (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (Any editor can audit a cleanup tag. This is no different and its pointless to use such a tag with a clearly unrescuable article.) (undo)
    9. (cur) (prev) 00:40, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (That is not your decision to make.) (undo)
    10. (cur) (prev) 00:31, 16 March 2009 TheFarix (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (clearly unsavable.) (undo)
    11. (cur) (prev) 00:22, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,739 bytes) (added rescue tag) (undo)

    I consider this vandalism, and reverted it. Dream Focus 17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than edit warring it would have been better to post an alert at ANI. This isn't really vandalism just tenacious editing. --neon white talk 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it is going down on AFD; the more you edit war the more likely it is to die, so go for it I say William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vebatim from above: That one editor feels an article might be salvagable and so tags it is a Good Faith effort to improve the project, whether the article is saved or not. This does not allow that another may remove it out-of-hand, no nore than it does removing an AfD tag. Removing such tags, whether as a refusal to accept the good faith of the tagger, or in disbelief in the article's slavagability, might reasonably be seen as (unintentional) "good faith" vandalism. Point: Have articles been tagged that did not survive an AfD? Yes. This does not minimalize the good faith of the tagger. Are atempts made to salvage tagged articles? Usually. Were some tagged articles actually saved from deletion? Quite definitely. Does removing that tag, that itself had been placed in a good faith effort to improve the project, work to disrupt the process of improving wiki? Yes. Properly replacing a removed tag acts to improve wikipedia, and should not be considered as a violation of WP:3RR for if the removal of the tag can be seen as vandalism, whether intentional or not, the replacing of the removed tag does not fall under 3RR as its removal was not condoned by policy nor guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point here, is that were the AfD tag were improperly removed, and then replaced, that replacement would not affect the 3RR count. Rescue template is the same, a limited life-span tag as part of a process that acts to improve wikipedia. Such tags should only be removed at the conclusion of and as a result of the AfD. And the RESCUE tag is not the same as a CLEANUP tag. It has a very limited lifespan, and is placed for speciallized and different, though related reasons. This was already hashed out a recent TfD discussion about the tag itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal of the tag once might be considered a good faith edit, possibly tetsing the waters to see if it is supported or just in plain error. The multiple removals seem like a clear attempt at disruption, and as such should be considered vandalism. Artw (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [76]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: see date of account creation in 2006[77].

    Hobartimus (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    48h. Rubbish warning though; "see block log" would have been better, but still very lazy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.118.72.18 reported by User:Boston (Result: Result: 1 week semi, 1 sock blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [78]


    Essentially, there is a traditional view that Asian rice was introduced to the Americas by colonial Spain and Portugal. But more recent scholarship indicated that Africans may have introduced African rice first, shortly after, and/or as importantly. You can see discussion of this revisionism here and here. I am trying to express both trends in scholarship in the article per this edit but user prefers this edit. NB -Explaining both views is very important because the scholarship of the African rice deals only with its introduction to the Southern United States while the article is mostly about Latin America and the Carribean. In giving 3RR warning I assured the editor that the scholarship he/she wishes to highlight will be included. The intent seems to be to exclude the bulk of scholarship in favor of the newer scholarship which might not even be applicable to Latin America and the Carribean. The newer scholarship doesn't seem to dispute the old as much as it adds to it. Rather than allow these two (possibly complementary, possibly conflicting) understandings to be referenced user has chosen to template me for vandalism. I want to discuss both rices further but don't want to edit war. Even unrelated edits (i.e. additions to the "see also" section) are being undone by this editor's revisions.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [83] (by me) and [84] (by another editor)


    Seems to have gone away. Let me know if the trouble recurrs William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry

    This is easier to read with bullet points:

    As seen here, User:jheiv has likewise been trying to restore the cited material but is opposed by User:Nillarse. Thanks - --Boston (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    N blocked as a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    70.67.115.63 reported by Logos5557 (Result: 12h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [89]



    User 70.67.115.63 insists on that the word "band" should be replaced with the original/actual word "density". He thinks that band was not used a single time in any of the books, so is completely unsuitable to be used in the article, because "uninitiated" can't grasp the concept with "band" he claims. Discussion is here [99].

