Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring 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

User:Distributor108 reported by User:Monty845 (Result: Indef)

Page: Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Distributor108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion at Talk:Sri Lanka#Official and National languages and User:Distributor108's edits

Comments:

• See also SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astronomyinertia as evidence of additional tenaciousness. Monty₈₄₅ 18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Distributor108 has now been indef blocked rendering this report moot. Monty₈₄₅ 04:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - Indef by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:94.13.4.50 reported by User:Redrose64 (Result: 3 days)

Page: BR Standard Class 3 2-6-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.13.4.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9] Previous version before all this kicked off: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Is a series of user warning templates which didn't mention WP:3RR acceptable?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:
I've never filed a AN3 before, so this might not be entirely per guidelines. Apologies if it's an improper request. User persists in adding unsourced information - I served a {{subst:uw-unsourced4}} and was then about to rollback but it occurred to me whether I might be in violation of WP:3RR - checking the page history I find that this user has now violated that rule. I'm losing my patience with this user, who is unwilling to discuss. This user has also edited as 94.13.4.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and has never provided anything in the way of a source that satisfies WP:V - his edit summaries clearly demonstrate that a large measure of WP:OR is being added, as well as a tendency to sail close to the wind regarding WP:NPA. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: 3 days. Long-term edit warring, unsourced changes, removal of existing sources, use of multiple IPs in a dispute at LMS Hughes Crab. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:212.121.210.45 reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Semi)

Page: Menachem Begin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.121.210.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:Editor has following socks that edits similar articles. User:212.121.214.102 and User:86.12.129.12

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:LondonBridge444 reported by User:Shakehandsman (Result: 48h)

Page: Diane Abbott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LondonBridge444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

There are some previous related discussions on most of the issues in the talk page, though nothing at the time of the warring. User has never participated in any discussion on the talk page anyway, despite it being the only article they've edited over the last year.

Comments: Just to note, I've not been involved in the edit war or carried out any reverts, I'm simply providing a report. Disputes appear to go back some considerable time so I also suggest semi=protection for the article. Also worth noting that the offender appears to mostly be a SPA and that their edit summaries contain unhelpful terms such as describing edits as "partisan" and "malicious".

--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours for edit warring. Ironman1104 is risking a sanction also. I advise him to bring an issue to a noticeboard before going past 3RR himself. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Friginator reported by User:Wisdomtenacityfocus (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Greasy Love Songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Friginator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. First revert: [27]
2. Second revert: [28]
3. Third revert: [29]

• Diff of warning: here

User repeatedly removes sources stating that Greasy Love Songs is a reissue of Cruising with Ruben & the Jets.

Additionally, Friginator is abusive towards other editors, as seen in these examples:

• "kindly shut your hole"
• "reconsider shutting your hole"

—WTF (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have liked to have been notified that you were opening another case against me (since the last one decided that I wasn't doing anything wrong). Apparently notifying the user isn't required here, but it would have been nice to know about this without stumbling upon it. For the record, here is the last time you reported me, which was less than two weeks ago.

