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
Jkp212 (talk | contribs)
769 edits
Reporting user
Line 572: Line 572:


[[User:Generalmesse]] has decided that the original German Panzer Army Africa battle reports [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_28_June_1942.jpg 1] [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_29_June_1942_page1.jpg 2] [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_29_June_1942.jpg 3] about the [[First Battle of El Alamein]] and the historical truth are nothing compared to his source: WWII fascist Radio Rome and therefore is continuing (for days now) to vandalize [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd|with a plethora of socks]] the article [[First Battle of El Alamein]] with fascist propaganda about the heroic exploits of Italian troops. Discussion attempts have been tried and ignored by him. The enitre talk page of the article in question [[Talk:First Battle of El Alamein]] is only about trying to reason with him: 2 Military history Wikiproject coordinators, me and a historian from New Zealand have tried in vain to explain to him, that nothing supports his version of events. He simply ignores it and has reverted himself today 4 times and together with his various socks he has reverted the correct version 12 times in the last 60 hours.) [[User:Generalmesse]] and his various socks are incarnations of already banned [[user:Giovanni Giove]], Radio Rome broadcasting to English personnel during WWII is not an acceptable source, furthermore he refuses to discuss and prefers to insult other editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_Army&diff=prev&oldid=220749035 (an example)] and as he and his socks behave in the same way in all WWII articles with Italian participation my patience is finished. --[[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Generalmesse]] has decided that the original German Panzer Army Africa battle reports [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_28_June_1942.jpg 1] [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_29_June_1942_page1.jpg 2] [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_29_June_1942.jpg 3] about the [[First Battle of El Alamein]] and the historical truth are nothing compared to his source: WWII fascist Radio Rome and therefore is continuing (for days now) to vandalize [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd|with a plethora of socks]] the article [[First Battle of El Alamein]] with fascist propaganda about the heroic exploits of Italian troops. Discussion attempts have been tried and ignored by him. The enitre talk page of the article in question [[Talk:First Battle of El Alamein]] is only about trying to reason with him: 2 Military history Wikiproject coordinators, me and a historian from New Zealand have tried in vain to explain to him, that nothing supports his version of events. He simply ignores it and has reverted himself today 4 times and together with his various socks he has reverted the correct version 12 times in the last 60 hours.) [[User:Generalmesse]] and his various socks are incarnations of already banned [[user:Giovanni Giove]], Radio Rome broadcasting to English personnel during WWII is not an acceptable source, furthermore he refuses to discuss and prefers to insult other editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_Army&diff=prev&oldid=220749035 (an example)] and as he and his socks behave in the same way in all WWII articles with Italian participation my patience is finished. --[[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador|talk]]) 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:John celona]] reported by [[User:jkp212]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Raegan_Butcher}}. {{3RRV|john celona}}

Time reported:

*Previous version reverted to (this is the correct version): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=222063434&oldid=221936225 <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=222063434&oldid=22193622]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=221919114&oldid=221813251]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=221640252&oldid=221469671]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=221422533&oldid=221268465]
also see:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=220359594&oldid=220191126]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=220177619&oldid=219510296]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=212405626&oldid=212038557]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_celona&diff=207665498&oldid=207522734]
also see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_celona&diff=221289574&oldid=220303864

Celona, a perennial edit-warrer, is at it again. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)




= Example =
= Example =

Revision as of 15:41, 27 June 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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


    Violations

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


    User:Savvy10 reported by User:MissMJ (Result: stale)

    Time reported: 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: Multiples, see below.


    • 1st revert to: [1]
    • 2nd revert to: [2] + user made additional edits while reverting
    • 3rd revert to: [3]
    • 4th revert to: [4]
    • 5th revert to: [5]
    • 6th revert to: [6]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]

    Sorry for the messiness of the report, but this whole situation is messy. User:Savvy10 insists on adding information to the Elimination chart that other editors think should be kept out (talk page discussion on the topic). Not including such information has also been touched on here, here, here, and here. In some instances the user reverts the removal of the information by other editors, in others s/he adds the information manually. This has been going on for over a week. MissMJ (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Agrippina Minor reported by User:DanielEng (Result: Malformed)