    Since there seems no possible resolution, an administrator's intervention seems necessary. Logos5557 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dimension is a more suitable word and has more precedent, both in the material and in commentary on the material on the internet. For instance a message board [100] that discusses the material commonly replaces the potentially confusing word "density" with "dimension." However under no circumstances do they use the meaningless and non-understandable word "band". Logos5557 has decided that his word "band" is superior and cut off discussion, reverting the word "dimension" over and over. At one point, Logos invited me to replace the word band, and when I did, he reverted the changes. 70.67.115.63 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to present a distorted version of what happened.. First of all, user 70.67.115.63 did not discuss the density vs. band issue under the heading I opened in article talk page [101]. Instead he tried to "settle" the issue in my talk page [102], of course in an uncivil way. Neither density nor dimension is suitable for the concept that the word band imply in the lead. Dimension is not as broad as band. A "band" of spectrum can contain many "dimensions". Message boards mean nothing in this discussion and can not serve as any kind of source for wikipedia. It was not me cutting off the discussion. As it is clear from talk page, it was 70.67.115.63 who relieved himself from any more discussion and went back to his revertion game. Logos5557 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Band, density, dimension, who cares, this is all psuedoscience babble. Since the article uses the word "purported" a lot I guess it avoids AFD; but you certainly don't get any 3RR excemption for your reverts, so you can split the 24h between you William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ratel reported by CENSEI (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [103]



    Ratel has been waging a low level edit war over the past several days. He has repeatedly removed sourced material without so much as even a brief note on the talk page. CENSEI (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editor CENSEI, current under investigation for sockpuppetry, is trying to insert allegations of THEFT against The Huffington Post using a crummy blog entry, which contains the word "dumbass", written by some unknown hack journalist. [109] WP states that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I am enforcing that at The Huffington Post page. CENSEI should be blocked for repeatedly trying to insert blog-based actionable material, which, even if true, probably refers to an editorial error that looks to have been immediately corrected and is thus completely non-notable. ► RATEL ◄ 01:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The blogs are published by newspapers, considered RS's last I checked, and Wired has pucked up on the allegations. Regardless, Ratel is edit warring over the material and only decided to use the talk page after I filed this. CENSEI (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs are only RS if the person writing it is an expert in his field. The character who wrote the one you cite is a bozo who litters his speech with curses and IM acronyms. Ugh! What's next, using graffiti at your local train station as RS? ► RATEL ◄ 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like minor edit warring by both of you. No strict 3RR vio, talk amongst yourselves or go for WP:DR and avoid incivil edit comments (R in particular) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by TharsHammar (talk) (Result: both sides warned for edit warring)

    Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Original 03:41, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Article criticizing Wikipedia */ Add liberal Huffington Post defending Klein, +ref saying As is standard journalistic practice, Klein "tested" the story by having his own researcher attempt to make")

    Revert #1 03:54, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Interviews with terrorists */ +ref "his journalistic methodology is scrupulously sound" because the "questionable sourcing" and part of a "smear campaign" quote by itself is POV without balance")

    Revert #2 03:58, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 277564374 by TharsHammar (talk) - rv - use Talk to delete what you obviously oppose")

    Revert #3 03:59, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 277565388 by AniMate (talk) - rv - please use Talk to delete this as the article appears POV without it")

    Revert #4 02:36, 17 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv TharHammar, not for vandalism reasons, it's just that he has misread the Talk page and hisory comments")

    • Diff of warning: here

    Editor continues to reject consensus on talk page, and revert the article against multiple other editors. Note 2 and 3 could be combined, but it is shown to demonstrate user is reverting against multiple editors, and even with combining those edits LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has violated the spirit and the rules of 3RR and continues to engage in edit warring against consensus.