I never removed any sources (the ones claiming that the subject is a "reissue") because they don't exist. You're just citing the one source already listed on that page, and claiming that it says something it doesn't. I'm not the only one who keeps reverting your edits, so this isn't just one person's opinion vs. another person's opinion. I was simply going by the consensus that had been established on the talk page. It seems like your accusation here is more like a list of all the things you disapprove of me doing. I'm sorry if you take the phrase "shut your hole" personally, and think it's "abusive" in its context, but when you start yelling at me on my talk page, making bogus accusations of vandalism and so forth, that's the kind of response you can expect from me. Nothing personal. In fact, I'll tell you what--every single person who comes to my talk page to yell and accuse me of things I didn't do will be told the same thing. How about that? Now, just to let various people who might be seeing this know the full story behind this oh-so-fascinating "shut your hole" controversy, here's the entire discussion from my talk page. Friginator (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, although perhaps a bit harshly formulated, I don't think the hole-business is relevant on this particular notice board, but in my opininion WTF is definitely acting —again— against de-facto talk-page consensus (see DRN closing note and ANI formal warning), and in this particular case obviously against wp:NOR. See the current RFC on Talk:Greasy Love Songs. In this context, without being aware of this case, I have also reverted ([30], [31]) to a properly sourced version. - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: 48 hours to Wisdomtenacityfocus for disruptive editing. 24 hours to Friginator for personal attacks. While WTF is not the only one edit warring here, he does appear to be the most relentless over a long period of time. On April 2 he removed a 3RR report that was filed against him here at this board. Another user started an RfC on 8 April as to whether Greasy Love Songs was a reissue. While the RfC was still running, between April 8 and April 17, WTF reverted five times to force his view that it's a reissue. This was in addition to his three reverts prior to the RfC. This does not suggest much enthusiasm for the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Friginator and WTF are two of a group of editors who have been using up a lot of space at admin boards on Zappa-related issues. This had better not continue for the long run, or more action may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Truthcon reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Indef)

Page: Bo Lozoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truthcon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]; [34]; [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]; [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]
• 5th revert: [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ANI discussion

Comments:

Truthcon is a WP:SPA with a history of contentious editing on the Lozoff article. He is the subject of an ANI discussion and has been the subject in the past. He has been warned by multiple editors to stop but doesn't seem to be able to get it. His last revert was after I warned him and User:Dennis Brown added a "final warning". He has barely participated in the ANI discussion (only at the beginning), and his comments on his Talk page and the Lozoff Talk page evince very little understanding of what he's doing or what Wikipedia is about (including calling other editors' edits vandalism). The only reason this report is slightly stale is because after I posted a 3RR warning and commented at ANI, I haven't been here (until now) to file this report. Admittedly, there is an over 2-hour gap between his last revert and his last contribution of yesterday, a long comment on his Talk page indicating he may have decided to give up and also indicating a relationship with the subject of the article. However, because he hasn't admitted he has done anything wrong (he blames everyone else) and because I don't like making threats and then not carrying them out, I have filed this report. Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC) -->

Truthcon returned a short time ago and made a fifth revert (added above).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was coming here to fill out a report and see that you already have. This has gone on long enough. Editor is SPA, disruptive, and obviously, edit warring. Last time he was blocked for a week. It appears that wasn't long enough to get the point across. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC) [Non-admin]

Result: Indef, after reading the ANI discussion in addition to the report here. This is a case of long-term edit warring -- the troublesome edits have been going on for more than a year. This article is User:Truthcon's only interest on Wikipedia, and there is no reason for optimism about his future behavior. A shorter block is unlikely to change his mind. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Garnerted reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Garnerted indeffed, MikeWazowski blocked 48 hours, rollbacker removed)

Page: The World Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Garnerted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

• 1st revert: [43] (as 24.183.231.126)
• 2nd revert: [44] (as 24.183.231.126)
• 3rd revert: [45] (as 24.183.231.126)
• 4th revert: [46]
• 5th revert: [47]
• 6th revert: [48]
• 7th revert: [49]
• 8th revert: [50]
• 9th revert: [51]
• 10th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53], Warning #2: [54]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Garnerted

Comments:
Garnerted is a single purpose account editing with an admitted conflict of interest with the Gardner Ted Armstrong organization - see [55] and [56]. The editor has been abusive towards other editors, and is also edit-warring on The World Tomorrow (1934). MikeWazowski (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• The editor in question also admitted being a producer of the show here. I left a msg on the editor's talk page addressing both the conflict of interest, as well as calling another editor's good faith edits "vandalism" and referring to User:Jeff G. as an "assclown" [57] before I found this action, although not enough time has passed to expect a reply. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Both editors have been blocked and Mike's rollback privileges have been removed. After looking, Mike appears to have been enforcing the current consensus and was inline with several other editors. Perhaps leniency would be appropriate here on him to unblock and restore rollback. If the blocking admin does not like this idea, I would recommend a block review to get community opinion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

While his goals may be good, there isn't a double-standard to invoke on his behalf.