    Repeatedly erasing sourced material from Nastia Liukin as "unsourced POV." [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] (one source is offline but was verified by several users before it disappeared; second was given after first deletion). User refuses to discuss actions and has been warned about blanking/discussing content on Talk Page [22], and when warned, simply said "report away." I'e reverted three times now but will wait to hear from admis before reverting again--if this counts as vandalism (blanking content) I will; if it's a content dispute, I won't.DanielEng (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Haunted Angel reported by User:156.34.223.180 (Result: 6 hours)

    Comment Editor has come close to violating WP:3RR on a number of pages. He has used the Twinkle vandalism tool to revert edits that clearly are not vandalism. Although he attempts to justify his 3RR violation by claiming the reverted edits were vandalism. Following a warning for 3RR violation the editor blatantly said he was going to ignore the warning as he sees his edits as vandalism reverts even though they are clearly a simply content issue. A clear ignorance of the WP:3RR policy. 156.34.223.180 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Added note: User has now blanked the 3RR warning they were given earlier. 156.34.223.180 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pseudo daoist reported by User:456hjk (Result: warned)

    Time reported: 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


    • 1st revert: [23] Revision as of 23:42, 23 June 2008
    • 2nd revert: [24]
    • 3rd revert: [25]
    • 4th revert: [26] Revision as of 03:50, 24 June 2008
    It's customary to warn users before reporting them here, or at least explain why you have not warned them first. No further action. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    he knew about the three reversions, and he has been warned about it but he blanked that section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&diff=207720560&oldid=207692411 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.139.221 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:456hjk reported by User:pseudo daoist (Result: both editors blocked 24 hours )

    Time reported: 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:Pseudo daoist reported by User:456hjk (Result:both editors blocked 24 hours)

    Time reported: 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


    • 1st revert: [27] Revision as of 23:42, 23 June 2008
    • 2nd revert: [28]
    • 3rd revert: [29]
    • 4th revert: [30] Revision as of 03:50, 24 June 2008
    It's customary to warn users before reporting them here, or at least explain why you have not warned them first. No further action. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    he knew about the three reversions, and he has been warned about it but he blanked that section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&diff=207720560&oldid=207692411 456hjk (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raryel reported by User:Killerofcruft (Result: 24 hours)

    Time reported: 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)



    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours seicer | talk | contribs 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This block appears to have been improper. The user was not warned until 14:59. The last revert was at 15:00. The block was at 15:02, prior to the filing of this report. One minute is not adequate to respond to a warning, the user may, indeed, be in the middle of an edit and have no knowledge of it.--Abd (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.10.4.231 reported by User:Justin A Kuntz (Result: semiprotected)

    Time reported: 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


    Editor is clearly aware of WP:3RR see [31] and is using a dynamic IP address. All of these are the same editor:

    92.8.139.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.41.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.186.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.115.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.29.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.11.143.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.10.4.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    I have attempted to explain to this editor the need for reliable sources and Edit Warring. In response, the edit has followed me onto a friends talk page [32] and [33] and is clearly ignoring attempts to resolve the situations and to understand wiki policies; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP Editor Vandalism? Not Sure and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Larry Lamb (actor). Edit warring behaviour also on Larry Lamb (actor), Joanna Page, James Thornton (actor) and Bruce Mackinnon. When I've discussed the edit warring behaviour he turns round and accuses me of edit warring, I mentioned the fact that he was stalking me on my friends Talk page and now he accuses me of wiki-stalking see diffs above. In response to the vandalism warning he accuses me of vandalism. Editor doesn't provide sources to back up his changes and misrepresents the source here. I'm kinda bemused by the whole thing because the edits he is edit warring over are fairly trivial. Stopped myself at 3 edits and have no intention of further revisions but for the record Guy Berryman is Scottish not English. Justin talk 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to editors - "Just A Kuntz" has been repeatedly wiki-stalking me and reverting my edits for no reason. He repeatedly claims I'm wiki-stalking HIM - but if you check edit history/patterns you will see it is in fact the other way round. You may also note he has started edit warring with me on several articles and has reached the 3RR before myself. He also attacked me with vandalism warning, of which he has already been told my edits are not vandalism - when it is actually him who is reverting my edits and removing sourced facts from articles. If anyone should be blocked for 3RR or wiki-stalking it is "Justin A Kuntz".