    —TharsHammar (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been notified of this complaint, [110] and has so far chosen to not refute the allegations. Please note that many intervening edits and reverts were not highlighted in the report, only those reverts related to one subject manner, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has reverted other information in the article. TharsHammar (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No refutation is necessary. A look at my edit history reveals I either did or I did not violate 3RR. I did not, and your claim that I did does not make it true. I think you do not understand 3RR since some links you use for support include additions, not reverts, among other things, like your previous false 3RR claim. I know you are a well-meaning person but I hope someone explains 3RR to you. I would but I know you would not listen at this point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I violated 3RR once before when I did not know any better due to inexperience. But I have that experience now, and I edit in a whole different style/manner, so 3RR violations will no longer happen to me, and I regularly build consensus even with those with whom I have initially disagreed, and vice versa. AniMate is just the latest example. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having 1 other editor propose a compromise that was rejected by all other editors is not "building consensus". You violated 3RR after repeated warnings. I played nice last time on 3/11 and just left a reminder on your talk page instead of filing a formal complaint. Others have warned you not to violate 3RR since then and you have still ignored them. Now that this has become a pattern of yours I had to file this complaint so administrative action could be taken. TharsHammar (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If editor promises not to edit war, there is no point in a block because the point is to avoid disruption, not to punish. However, the editor seems to be on a weird agenda-driven mission on Wikipedia to discredit Wikipedia as a cabal of liberals so I am not sure what good may come of this. Wikidemon (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see 3R from both sides; would you both like to be blocked? No? Then behave William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sloane reported by User:A Nobody (Result: no vio)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: The user in question has removed warnings and efforts to discuss the reverts with somewhat incivil edit summaries: [111], [112]
    • Editor in question is sufficiently familiar with revert warring as seen here. Given that Dream Focus was ultimately blocked for 24 hours for attempting to restore a template Sloane wanted removed, it seems in the interest of fairness that it should similarly not be okay for Sloane to keep restoring a template removed by multiple editors either, no? Moreover, I am in a larger sense concerned that the editor in question seems to be here to fight a "war." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is pretty ridiculous. First of all, my first edit was the insertion of a speedy deletion tag, not a revert. So there has been no technical breaking of the 3rr. Secondly, I was reverting the removal of the speedy deletion tag by the creator of the article (User:Ks64q2-[113],[114],[115]), which the speedy deletion tag clearly states as not acceptable and I think can be considered a form of vandalism (although the creator doesn't seem to have been acting in bad faith, which is why I didn't report him here or elsewhere). The creator has now agreed to just let an admin take a look at the article and decide whether it should be speedy deleted. I have also gladly engaged the other user, as can be seen here (archiving my own talk page is hardly a crime). Finally, I think User:A Nobody is only reporting me here, because he has taken offence to the drama listed higher regarding the "rescue" template, which is why he his dragging all kinds of crazy stuff in his 3rr report.--Sloane (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am taking offense to hypocritical behavior. If it is wrong for someone to keep adding a rescue template when multiple editors have removed it, then it is surely wrong for someone else to keep adding a SD template when multiple editors have removed it as well and when an AFD is ongoing anyway. Why not just let the AfD play out? And yes, seeing the post about approaching deletion as if it is a war is an uncompromising and uncollegial attitude to take regarding deletion here. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:A Nobody seems to be admitting he's only reporting me to make a WP:POINT.--Sloane (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I am reporting you, because you are edit warring, engaging in hypocrisy with regards to edit warring, and apparently think you are here to fight a war. We are here to build a paperless encyclopedia in cooperation with our colleagues. Saying you are fighting a war on cruft is disrupting Wikipedia to porve a WP:POINT. Please do not edit war or treat wikipedia as a battleground. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • User:A Nobody also seems to be suffering from a serious case of humourlessness (now where's the noticeboard for that?)--Sloane (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I do have a sense of humor here, on occasion, but I don't find insulting the good faith work of our contributors funny, because Wikipedia:Editors matter. AfD should be for serious discussion in which actual policy and guideline based rationales are presented, not non-policy based comments that lack encyclopedic seriouness or that might turn off our colleagues. People can and should argue to delete in much better ways than saying to delete as part of some kind of war on cruft. See my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish, for example. I cite a policy and also looked for sources to make sure that it did not meet that policy. But again, my concern here is the edit war over the speedy delete template. And again, why not let the deletion discussion play out? Now that multiple editors have argued to keep in the AfD, tossing a speedy delete tag on seems out of place. Should the article creator remove it, perhaps not, but let someone else revert him rather than be the one to add it four times now. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Articles up for AfD regularly get tagged with speedy deletion and sometimes in fact get speedy deleted while the AfD discussion is ongoing. I have no problem with any user or admin disagreeing with me and removing the speedy deletion tag. But creators of articles should refrain from removing it. From WP:SD: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. --Sloane (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your best bet is still to not go back and forth with the editor in question and anyway, Benjiboi has also removed the speedy delete template. Hoaxes, libel, and copy vios do, rightfully so, occasionally get speedily deleted during AfDs and I would not contest that. A couple articles I nominated for deletion wound up speedily deleted and neither I nor anyone else took issue, but here we have multiple editors in the AfD arguing to keep. Thus, perhaps consensus from the previous discussion has changed and as such, just let the discussion play out. It's best to avoid going back and forth with others. If you are correct than multiple editors will revert. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no 3RR violation; Sloane never made his fourth revert. As all parties are now at the AfD, I don't see any point in this report, aside for POINT purposes, but that's a discussion for another time. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Review request, because there has a clear violation of 3RR rule in this report Sloane's first edit is a "revert" given this edit made by 9Nak two days ago; tagging exactly the same template that Sloane used. He reported Dream Focus for the same matter and made him blocked, so the same treatment would meet the sprite of "fairness".--Caspian blue 06:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's just silly. Just because an article was tagged for deletion once, doesn't mean tagging it again constitutes a revert. Also, the comparison with Dream Focus doesn't fly, as I was basically removing a form of vandalism (creator of an article removing a speedy deletion tag), whilst Dream Focus was edit warring over a clean-up tag.--Sloane (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Repeatedly inserting the tag and making a pointless edit war are "silly". The legitimacy of the article has been disputed on the discussion of the AfD, so I don't see any justification of your 3RR violation. You did not revert vadalism at all.--Caspian blue 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll repeat WP:SD: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. --Sloane (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • may not Good. Even the guideline does not say that removing the tag by the creator of a page is "vandalism". So applying the same rule is "fair".--Caspian blue 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • P.S. you made one more revert to the article; 5th revert whilst you're being reported here.--Caspian blue 14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I made two ordinary edits. Go ahead and revert them if you disagree. And stop harassing me.[116].--Sloane (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • What an outrageous accusation you make. I'm relying on the same rule that you used, so abiding by the same "justice" makes your logic to the blocking Dream Focus meaningful. Your bogus link shows "the history of The Motley Moose". Such false accusation constitutes " harassment and personal attack. You should stop the disruption. The ordinary edits are reverts, and you'd better read the 3RR policy again.--Caspian blue 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation I reviewed the report and I agree that there was no violation of 3RR. The 5th revert was not a revert but an ordinary edit and WP:AGF compels me to assume that Sloane did not want to break 3RR by readding the db-tag removed by the IP (because I will assume that he did not notice it). He stopped now and as such a block would be punitive in any way, contrary to WP:BLOCK's spirit of blocks as a preventive measure. I urge all parties involved to calm down and leave this page now, it's really not needed that you continue the discussion here. SoWhy 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    68.39.191.43 reported by Beve (Result: 1 week semi)


