Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zogonthetyne (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 15 February 2008 (→User:Gregs the baker reported by User:zogonthetyne). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

    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:Soulscanner reported by User:G2bambino (Result: No violation)

    Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [1] 15:30, 8 February 2008 (image removed; tag placed)
    • 1st revert: [2] 18:18, 8 February 2008 (tag inserted again)
    • 2nd revert: [3] 19:02, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • 3rd revert: [4] 20:52, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • 4th revert: [5] 21:57, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6] 22:25, 8 February 2008

    User has been quite adamant to keep a "dubious" tag in the lead of the article; then took up the case of removing the image as well. The user was given the chance to self-revert, but did not, arguing that "there's no 3RR on removing a non-permissable photos." The user was reported yesterday for a similar incident at Dominion. I was not able to file this report until this morning due to earlier computer issues last evening. G2bambino (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: No violation. It does not appear that Soulscanner reverted more than three times (the first reported revert is different to the last three). Although a continuation of this could warrant a block, even without a technical violation, such a block would not be appropriate now. TigerShark (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As in another case you handled below, any four reverts on the same page constitute a violation even if the user is not repeating the same action. This particular report is rather stale now since the user has not edited in over 24 hours (call it time served), but this is an important distinction to be aware of. --B (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, on a very strict interpretation of 3RR that could indeed be viewed as the first of four reverts, but achieving the goal of the policy is the aim here and the goal of the policy is to avoid edit warring not to actually prevent more than 3 reverts. The first revert is sufficiently unrelated to the other that I cannot interpret this as edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest anyone looking at this decide to block the user, I took a look at the particular edits in question. Soulscanner was removing an image that flagrantly violates our non-free content policy, which is exempt from revert limitations. So regardless of anything else, this is not a violation. --B (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For good measure I have deleted the image as its clearly a copy vio. I have linked the original license in the deletion summary and this clearly is neither fully free nor suitable for GFDL. As the image isn't being used in an article about the subject it clearly cannot be used under fair use. Spartaz Humbug! 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is noteworthy that the filer of this report, G2bambino, (a) had lately been let out of a two-week block for 3RR violation and edit-warring, on the condition that he keep to "1RR" (one revert within 24 hours on any given article) for the rest of the two-week span; and (b) broke that pledge in this business, by reverting the image's deletion twice in one day:

    The evidence you put forward contradicts your assertion. This edit put in a different picture to the one Soulscanner removed, one that had fair use rationale, thereby addressing the concerns behind Soulscanner's removal of the previous image. This edit was the one revert.
    Really, your obsession with burning me seems to be clouding your ability to see correctly. --G2bambino (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wndl42 reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result: protected)

    Consciousness causes collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wndl42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Notes

    • 2nd revert reverts the removal of irrelevant sources while maintaining one intermediate edit.
    • 3rd revert reverts the lead while retaining one intermediate edit.
    • 6th revert reverts the lead while retaining four intermediate edits.

    User seems convinced that he owns this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SA, can you kindly check the diffs. I think two or three may be mal-formed and make it difficult to understand what you are reporting. Ronnotel (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm checking them now. Why can't we come up with an easier system? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article protected for a week as there is edit warring by multiple users. Sort it out on talk. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking in Vsmith, the relevant discussions are here and a previous identical incident of SA's non-consensus massive content deletions are discussed here. Please consider restoring the article to the stable consensus state it was before SA performed this series of edits without (a) prior discussion or (b) any other efforts to establish consensus since. WNDL42 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus state that Wndl142 refers too did not in fact exist. The only consensus was that nobody wanted to do any editing of the article for fear that it would start an edit war of the type that we are now witnessing. This article has been in dispute for over a year both by myself and others. I support SA's edits as they put the content of this article in the proper context with respect to QM and science in general. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Morbius, please clarify:
    (1) re: "consensus state...did not in fact exist"...well, in fact there was a clearly documented January 10 consensus against the edits SA has been pushing here and elsewhere in talk. As regards "in dispute for over a year" and in the context of WP:CCC, please comment specifically on how you can assert that the Jan 12. consensus "did not exist".
    The consensus exists only among people who defend this topic. If you go back and look at all the comments made on the talk page you will find many people who do not. Therefore there is no "consensus". Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (2) As regards this massive and undiscussed content deletion on Feb. 10, virtually identical to the Jan 10 non-consensus edits and exactly a month later, but now with dozens of article refs (indeed the entire sections) merely blanked, refs casually deemed "mostly unrelated" by SA in edit summary, please explain specifically how this massive deletion can possibly reflect "consensus" of the many editors who worked to add them, or "consensus" of any kind?. Please comment specifically.
    (3) Please use your best efforts to add some detail as to exactly how the result of SA's edits here represent a more "proper context" than the state it had been in previously. Specifically, please. This is the 3rr noticeboard, not a place for straw polling version preferences, your support here, especially to the extent it was absent on the talk page, has absolutely nothing to to with the existence or non-existence of a consensus, either on Jan 10 or on the day of this report. The edit warring you refer to has been practiced repeatedly and persistently by SA, in fact he performed these edits immediately after his most recent 72hr block expired.
    (4) Please comment on how the above mass deletion described in (2), when repeated in identical form on Feb 11, should not be characterized as "edit warring" on SA's part.