Mike is a repeat offender here - this is his third block for edit warring. Have the block reviewed if you want, but repeat-offender edit warriors don't need rollback IMHO. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition "enforcing the current consensus" is not a standard exemption from WP:EW. Being right doesn't mean that one gets to edit war with impugnity. --Jayron32 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:67.247.19.21 reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Semi)

Page: Islamic–Jewish relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.247.19.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [58]
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]
• 5th revert: [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64][65]

Comments:

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: Article semiprotected two months. IP editors are invited to provide sources and reason from actual Wikipedia policy, not religious doctrine. If so they may be more successful in persuading others on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Needsmoreritalin reported by User:Namiba (Result: 48h)

Page: Bill Slavick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Needsmoreritalin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:The user has perpetually readded a YouTube video he claims to have created which demonizes the subject of the biography and makes a number of accusations based on a quote he claims to have recorded. It fails WP:BLP and WP:COI and I have reverted it each time it has been added. However, I do not believe that I have violated WP:3RR because of the exception for BLP violations.

• Result: 48 hours. This is a violation of 3RR, and in addition the editor is warring to insert a Youtube video which appears to be self-published. Extra credit for using it to criticize the subject of a BLP. The editor has made useful contributions elsewhere, so let's hope this is a one-time lapse of judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Rayburne1997 reported by User:Aditya Kabir (Result: )

Page: Jayne Mansfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rayburne1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st set: 10 edits (reverted by User:Shearonink)
• 2nd set: 6 edits (reverted by User:Aditya Kabir)
• 3rd set: 6 edits (reverted by User:Aditya Kabir)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Rayburne1997 (the whole talk page is essentially a collection of various warnings, including warnings about the Mansfield article (this by User:Shearonink; this, this and this by User:Aditya Kabir; this and this by User:Spinningspark. This user never replies, never discusses and never responds. Never a single edit to any talk page (check the contribs), though he/she has been warned about a number of edits. And, never an edit summary, which is strange for someone who has the level of intelligence and expertise to change wikicodes and mangle refs (not necessarily on the same article).

Comments:

User:Spinningspark commented - "There is definitely something fishy about this user." (see here). I can totally agree. It's the strangest piece of WP:DISRUPT I have met so far. But, no matter how curious, this can't go on indefinitely. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

To explain what I meant by "fishy": this user shows every sign of being an experienced user, but openend an account only on 2nd April. Day one saw a long list of edits to multiple articles with some bold deletions of material, examples: [72][73][74][75]. The third example also shows a working knowledge of templates and MOS:CAP. All this apparently without any learning process or discussion. These are not the actions of a newbie. I am not necessarily claiming that the edits are wrong, but the lack of communication and the edit warring are extremely problematic. SpinningSpark 16:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yuck. Not sure on the action to take here; that's pretty mild for "edit warring", and I'm not sure I'd go as far to call it vandalism. Annoying, maybe. Concur that this is likely an account that is picking up from another account, but a quick look at some of the articles did not reveal an obvious candidate. Maybe s/he will communicate at some point? Seems to have completely ignored Mr. Spark's note and just moved to other pages. I'll drop a note there, too. Kuru (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say the way forward on this one is to give the user the templated warning (which I have already done). If there is a subsequent complaint of edit warring on any page, from any user, then indef block until they start to communicate. SpinningSpark 01:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Spark, that makes it even more curious. He/she has registered only a few days back, started making bold edits, shows clear knowledge of templates, MOS, wikicodes and other stuff, but no clue of content guidelines, never discusses, never makes and edit summary, keeps warring for silliest edits (like making sortable tables unsortable), shows interest in a particular area (not randomized edits at all)... fishy? You bet.