    92.10.193.113 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC) If the ip is able to change their address then a block is pointless. semiprotected for 7 days. Spartaz Humbug! 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.42.183.1 reported by User:TheRetroGuy (Result: SEMIPROTECTED )

    Time reported: 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: Multiples, see below


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

    Note: In addition to this evening's edit warring, edits from the above IP address and others beginning 86.4 appear to have been a problem for some time. The user (probably the same person) typically makes trivial and repetetive edits, listing ten or fifteen random artists as an influence/follower of an artist. Also refuses to engage in dialogue with other editors. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • semi-protected for a week. If thye can change their ip readily it pointless blocking the ip. Youmay wish to ask a checkuser if a range-block can be imposed if the vandalism continues. Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:218.186.68.124 reported by User:Musashi1600 (Result: 24 hours each, semiprotection)

    Time reported: 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [40]

    I'm slightly confused how to report this, since this user appears to be in an edit war with User:129.71.73.243 over this article, and the two keep reverting each other's edits. In any case, both users have clearly violated the 3RR rule, as the article edit log makes clear.


    Musashi1600 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:129.71.73.243 reported by User:Musashi1600 (Result: 24 hours each, semiprotection)

    Time reported: 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]

    As mentioned in my report above this, this user appears to be in an edit war with User:218.186.68.124 over this article, and the two keep reverting each other's edits. Both users have clearly violated the 3RR rule, as the article edit log makes clear.


    User:Rezistenta reported by User:Desiphral (Result: 24h (Re); 36h (De))

    Time reported: 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]


    I warned this user yesterday for 3rr, but instead the admin PeterSymonds blocked me only with 3 alleged reverts (one of them as explained in my motivation, was requested by Rezistenta, to add the sources that I already put in the talk page). I want also to bring to your attention that the Rezistenta has a history of vandalism and verbal violence (just to remind the last revert where he named me mad), that PeterSymonds supports him in an unjustified manner and that the initial move from Romani people to Roma people, as controversial as it may be, was done by another admin, Bogdangiusca, only with a fallacious reason, without discussing it first. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rezistenta (talk · contribs) and Desiphral (talk · contribs) have both been blocked, for twenty-four and thirty-six hours, respectively, for edit-warring on this article. -- tariqabjotu 12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't contest the nominator's right to list this here, because it was a legitimate block, reviewed externally by at least two well-respected editors and one admin and declared thus. However, I want to make one thing clear before it goes any further. I am not supporting one side over the other. I know nothing of this dispute; I know nothing of the article; I've never edited any related articles. It is a coincidence that I warned you before, but I came here twice because I happened to be around, and not because I have a vested bias for, or interest in, either view. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AzureFury reported by User:Jaysweet (Result: 24 hours)

    Time reported: 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Frédérick Duhautpas (Result: 24 hours for both participants)

    Time reported: 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [55]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]

    User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles reported by User:Protonk (Result: No violation)

    Time reported: 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 15:27, 25 June 2008 This is the original WQA and has not been reverted to.


      • First off, I did not violate 3RR by the diffs indicated above. I have NOT reverted a fourth time nor will I. To further address the above, the user who reported is currently engaged in a dispute that I am trying to resolve in a civil and amicable manner on our talk pages. He appears to now be venue shopping and if you notice from the diffs, I have not merely revert warred, but rather have offered a few DIFFERENT versions of the title of the thread so that it more accurately reflects the nature of our disagreement. I have not and would not outright edit war with someone. I am trying to defuse tensions by having a less biased and more correctly titled thread, which I believe to be unncessesary anyway as he and I are trying to iron out our differences on our talk pages. Please note, for example, that when I tried to get us back on track in a discussion, he said he wanted to "escalate" the dispute. I did not respond further to him in that discussion, but he went ahead and started a Wikiquette report anyway?! I don't know what the deal is, but if you look at the editor's last nearly fifty edits they all are to or about me: see [66]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • you didn't revert it a fourth time because the current version is to your liking. Also, let is be PERFECTLY clear. Almost all of the diffs on the WQA are prior to your first comment on my talk page. The WQA isn't about any tensions between us. It is about allegations of YOUR violations of guidelines. As such, if you wish to make a WQA about my violations of guidelines, be my guest, but don't add in your allegations as though the WQA is a referendum on the conflict between us. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As you are a new user, I am assuming you may not understand how certain things work here. But this thread here is frivolous, because in order for there to be a 3RR violation, it must be the FOURTH revert, which I have not and will not do. The WQ report is indeed about a conflict between us, because whatever you claim I have done, you have done just as much if not even more harshly. It is parallel behavior and in your case more concerning, because you started the report AFTER I had made overtures to agree to disagree and disengage with you. It represents a needless escalation of a disagreement that could have and has been resolved through talk page discussions. As others have indicated to you, the thread like this one serves no proactive purpose at this point. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Neither party went over three reverts. An edit war at WP:WQA is particularly ironic, and it had better not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ism schism reported by Anon ip (Result: No further action)