    Finally Dr. Morbius, as you left the topic's talk page in Oct. 2007, and have been absent since, while I did not join until Jan 2008...why are you here commenting on a 3rr complaint (and making pronouncements on "consensus") involving a topic you dropped months before I joined it, regarding an editor you have no experience with? Your comments have the appearance of lacking context, and your sudden appearance here is puzzling.

    Now, as I note that SA has still not complied with Ronnote1's request above to clarify his diffs, the lack of which "make it difficult to understand what [SA] is reporting", SA's complaint takes on it's proper characterization. I've provided the diffs, where are SA's? WNDL42 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because I haven't commented on this topic since October doesn't mean I have left it. I only comment on something when I feel like I have something to add. I haven't commented during the latest discussion involving SA, you and others because I fully support SA's view on this topic and don't feel like I would have anything else to add to the discussion. I feel that I have made my opinions about this topic clear as exemplified by all of my comments within this talk section going back to Dec. of 2006. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Koreakorea1 reported by User:Appletrees (Result: 8 hours)

    South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koreakorea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008-02-11T01:08:39 (additional changing)

    Koreakorea1 (talk · contribs) and Cvcc (talk · contribs), seemingly new users begun editing the article as altering statics or blanking reliable sources. They seem to be very obsessive at rankings and technology of South Korea. They behave like a twin because their behavioral pattern are almost identical and I asked about explanation of the changes to Koreakorea1, but instead Cvcc answered to it.[7][8][9][10]

    I gave several warnings to Koreakorea1 not to blank or alter information without consensus or talking, but the user keeps ignoring.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] After this user made disruptive edit warrings with anonymous user, 82.44.21.22 (talk · contribs), I also gave Koreakorea1 two 3RR violation warnings (in fact he already breached to 4RR), but he ignored my warning one more time and reverted the page 5th times. He insists on changing rankings because his source is the latest CIA 2008 statics, but he doesn't stick to the original source either. According to the source, South Korea ranks the 3rd largest country in Asia and 14th in the world per GDP, so his insistence even proves wrong. I think this user needs to learn community policy even if he or she were a really new user, about which I strongly doubt.--Appletrees (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiTony reported by User:Apoc2400 (Result: 8 hours)

    Portal:Current events/2008 February 10 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Current events/2008 February 10|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WikiTony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [18]


    User:WikiTony is continually reverts the news item

    calling it "hate speech" --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, The admin who warned me understands that because the name of the page is current events, sometimes multiple edits/reverts are required in a short time frame. After all, the information is current. Additionally, as of this writing, I am the ONLY user to discuss this matter on the talk page. I feel very much ganged up on. For my thoughts on the particular matter please see the talk page or talk page the admin who warned me (sorry i am not great at inserting all these links right now. if someone wants to, please feel free.) I consider what I did removing vandalism that is not relevant to the contemporary geopolitical affairs of the international community. I use the analogy of white supremacy groups demonstrating around the world on a particular day: Should their activites deserve merit? "protests the Church" (exact words) is not news. I am not a Scientologist, nor do i know any, but these people do not deserve to have their religion (however crazy YOU may think they are) slandered on our Current Events page. Veritas Aequitas WikiTony (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikitony gets 8 hours, and a trawl through the history finds User:Le Blue Dude and User:128.255.187.32 have been edit warring on the same page so 8 hours each to them too. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Oren.tal reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 36 hours)