    • Previous version reverted to: [117]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [127]


    Beve (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on this, NovaGrad70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks to be identical to the anonymous user that was reported. I see a self revert about one minute apart, and both users seem to claim to be reverting "malicious" changes. --Sigma 7 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems easiest to semi-protect it for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evenmoremotor reported by Anonymous user (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [128]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
    • Comment. I've never posted on WP:3RR before so apologies if I've missed something important. Basically, I'm here because User:Evenmoremotor has reverted my edit to List of Jewish American mobsters several times without giving any reason why. I originally edited the page because it had a {{nofootnotes}} template and I spent awhile converting the references to in-text citations. I not only converted the existing references but I added three additional sources. I've done this to a few other pages but this is the first time I've ever had an issue with another editor. One of the links had been reverted by a Bot but I thought it was a useful external link so I added it back. Maybe this is the issue, and I don't nessessarily have an problem with with that, but I don't really understand why Evenmoremotor feels he needs to remove the in-text citations. 71.184.49.28 (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also reverted my edits to Ike Bloom and Johnny Spanish so I've stopped editing until this can be resolved. 71.184.49.28 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EMM seems to have got carried away by an excess of zeal. But you have been edit warring too. So 24h all round William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wasn't edit warring. At first I didn't understand his edits and when I reverted back to my version I carefully explained my reasoning. He wasn't so considerate in his edit summeries ("not needed" / "Undid sockpupet 71.184.49.28 / 72.74.209.246"). When he continued to revert my edits, I stopped editing altogether and brought the issue here. Another editor interveaned prior to this and was more than happy to discuss it with Evenmoremotor. I waited almost a day for him to respond and when he didn't I assumed he didn't have a problem. I think it's unfair to block me when I've gone out of my way to settle this and not be disruptive. 72.74.198.46 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    70.24.233.37 reported by Scjessey (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [138]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [145]

    There are actually more of these in the last 24 hours, but I figured 6 would be more than sufficient. Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:141.154.12.116 reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [146]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [151]