    Time reported: 05:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 04:07

    User:DCGeist reported by Septentrionalis (Result: 48 hours)

    Time reported: 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 16:55, 23 June 2008 (This is itself a revert, as the edit summary admits)


    It is the third through sixth reverts which consistute the violation; but I include the others which demonstrate a pattern. These are exact reversions of two different editors, including at least some reversions of different variants inserted as an effort at compromise; if it were not continuing, I would not have brought it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While DCGeist is an experienced editor, and should know about 3RR, he was reminded in this edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Three reverts in 24 hours is not a 'strict' violation of 3RR, but pattern of editing clearly shows disregard for the rule. Editor has been blocked four times in the past for 3RR violations, so blocked for 48 hours. TalkIslander 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reversions 3, 4, 5, and 6 are 4 in fourteen hours; but another recasting of the sentence is in place, and we'll see what happens when the block ends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, I too was involved in the edit war on RKO Pictures, and am willing to take whatever block is prudent. I don't know if I necessarily violated 3RR, but if two people were engaging in equal edit warring, it would be wrong for only one to be blocked. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plyjacks reported by User:Jerem43 (Result: no violation)

    Time reported: 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


    Comment-

    There is a content dispute over who created the character. I thought we had reach a consensus to leave both versions in and mention that the two stories and include a note in the infobox that the creators were disputed. Twice with in the previous 24 hours Plyjacks has blanked the information on Willard Scott. This also includes previous removals and editorial changes to weigh the article to the side he supports, which involves two other individuals purported to have created the clown - Terry Teene and George Vorhees. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation Consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of the three-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.146.108.159 reported by User:MRSC (Result: Already blocked)

    Time reported: 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Alastair Haines reported by User:Ilkali (Result: 31 hours)