Kuru, I really have no clue what to do. This editor doesn't transgress 3RR, doesn't stalk or harass, but keeps stubbornly repeating annoying little disruptions, and almost nothing else. We met a similar strangeness in Ilovechocolate (see talk page and AN/I thread), who kept claiming and pretending learning disabilities and eventually vanished. I don't think this person is going to respond to your post to his/her talk page. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the user has now been warned. If there are any further incidences of repeated insertion of the same material, in any article, then report back - you can contact me directly on my talk page if you like. Don't worry about whether or not it is 3RR, I am quite prepared to block on a single instance if it is not accompanied by discussion. SpinningSpark 10:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Csvgb reported by User:75.197.42.173 (Result: warned)

Page: Czechoslovakian Wolfdog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Csvgb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:

This particular user is trying to use Wikipedia to promote personal interests and commercial pursuits by removing outside to links and references to public organizations, and replacing them with links/ads to a commercial organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.42.173 (talk • contribs)

• Warned I made the account aware of the 3RR policy. I see no attempts to communicate, except through edit summaries. A discussion about the link on the article's talk page would be an important next step (not on some other site's forum as linked above). Frankly, there seem to be several questionable links on that page, but I'll leave it to you to work it out. Kuru (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:‎31.205.9.255 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Jessica Simpson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.205.9.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86] etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Relentless edit war, unsourced information. User has been duely warned, twice. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear problem; warned. No other blocks as BLP is claimed. Kuru (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note that a similar IP User:31.205.10.9 has just shown up to make the same edits.[88] Dawn Bard (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Si. Blocked that IP and semi-protected the article. May protect some of the others if he pops up again. Kuru (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:98.94.204.96 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: )

Page: Clemson Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.94.204.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94] (Reported user deleted this warning before carrying out 4th revert.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95] (Reported user initiated discussion on their own Talk page after deleting 3RR warning, then performed 4th revert before continuing discussion.)

Comments: Anonymous IP user kicks off Wikipedia editing career by deleting sourced and verifiable material that was merged into this article by consensus back in 2008[96]. I reverted this deletion of content. IP user reverted, and an Undo was performed along with a vandalism warning being posted on IP user's Talk page. IP user reverted again, an Undo was performed and a second vandalism warning was posted on user's Talk page along with a 3RR warning. IP user deleted 3RR warning, and then performed yet another revert. This is a pretty clear cut case of 3RR violation by a user who clearly shows no interest in following relevant Wikipedia policy or seeking consensus for significant edits. I'd ask that the article be semi-protected in case this user should decide to use additional IPs to continue this disruptive behavior. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:GarnetAndBlack reported by User:ThomasC.Wolfe (Result: )

Page: Clemson Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); also on Carolina-Clemson Rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Clemson Tigers men's basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) related to Clemson University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 129.252.69.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97], [98]

• 1st revert: [99] as GarnetAndBlack
• 2nd revert: [100] as GarnetAndBlack
• 3rd revert: [101] as GarnetAndBlack
• 4th revert: [102] September, 2010
• 5th revert: [103] September, 2010
• 6th revert: [104] September, 2010
• 7th revert: [105] as 129.252.69.40
• 8th revert: [106] as 129.252.69.40
• 9th revert: [107] as 129.252.69.41
• 10th revert: [108] August, 2008
• 11th revert: [109] August, 2008

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

[111], [112], [113] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:
A repeat offender, with patterned behavior brought up on multiple charges for edit-warring (see archive) and sock-puppetry [115] by editors / administrators, all related to Clemson University. [116][117][118]. In addition to content removal, school logo & tag removals, "bate & switch" complaint filings, all through various socks, User:GarnetAndBlack has been, in this case, obsessed with re-posting redundant and biased content in negative reference to accolades won by a university. A consensus had been reached back in early 2008 [119]that a reference to recruiting violations would be "merged," but "mentioned" and "cited" in the Clemson Tigers Football article, but the consensus was not to re-post the same information in bulk, using multiple citations of the same source, with various socks over the course of 4 years. Please review and compare the edit histories.

(Had difficulty logging into my account / Career, schedule, family illness may keep me from responding promptly) Apologies & thanks. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC) -->ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)