    Qur'an and miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Oren.tal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: No specific version due to intermediary edits. All reverts include the restoration of tendentious polemical external links, such as ones to "mukto-mona", "infidels.org", and so on.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: Not necessary, user has been blocked a few times previously due to 3RR violations. Even then, he had been warned about violating it on this article.[19]

    As explained above, user continues reverting to insert tendentious external links. ITAQALLAH 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, per evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yorkshirian reported by User:David Shankbone (Result: 24 h)

    Guy Fawkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: No specific version due to intermediate edits


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [24]

    This last weekend a worldwide protest against Scientology occurred, and was oft-reported in the press. The protesters in almost every city took to wearing Guy Fawkes masks. I included a photo of this under the "In Popular Culture" section of Guy Fawkes and one user, User:Yorkshirian, has edit-warred and left rude messages on my Talk page, even after warning, simply because he doesn't like it. David Shankbone 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still edit-warring, this time when a second User puts the photo: [25] --David Shankbone 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shankbone added a piece of WP:SPAM to the article of Guy Fawkes, which has no relevence to the historical man at all. It was explained to Shankbone explicitly that this "scientology vs. athiesm" USA thing is a direct parody from a movie and was not a reference to the man. Shankbone took the picture himself and decided to keep re-adding the SPAM despite having it explained to him that it doesn't belong.
    The masks the people are wearing in his photograph is a direct parody from the fictional movie V for Vendetta (film), its a parody of an exact scene from that movie and has nothing at all to do with the historical person at all. Despite explaining to Shankbone that such as a spamming is unacceptable and it infact, is a parody of a movie, not Fawkes' life, he continued to edit war, so he could have "his picture" on.
    Fawkes is a very high profile historical person in the UK and this thing has absoutely nothing to do with the man at all, since its a parody of a movie. It belongs on the article on the movie, otherwise it fails WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. Guy Fawkes' article is no a bulletin board for updates on the movie V for Vendetta. The same spam would not be allowed on an article of George W. Bush or Tony Blair, ect so why should it be on here?
    Note - removing balatant examples of SPAM does not count in 3RR according to Wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true. The protesters are mimicking Guy Fawkes, using a mask from a movie about a Guy Fawkes imitator (complete with blowing up Parliament). The movie had nothing to do with Scientology, and the "pop culture" surfacing of Guy Fawkes today merits mention. This User is edit-warring, he isn't even discussing on the Talk page. His "explanations" are edit summaries. Two different editors have put the photo on, noting their preference, and Yorkshirian has reverted now five times today against two users. --David Shankbone 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you just stated is a complete lie. First of all, I started a section on the talkpage about your SPAM,[26] and invited you to it via your talk, which you have not joined.
    Second of all, how on earth are internet athiests in the USA mimicking Guy Fawkes (a Catholic who revolted against the king) by copying an exact scene from a movie V for Vendetta (film)? The film is not a biographical or factual movie. Its fiction, set in the future.[27] Please read this slowly and comprehend it, or better yet watch the film and you will see the exact scene which these people made a parody of. The masks they're wearing are even pieces of merchandise from that film.
    SPAM is allowed to be removed as not counted as a revert according to Wikipedia's policy. You took the picture, you insisted in spamming it on an article which it has no relevence, despite having it explained to you. I removed it, simple. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not SPAM, yes I know the movie is fiction and I understand its references, and I will just wait for you to be blocked since you are edit-warring against two editors and can stand a break. --David Shankbone 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't be blocked for removing WP:SPAM, as I explained to you above. I will just wait for you to be blocked for edit warring with three users during the last two days and SPAMing. You can stand a break, perhaps to disuade from spamming more in the future. Do you have an explination for not entering a discussion on the talk?