    Time reported: 09:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    • In most cases, the user is not reverting to the same specific version, due to the article being developed throughout the incident. In the 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts, he is reverting the removal of some sections (discussed here - note that the editor did not contribute). In the 1st and 2nd, he is restoring to earlier versions of the article, as discussed here. User was recently blocked for 24h for violating 3RR over the same article ([67]). He is editing alone against the consensus of myself, User:Alynna Kasmira and User:Abtract.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning given - user is assumed to know the rules, since he was recently blocked for violating 3RR on the same page.
    Warning! User Ilkali is gaming the system.
    The links and times Ilkali has given do not match. They also include revisions that were part of text building sequences that included text that was accepted by both Alynna and Ilkali himself. They do not constitute a 3RR violation as claimed. In fact, quite the opposite, they evidence User:Alastair Haines progressing the article on the basis of sources, despite sections of this being repeatedly removed by two editors, without them citing sources or attempting consensus.
    Ilkali's last edit summary says, "removed irrelevant text again - see talk page. you're already arguably in violation of 3RR, Alastair. don't push yourself completely over the edge". This is a claim that Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge and Emile Durkheim are "irrelevant" to an article on cross-cultural views of the gender of gods. Together with a threat. There is no consensus that the views of these scholars are irrelevant, and I find it hard to believe that such a consensus would ever eventuate. These are "canonical" scholars.
    I notified Ilkali that I was going to report his violations, but that I would be absent for a while. He appears to have taken the "forewarned is forearmed" approach, and is countering by accusing me. I strongly suggest the edit history and talk page of this article be investigated closely.
    It will be observed that none of the editors mentioned above have supplied a single source to the article or talk page.
    I further note that I have already allowed one administrator error in this matter to pass. I recommend at least two administrators confer in assessing this case.
    Ilkali's example above is not a 3RR violation from me because it involves a series of sourced edits building the article.
    On the other hand, here are two examples of Ilkali breaking 3RR, and me letting it pass:
    User Ilkali removing a talk page post I made in reply to another long standing editor of the page
    User Ilkali repeatedly removing sourced text in the article namespace
    Over the course of about a month, Ilkali has consistently used reversion edits on the article, and never once provided any sourced text. Additionally, he has frequently done this with no talk page comment before or after. When he has used talk to support his reversions, his arguments have been ad hominem, personal attacks, appeals to majority or his own authority, not to sources, nor to consensus.
    My WQA failed. My appeal for mediation has not been answered. Please do something. I do not seek Ilkali's banning.
    This is not just a matter of progress being disrupted on one article. I am concerned about time lost having to defend attacks on my character as an editor, while I have several higher priority projects within the Wiki community, including List of New Testament Latin manuscripts and WikiSource:Bible (Free)/1 Corinthians. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I notified him that I was going to report his own violations, but that I would be absent for a while. He took the "Forewarned is forearmed" approach and is counter-accusing me". That's a somewhat uncivil accusation. I am reporting you because the results of the first report didn't seem to have an effect on you - your behaviour hasn't changed in the slightest. Both of your claims that I've violated the 3RR rule are baseless: In the original instance, you count two edits that aren't actually reversions (perhaps this is why you give links to versions rather than to diffs?) and in the second case, I only reverted three times. Why would I need special tactics to draw attention from these vacuous accusations?
    "It will be observed that none of the editors mentioned above have supplied a single source to the article or talk page". This isn't the place to discuss these things. Bring it up at mediation.
    "My WQA failed". Because those involved agreed you were wrong.
    "My appeal for mediation has not been answered". Because we are all waiting for you to approve Rushyo as mediator. Ilkali (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has informed me of Rushyo's arrival. I will have a look directly. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This conversation would flow better if you didn't continually edit a comment I've already replied to, Alastair. Your latest edit introduces the claim that "The links and times Ilkali has given do not match". The times I cite are the times of the last edit in each diff, as can be seen by clicking the link and looking at the "Revision as of ..." text for the 'after' version. You also claim that "They also include revisions that were part of text building sequences that included text that was accepted by both Alynna and Ilkali himself". Again, this is untrue. I hand-selected only those edits with which you reverted the removal of text, or restored the article to an earlier version. Ilkali (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be my point, then, you admit you "hand-selected" the edits you're claiming are a 3RR.
    In context, the edit history merely reflects a long standing pattern. Constructive edits and sources from me. Endless reversions from you. I rest my case. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Second 3RR this month on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Generalmesse reported by User:noclador (Result: )

    Time reported: 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Generalmesse has decided that the original German Panzer Army Africa battle reports 1 2 3 about the First Battle of El Alamein and the historical truth are nothing compared to his source: WWII fascist Radio Rome and therefore is continuing (for days now) to vandalize with a plethora of socks the article First Battle of El Alamein with fascist propaganda about the heroic exploits of Italian troops. Discussion attempts have been tried and ignored by him. The enitre talk page of the article in question Talk:First Battle of El Alamein is only about trying to reason with him: 2 Military history Wikiproject coordinators, me and a historian from New Zealand have tried in vain to explain to him, that nothing supports his version of events. He simply ignores it and has reverted himself today 4 times and together with his various socks he has reverted the correct version 12 times in the last 60 hours.) User:Generalmesse and his various socks are incarnations of already banned user:Giovanni Giove, Radio Rome broadcasting to English personnel during WWII is not an acceptable source, furthermore he refuses to discuss and prefers to insult other editors (an example) and as he and his socks behave in the same way in all WWII articles with Italian participation my patience is finished. --noclador (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:John celona reported by User:jkp212 (Result: )

    Time reported:

    also see: [72] [73] [74]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [75]

    also see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_celona&diff=221289574&oldid=220303864

    Celona, a perennial edit-warrer, is at it again. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Example

    == [[User:<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->]] reported by [[User:<!-- Your NAME -->]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. {{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 

Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VERSIONTIME] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]


<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=222100255"