    This user has gone on to argue with at least five editors who have reverted his removal and changing of content both on their talk pages and on the talk page for the article making claims of obstructionism. He's edit warring. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    63.3.1.2 reported by Aktsu (Result: Already blocked)

    • Previous version reverted to: [152]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [157]

    --aktsu (t / c) 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexorg reported by Jayjg (Result: blocked 72h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [158]



    User:Vexorg was blocked for 3RR violation on this page just two days ago, after defiantly refusing to revert himself following his fourth revert inserting disputed material. He asked to be unblocked, stating OK, I will not breach 3RR and refer back to the talk page of that article Since his return, he has continued to try to edit-war in the disputed material. On the Talk: page he continually claims there is "no consensus" to remove the material, and on the Talk: page and in edit summaries that "NO rationale for removal has been given for this properly sourced relevent section". This is despite the fact that copious, policy based-rationales have been provided for its removal. In the past two days his insertion has been reverted by four separate editors, all of whom have explained at length why the material is not appropriate. Despite this, his edit summaries indicate he fully intends to continue edit-warring this material into the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dalej78 reported by Grsz11 (Result: 24h block)


    • Previous version reverted to: [162]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [167]

    Edit warring a sourced statement off the page. Also note article subject to terms addressed by article probation. Grsz11 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked The first revert is the same as the "version reverted to" so this is, being pedantic, 1 edit and 3 reverts and thus not a strict violation of the three-revert-rule. However, because the article is on probation and Dalej78 has been previously notified of this, I am blocking him for 24 hours for disruptive edit-warring. CIreland (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MrSpammy reported by Grsz11 (Result: blocked 72 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [168]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [173]

    Also see terms of article probation. Grsz11 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Foam takeout container (result: 24h all round)

    4RR at Foam takeout container:

    Badagnani (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for both of you. Gosh, this just has to be the most boring thing to edit war over. What on earth convinced you that it was vital, today, now, with no delay, to re-insert "Foam takeout containers are typically discarded after the food has been consumed and are rarely recycled."? Couldn't it have waited until tomorrow? Or at least until you could discuss it on talk? Still, at least I get a blog posting out of this mess: [178] if you're interested William M. Connolley (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this be on WP:LAME? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    98.19.46.251 reported by JJB (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [179]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [184]

    New IP user keeps inserting same Bible verses and interps, does not get the point of WP yet. Refused dialogue attempts. Will a 3RR block get this person talking? Technically this is ~40 hours (was trying to avoid 3RR myself, though I had help from User:Nubiatech and User:Boston); but I trust the pattern is obvious. JJB 07:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamiemichelle and 74.4.222.208 reported by Headbomb (Result: block+semi)

    • Previous version reverted to: [link]

    Check the article history, the case is too complex to be summed up.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Numerous places on Talk:Frank J. Tipler.


    I acknowledge I am myself 3RRing, but reading the comments will show that while the letter of 3RR is indeed violated, the spirit is not.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone take a look at this now? We're at 45RR and going strong.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamiemichelle was blocked by William M. Connolley for 24 hours. Ruslik (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:Peripitus semi'd the page. HB probably gets a mild rebuke for breaking 3RR, or maybe not, I can't be bothered to work it out William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what I read on Talk:Frank_J._Tipler#Request for third opinion I extended the block to one week (personal attacks). Ruslik (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BigbossSNK reported by Herr_Gruber (Result: 24 hour 2x )


    • Previous version reverted to: [185]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [190]

    Previous report for the same thing on the same page: [191] Herr Gruber (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ks64q2 reported by User:9Nak (Result: 1 block, 1 direction to continue disengagement)


    • Previous version reverted to: [192]


    There is lots (and lots) of acrimonious history here across multiple forums and pages, but seven (and counting) reverts in less than 24 hours does rather take the cake, I think. 9Nak (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No problem. This was a completely new edit, and I would be happy for any admins to review that. Furthermore, I put details on the talk pages, and messaged the editors who made changes to especially ensure it fit the intent of their edits in. Please feel free to check that. I'm afraid this is all smoke and mirrors trying to take attention away from the behavior of some of these users in the AfD of this article. Please feel free to review my Wikipedia editing history in it's entireity, I'm certain you will see there is no problem here. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclosure -- I'm deeply involved on this from the other side of Ks6 and when i saw this report i checked my own self out. There's a good chance that I'm over the line (though there may be an argument for leniency that i was involved in reverting BLP issues). At any rate, for the moment have disengaged over there and am alowing Ks6 to own the article and add unsourced/poorly sourced information about living people as he sees fit.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ks65q2 blocked for 12 hours - Bali ultimate told to stay away from article for duration of block, since user already disengaged. Remember, WP:3RR does not require that the version reverted to be exactly the same every time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kendrick7 reported by Tony1 (Result: prot)