    Shankbone's warring with three users:

    That's interesting. The first three are over this issue, and I didn't violate 3RR. The second two are fighting vandals. How old are you that you continually copy and past what I write and write it back to me? Are there any Admins around today? --David Shankbone 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK so according to you, its fine to remove vandalism and it not count as a revert or "warring". But if somebody removed your SPAM out-of place, self-promotion then thats not OK? Interesting. Well according to Wikipedia's policy, it doesn't agree with you. In fact it explicitly states that your SPAMming on a high key article is wrong. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RR allows some exceptions, e.g. for simple and obvious vandalism and also for spamming. However, while I clearly see the vandalism, I cannot see David's image addition as spam. This is a simple content conflict, and, as I see it, Yorkshirian was wrong in breaking WP:3RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hrs - Yorkshirian, you may have a point about the content not belonging there. However, WP:3RR policy explicitly doesn't allow for content disputes being a legitimate reason for edit warring. If it was truly spam - and only spam - then it falls under vandalism, and then removing it is ok. But this isn't spam. It's a content dispute, over whether particular content is notable and applicable to a particular article or not. And for edit warring over that, you get a 3RR block. Sorry.

    Please discuss on the article talk page and seek consensus rather than edit warring like this, next time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Niteshift36 reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: 24 hrs )

    Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been involved in an edit war with named and anonymous users on United States Presidential election, 2008, Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts, and Template:2008 Democratic presidential primaries delegate counts over the inclusion of Mike Gravel and Alan Keyes. He received a warning from User:Sarcasticidealist yesterday after violating 3RR on the election article and repeated the violation today on the Republican delegates template. Bobblehead (rants) 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Luke4545 reported by User:SmartisSexy (Result: No violation on Luke4545, no conclusion on Smartissexy)

    Catherine Deneuve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Luke4545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:11:14pm 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [33]



    Luke4545 has been guilty of 3RR countless times on this article in the past week. He insists that the current template not be touched until the dispute is settled, unfortunately his version is not the original template, and he reverts it the second anyone else adds something to the page. I am not the only individual reverting from his template, and his constant reverting is disruptive. Not only that, he is accusing me of having multiple IP's which isn't even possible. Please look into this matter whenever possible. Thanks Smartissexy (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Countless times? Way to exaggerate the truth. Also, I'm not the one who reverted the article WITHOUT using the discussion page FIRST, once the initial protection template was used. You reverted the page back to your desired edit. No one was really adding anything else; it was just constant anonymous IPs (along with a user that JUST registered) reverting back to the version that you wanted. Using multiple IPs is possible. Also, by your logic behind the accusation of 3RR, you would be guilty of it with your IP 67.11.187.178 as well (which was proven that you used it, given another report you issued here) in several previous edits prior to the other protection template.
    Look, I don't want anyone to be blocked for this, I just want the discussion page used before ANYONE makes any revisions. That's it. That's why I was hoping Smartissexy would have used the discussion page before reverting to her desired version. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like semi-protection was given to the article and it now appears we're moving towards a constructive resolution through the discussion page; thus, I hope this will put an end to this whole ordeal without any further action. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation on Luke4545, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smartissexy filed to determine whether Smartissexy violated 3RR using socks. --B (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI to anyone keeping score, the checkuser came back inconclusive. I'm flipping a coin as to whether to block Kimokeg as this account is unquestionably either a 3RR-evading sock or an impersonator and either way a bad thing. --B (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drstrangelove57 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: no vio)

    A Simple Plan (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drstrangelove57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:44 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war over inclusion of original research. Geoff B (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Also, be sure to warn editors (i.e., using {{uw-3rr}}), as they might not know our policies. --slakr\ talk / 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chairman Meow reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 55 hours)

    100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chairman Meow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been fighting this edit war (and doing little else on Wikipedia) off and on since March 2007 against what appears to unanimous opposition. He has been quite rude on the talk page and prefers insult and accusation to discussion. On the article talk page s/he has declared "I won't stop, ever". Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 55 hours Also an issue of disruptive editing. --slakr\ talk / 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Iziizi reported by User:Cvcc (Result:warning)

    Sungnyemun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iziizi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [37]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [43]

    User:Iziizi is frequently removed valuable pictures. These picturees are very important sources for thinking the history of Sungnyemun. Cvcc (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs; oldids are too hard to read. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry I corrected.--Cvcc (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to leave it at a warning now for two reasons: first, no four reverts technically fall into a 24-hour period (though the first four are only off by four minutes, geez), and second and more importantly, the user was only warned after the last revert. If the user continues to edit war, a block will likely be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6th revert [44]
    • Diff of 3RR warning:[45]

    I think he never stop editting. --Cvcc (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.191.181.245 reported by User:Mind_meal (Result: Page protected)

    Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.191.181.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: It isn't that simple; please see the edit history for the article, as they were not technical reverts.


    User:24.191.181.245 has repeatedly inserted controversial information into the article. I've tried to talk about it on their talk page, I've kindly warned them, and I've manually changed countless edits. They must have an axe to grind, even though I think there is even some validity to what they've inserted (it just isn't referenced). When I asked for references, they used a site called "zensite.com" and then a response to a blog post. Mind meal (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected by Tikiwont. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Twobells reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 12 hour block)

    Bloody Sunday (1972) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Twobells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor repeatedly adds a POV tag in a "drive-by" fashion, refusing to provide a legitimate reason for it as required by Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Repeated requests here have failed to produce any meaningful reasoning, and the same editor has previously done the exact same thing on another article here. One Night In Hackney303 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, 12 hours only as user also engaged in apparently legitimate talk page discussion of the issue. CIreland (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Jrclark reported by User:NHguardian (Result:Jrclark 24, NHguardian 31 hours)

    Berkshire East Ski Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jrclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 1:16 est Feb 13 2008

    • Previous version reverted to: [53]


    • 1st revert: [54]
    • 2nd revert: [55]
    • 3rd revert: [56]
    • 4th revert: [57]
    • 5th revert: [58]
    • 6th revert: [59]
    • 7th revert: [60] another one 5:01PM est
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [61]

    3RR cited in private talk from user Pgagnon999^^^.

    User has continued and repeatedly edited out factual and cited information with regard to the Berkshire East Ski Resort and its vertical gain. True vertical gain has been discussed in the Berkshire east discussion page and has been proven through numerous citations. User even admits original numbers (stated as 1180) are incorrect yet continues reverting to them. User was warned and continued to revert. User had refused to come up with real numbers (which to me would be fine if they did). User has also violated 3RR rule in numerous other articles while posting links to personal webpages (see user JRclark history).

    Thanks, NHguardian—Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 February 2008


    NHguardian at first refused to use the Discussion tab, and then continued to revert any edits or compromises made by me and another user. We advised NHguardian to take up the issue with Wiki Project Ski (designers of the template in question), which he finally did, but continued to undo our compromises and refused to wait for Wiki Project Ski to discuss prior to modifying their template (in only this one case). It also appears that NHguardian tried to do an additional edit outside of the NHguardian account - an IP check may verify this.
    I feel that it is unfair that NHguardian has targetted this one ski area when vertical drops across the ski industry are published using different standards. The advertised number has been published for decades and can be cited in countless in print publications as well as web sites. I felt that it was only fair to remove the number in question until the group had decided whether or not to update their ski area template. If they choose to add a second vertical drop number to all ski areas (and come up with a consistent way to measure this), then I am in favor of it.
    I'm here to contribute, not to engage in edit wars. I'm confident that comparing Contribution tabs will confirm this. Jrclark (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both users are edit warring. Both blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this isn't the place to post it, but I also suspect 71.168.80.203 is NHguardian. 71.168.80.203 posted my personal information and has been trying fabricate a conflict of interest, even making up a quote by the business owner in the article in question. Jrclark (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm extending NHguardian's block to 31 hours as a result of edit warring by disruption on this page. [62][63][64] appears there may also be sockpuppety involved
    Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    71.168.80.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    71.181.48.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    --Hu12 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yaf reported by User:Rezguy (Result: No violation)

    Ruby Ridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [65]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [69]

    3RR cited in private talk from user Rezguy^^^.

    User has continued and repeatedly reverted biased page back to original biased state without commentary justifying bias. Thanks, Rezguy

    User:KellyAna reported by User:Bleek25 (Result: Stale)

    Las Vegas (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KellyAna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    She has clearly Broken the 3RR rule.Also deleted a warning that i but on her talk page see here. Bleek25 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The purpose of blocks or other action for 3RR violation is to stop an edit war. These reverts happened three days before the report, so acting on it would be futile. Reports should be filed as soon as may be after the fourth revert. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Momento reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: 24 hours )

    Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts to the sentence referenced to Hunt:

    Complex reversions, but every 5 of them at least removes this part of the phrase "(...) turned away from asceticism (...)"