    • Previous version reverted to: [200]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [205]
    • There have been attempts by three regulars to protect long-standing wording during this 24-hour period, using conciliatory edit summaries. The matter, inter alia, is the subject of an RfC for which the proposal wording has apparently been agreed to by all (Questions 1 and 2).
    • This comes straight after a strong warning by an admin for abusing User:HWV258 on the talk page of the guideline ("I am sorry for your parents for giving birth to a retarded child.") and referring to the edits of two other users as "nonsense" in edit summaries.
    • This exasperated comment by the experienced and typically cautious Kotniski, a regular at the guideline page, sums up Kendrick7's behaviour.
    • I appreciate that Kendrick7 has clearly worked him/herself up into a state of anger; I think I speak for all regulars at the page in saying that we are concerned on a personal level. However, his/her behaviour is becoming uncontrollable. Tony (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is precisely the sort of personal attacks ("I am sorry for your parents for giving birth to a retarded child.") that causes many editors to just throw up their hands and say that contributing to Wikipedia just isn’t worth the pain. No editor should be able to make deeply cutting insults on the intelligence of another as a tactic to beat them down. A strong warning is, IMO, insufficient. Kendrick has clearly gotten spun up too far with his editwarring and personal attacks; an imposed cooling off period is in order. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-03-18T14:44:53 CIreland (talk | contribs | block) m (29,040 bytes) (Protected Wikipedia:Linking: Edit warring / Content dispute: Protected until end of ArbCom case on Date delinking. ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Another mistaken prot (IMHO) but it's done William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mydarkglobe reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: peace?)


    • Previous version reverted to: [206]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [211]


    Seems to be a single purpose account too, as well as a conflict of interest, as evident here [212]. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No reverts since warning. Let me know if it recurrs William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: prot)

    • Previous version reverted to: [213]



    not inaccurate, kid Jeremie Belpois (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-03-18T20:03:23 Yamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs | block) m (22,398 bytes) (Protected Code Lyoko: Edit warring / Content dispute: indefinite protection until the dispute is resolved, PLEASE use the discussion page, it's there for a reason ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Personally I prefer blocking people to prot, but others disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rjecina reported by Bizso (Result: 24h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [218]



    • Comment: User edited page and I added extra information precisely sourced from Britannica, and corrected text according to sources already cited by user (Bellamy p 39.). I kept his initial edit. User then reverted my edits 5 times.--Bizso (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    24h each William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow moving edit war at Anderson, Indiana

    75.50.45.104 (talk · contribs) 71.98.106.197 (talk · contribs)

    Two IPs, who I suspect are each from two competing news sources, have been engaged in a slow moving edit war for the last week on the article Anderson, Indiana. One IP will remove a link to the Herald Times, [224], and replace it with a link to the so called Anderson Free Press, [225]. Anderson free press appears to be a managed and hosted by a single person, likely the person who keeps inserting it, and I think it may qualify as link spam. I would like an admin to semi-protect the page please. Charles Edward (Talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The Rouge Penguin reported by Jeremie Belpois Result:

    no 3rr or anything yet, but he is clearly starting one on Odd Della Robbia and Aelita Hopper. Jeremie Belpois (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Following the Code Lyoko article getting protected, this is just ridiculous. Jeremie already fought tooth and nail to try to revive these articles once before and failed. He was told in no uncertain terms to discuss instead of recreating them elsewhere. 23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    you're starting this, penguin. you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong. Jeremie Belpois (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is ridiculous behavior on both sides. It's simply not worth fighting over. The article does seem to have changed some. Why not just let it be recreated and nominate it for AfD again. Then see what the consensus of the community is - that will get a definitive answer without the "he said she said". If enough people think it has not changed significantly from the last AfD it can be snowballed into a speedy. All these accusations and reversions are not addressing the supposed issue about the merits of the article. Mfield (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thewanderer reported by PRODUCER (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [226]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [230]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=278228009"