    A short explanation of the incident:

    Plus Momento's behaviour more and more resembles some sort of disruption or trolling: something is discussed on talk page, Momento can't win the argument, Momento does the revert again, and starts a new talk page section on the same topic as the one he couldn't win the argument on shortly before, e.g.: 20:06, 13 February 2008, starting new thread on the photo that was already discussed at Talk:Prem Rawat#Third Photo Thread (to which Momento contributed the previous day, and couldn't win the argument), and yet again deletes that photograph, or moves it around etc.

    Also, there was a 3RR block of Momento less than a week ago, regarding disruption on the same page. [70] --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Francis, editing-by-revert does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jossi, What is Francis suppposed to do? I think that your advice to Francis to find a compromise with Momento unrealistic, because I found Momento very unreasonable and uncompromising. Andries (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 17:03, 11 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */ we don't need all sorts of qualifiers here, see talk, Talk:Prem Rawat#Discussion")
    2. 16:19, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "revert removal of links, per talk page, like previous time")
    3. 16:34, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "per talk page, Talk:Prem_Rawat#Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D, and Talk:Prem_Rawat#Criticism_section")
    4. 17:36, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "Hunt, per talk: Talk:Prem Rawat#First Hunt Thread, Talk:Prem Rawat#Second Hunt Thread; External links per Talk:Prem Rawat#External links disputes; restoring other no-consensus removals")
    5. 20:18, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "rv per my previous edit summaries, and the new talk page sections, repeating topics under discussion on talk, started again by a the revertor")
    I have requested non-involved admins to look at the possibility of page protection, if that would be helpful, at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Jossi, this is nowhere near a decent method to press your indirect influence over the Prem Rawat page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis, that was unnecessary. I only presented data, no assertions, no assessments, no judgment. Let an uninvolved admin look at the evidence and decide what to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you presented wrong data or a defective assessment is a play on words, you wrote: "... edit war between two editors ..." (my bolding), you counting "two" was wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. So here are also onefinalstep (talk · contribs) revert diffs as well. I would argue that as it seems that editors cannot agree to avoid revering each other, page protection may not be a bad idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 00:14, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    2. 00:59, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Westernisation */")
    3. 01:00, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal */")
    4. 02:51, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Westernisation */)
    5. 20:40, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191225268 by Momento (talk) see talk")
    6. 21:18, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Westernisation */")
    7. 21:48, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Westernisation */")
    Jossi, your counting two appears to have been right after all, but that doesn't mean your personal attack on me was justified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For some reason Francis Schonken has brought together two different edits to justify his 3RR and other unrelated stuff which I won't address here. This noticeboard is about 3RR and the 3RR in question is related to three legitimate edits I made to a summary of a quote by the sociologist Hunt, which I made in accord with BLP policy.onefinalstep keeps adding a very distorted summary of Hunt to the Rawat article. Hunt says "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers."[1] onefinalstep interprets this as "Rawat also turned away from asceticism, and no longer denounced material possessions. He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers". Hunt doesn't say Rawat "denounced material possessions" and he doesn't say "He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers". Hunt doesn't offer an opinion he is saying what "critics argue".onefinalstep's interpretation grossly distorts Hunt and since this is a BLP it is important that we "get it right". BLP policy is clear - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy". In the end I inserted Hunt's quote verbatim to try to stop this blatant BLP violating distortion but that was soon reverted by onefinalstep. Momento (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another possibility would be to ask involved editors if they will be willing to voluntarily agree on 1RR probation for period, and avoid all this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you still treating me on the same par as someone who does 5 reverts a day on the Prem Rawat article and generates multiple talk page sections on the same issue, every time he hasn't been able to win his argument in the previous section on that issue? Better stop that, it is offensive. Don't try to get hold over the article via the back door: if you don't edit it, that was your decision, and I respect it. But don't ask the same of everybody else (that's what you're doing when asking for page protection). Of course it's also fine for anyone to commit to some restriction like 1RR if they feel that would do good to their editing behaviour. But also don't try to extract self-imposed but nonetheless undue editing restrictions from others that don't exhibit a behaviour that is from far comparable with 5 reverts a day and semi-trolling on a talk page. As far as I'm concerned you'd better remove the list of 5 edits in 3 days you composed on me above, it is offensive, and in no way compares to the one I composed on Momento, with a timely given warning etc. Just a suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis, all I can do is alert non-involved admins to look at the situation and decide what would be best to restore some normalcy to the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at this, I don't see any perfect way forward. I do see a case for blocking Memento, and I hope it's clear to everyone involved that continue edit wars might well result in block(s); in the long run, I'm not sure what it will accomplish in terms of resolving the dispute, especially given the immediate revert war seems to have stopped hours ago. Page protection is starting to look appealing, if people can't work amicably and avoid excessive reverts. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (following edit conflict) Blocked 24 hours, absurd that this was delayed by an involved admin. Vsmith (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jack-A-Roe reported by User:Jovin Lambton (Result:12 hours )

    Pro-pedophile Activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Experienced User.

    POV warring on contentious article. User is generally civil, but def. a POV warrior. Lambton T/C 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editwarring. Blocked for 12 hours. Maxim(talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maniainc reported by User:OverlordQ (Result: Protected)

    Mischa Barton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maniainc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 01:27, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191318786 by GlassCobra (talk)")
    2. 01:33, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191319878 by JetLover (talk)")
    3. 01:38, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191318786 by GlassCobra (talk)")
    4. 02:56, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191334529 by GlassCobra (talk)")
    5. 03:00, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191336862 by GlassCobra (talk)")
    6. 03:08, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191337915 by OverlordQ (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Q T C 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has claimed that they are Barton's official representation: see here. GlassCobra 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And here Q T C 03:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by Daniel J. Leivick (Result: 31 hours)

    Nissan GT-R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikiarrangementeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [74]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [79]

    User has been blocked at least once for edit warring and is at it again. Going against consensus to add an inferior image that they uploaded. Has been warned numerous times and is well aware of 3RR rule. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xareu bs reported by 74.228.158.68 (Result: page protected for 4 days)

    Reggaeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xareu bs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [80]


    User is blatantly defacing referenced statements (ex country of origin of reggaeton), and reverting to a version with a number of obviously POV statements. User is also using POV reasoning when doing the reverts ("just go to a club and you'll see...." etc). Posted to view the discussion page, but nothing on the talk page supports any of those edits or reverts (aside from POV comments on the talk page from members, no references). User finally posted to talk page, but made a 4th revert before even waiting for anyone to respond. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the discussion page for this article,where referencesare shown. Blatantly?. I´am attaching references and links to press news and lyrics for songs. And the subsequent reverts in the talk page, well, mere ortography&links correction, as you may check. I´m not so used to the wiki interface. Of course, all reverted by an anom. user.--Xareu bs (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification, none of the references mentioned on the talk page support any of the additions made. Song lyrics about gasoline also aren't an adequate reference. In any case, the user hasn't even attempted to actually include references in the wiki itself when reverting. The page doesn't need to be protected, but the user could use a cool down period and a primer on proper reference use. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added those lyrics because they are the two biggest hits of this music up to know, with blatant sexist content. Do you want to link to wiki definition of harmony&melody?. Why do you not consider a formal complain by an Spanish official bureau about this music?. This anonimous user ignores those facts; does not he consider different opinions that his?--Xareu bs (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The additions made are noticeably POV, and inarguably unsourced, end of story (look at the reverts, none of his edits are sourced). This is the last post I'm going to make about this as I don't want to share a suspension with this guy with a back-and-forth on the noticeboard. If a user doesn't know how to include references for questionable additions, they shouldn't be editing wikis until they learn. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Svetovid reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: 24 hours)

    Hedvig Malina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Svetovid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: No need for warning, he has been blocked for breaking 3RR at the very same article about a week ago, also made reports himself. He is well aware of the rule as I see on his talk page[85][86].

    This user deletes relevant, referenced information and references from the article. He was blocked a week ago for breaking 3RR at the very same article. He reverted three different editors in the past two days and obviously won't stop voluntarily. I tried to keep his constructive edits, but he changes the structure of the article in a way that it loses basic transparency.
    For some reason while he is repeatedly deleting reliable references he adds "refimprove" tags. He called me a 'vandal' several times despite asking him to refrain from such behavior. Squash Racket (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brfc97 reported by User:Bill (Result: 8 hours)

    Blackburn Rovers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brfc97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This page was suffering from an edit war so I opened up a discussion on the talk page (it should be noted that Brfc97 removed previous discussion about the topic that's being warred over 07:48, 7 February 2008). A consensus was achieved by a few editors over the best way to present the information. Brfc97 has been reverting edits while myself and other editors have been requesting that he discuss his concerns on the talk page. This is quite complex as some of the changes have stuck, but others are being reverted. Also, there are possible ownership issues as Brfc97 mentions that he created the section when reverting. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The original section in question was created over a year ago. I was the one who created it (under my IP address at that time) but I don't know whether that will show in the archives or not. I have discussed the situation on the talk page but clearly my views have not been addressed or taken under consideration. It would be best to present the list in alphabetical order only as there is clearly a dispute over the order. A survey from 5 years ago is no longer relevant in 2008 as the situation has possibly changed since then. I would be quite happy to keep the section if the order remains alphabetical only. Otherwise the section should be removed.

    Also the user above is not a supporter of Blackburn Rovers therefore I would dispute his knowledge of the subject is at the same level as mine.

    Brfc97 (talk|contribs) 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JK Cromwell reported by User:Serendipodous (Result: 24 hrs)

    J. K. Rowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JK Cromwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [87]


    JK Cromwell has been repeatedly adding unsourced information to JK Rowling despite repeated warnings. S/he has also engaged in similar behaviour on List of best-selling books, Sears Tower, and Daniel Radcliffe, despite repeated warnings on his/her talkpage. Serendipodous 14:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Strider12 reported by User:MastCell (Result: Warning)

    David Reardon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    These are 5 reverts in just over 24 hours. Given this editor's prior block for edit-warring on this and the related abortion and mental health article, and her long-term focus on edit-warring on these ttwo articles going right up to 3 reverts per day on many occasions, I'm bringing it here as a clear violation of the spirit of WP:3RR. Note that IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) has also been edit-warring on this article, largely over tags; though I don't see >3 reverts on her part, I'll leave the disposition of that up to the reviewing admin. MastCell Talk 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation here due to timing - issued another warning. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mathewignash reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: No violation)

    Silverbolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mathewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert warring over adding a POV (or weasel wordy) sentence to the article. ' 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff #2 isn't a revert and #4 is a different user. Only three actual reverts == no violation. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Diff #2 not a revert? He's changing it. To say the same thing. ' 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Edito*Magica reported by User:Collectonian (Result:Page was protected; no action)

    List of Goodnight Sweetheart episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edito*Magica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Edito*Magica created List of Goodnight Sweetheart episodes earlier today to split out the plain episode list from the main Goodnight Sweetheart article. I cam in and fixed the name, then put the episode list in the standard episode format.[88]. Despite his version being incomplete, Edito*Magica reverted it. We went back and forth. After the 4th revert, an administrator warned us BOTH not to revert again[89] and [90] at 19:27. Thirty minutes later, Edito*Magica ignored that edict and reverted the article again. In fair disclosure, this is also part of a larger on-going issue of edit warring that Edito*Magica has also been conducting List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes and that resulted in an ANI being filed against him. Edito*Magica has receive warnings on the talk page there and in the ANI to stop reverting. With KUA, he's been reverting once or twice a day, while in this case he has blatantly violated 3RR after a warning and an admin warning to stop. Collectonian (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JAF1970 reported by User:MrStalker (Result: 12 hours)

    Template:Sim series (edit | [[Talk:Template:Sim series|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JAF1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert war between JAF1970 and Sillygostly. MrStalker (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both blocked for 12 hours. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sillygostly reported by User:MrStalker (Result: 12 hours)

    Template:Sim series (edit | [[Talk:Template:Sim series|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sillygostly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert war between JAF1970 and Sillygostly. MrStalker (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tasc0 reported by User:Same As It Ever Was (Result: )

    User:Secret2 reported by User:Mhking (Result: )

    Star Trek (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Secret2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    POV, OR edits by Secret2, reverted by multiple persons. Secret2 insists his view should be included, and calls others reversions vandalism. Mhking (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Gregs the baker reported by User:zogonthetyne

    Geordie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gregs the baker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Content is being removed with a rationale on Talk:Geordie yet the user in question refuses to read the rationale and is repeatedly reverting without considering anything. An Ip is also involved, already been warned by an admin.


    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: 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.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff 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]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

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

    See also

    1. ^ Hunt, 2003; Price, The Divine Light Mission as a Social Organization. pp.279-96
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=191699371"