Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


User:Camptown reported by User:Ijanderson977 (Result: Stale)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: ???

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

This user kept on uploading a map, which contained his and other users POV, instead of using an existing map that was NPOV.
I tried discussing it with the user. (
However he insisted on using his own map with his own POV in it and reverted it whenever I tried using the existing map, which was NPOV. This then resulted with him starting an editing war. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of placing reports here is to de-escalate an edit war. Posting a report a day after the edit war isn't really relevant. Also, you didn't include the mandatory section on the previous version reverted to, nor did you leave a warning on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ilgiz reported by User:Sbw01f (Result: Warning)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to:[6]

User is continually reverting and removing legit info, generally being unconstructive and making the article extremely hard to edit properly. Page is littered with reverts and unexplained/unwarranted removal of content by this user.Sbw01f (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was not warned until after this report. Please warn users first and report them only if they break the 3RR after the warning, or if they are experienced enough that they should not require a warning. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Anti-Americanism (no violation)[edit]

Trying this again; I think my first complaint got lost. There is edit-warring on the anti-Americanism article. Certain editors won't let anybody put any warning tags on this very controversial topic which has a lot problems about neutrality. Every time any warningh templates are put on the page, somebody immediately deletes ALL of them. Rachel63 (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit-war of using warning templates in the article on anti-Americanism. Some editors won't let anybody put any warning template about neutrality or whether its encyclopedic on the article. They just blank all the warnings every time. Rachel63 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your original comment as it was lost due to its placement, and added a heading to this one. --WebHamster 14:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've got your report here perhaps you should be aware of the fact that this board is for reporting violations of the WP:3RR rule. Unfortunately your generic complaint has only highlighted to the one person who has violated 3RR, which, unfortunately is Rachel63 (talk · contribs), ie you. diff1 diff2 diff3--WebHamster 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other administrator's page says if there is edit warring come here, so I came here. If this is not the place to report edit warring then the incidents page shouldn't send you here for edit warring. And you are not being fair. I didn't violate the 3RR rule. Rachel63 (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As mentioned, this is for reports of violations of the 3RR (only). No violation recorded. Please report non-3RR issues elsewhere (e.g. WP:ANI), and if reporting a 3RR issue use the template at the bottom of this page. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Fiesta bowl reported by User:Baegis (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Ohio State Buckeyes football

2003 Fiesta Bowl

Editor keeps inserting opinion piece from former SI writer Rick Reilly into the articles (both related). While the merits of the opinion piece can be discussed on the talk page, this editor is in clear violation of the 3rr rule on two different articles. Editor also appears to lack civility, as evidenced by this tirade after a warning from an uninvolved administrator. Baegis (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Already blocked for 31 hours last night by IceStorm. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Atlantics88 (Result: 1 week)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]

User keeps on reverting info about HouseGuest doing pornography. Information is there to keep with consistency of other present and former Big Brother HouseGuests doing pornography. Atlantics88 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 1 week by Kafziel for vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Power2084 reported by User:Burzum (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

Previous similar edits:

  • 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[12]
  • 13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[13]

Edits that violate 3RR:

User:Power2084 has been asked 5 times (two times on User_talk:Power2084 and three times in edit summaries) to discuss edits on Talk:nuclear meltdown but has yet to do so. User:Power2084 has also been informed of the 3RR policy three times.

In response to 2nd formal 3RR warning, User:Power2084 removed all warnings on User_talk:Power2084 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC) and proceeded to immediately reverting for a 5th time in 24 hours.

Recommend a block and a restoration of warnings on User_talk:Power2084. Burzum (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 12 hours. Restoring the warnings is irrelevant - a user who removes warnings is considered to have read and acknowledged them. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:EBDCM reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: protected)[edit]

Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EBDCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Previous version:[14][15]
Previous version:[16][17]
Previous version:[20][21]

Previous version:[23]

Previous version:[25]
Previous version:[26]

EBDCM has confirmed he is the 208 anon but has denied he has another registered account.

The Talk:Chiropractic article is under homeopathy probation and the editor was previously notified. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Page protected to close down the edit war. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wcfirm reported by User:Redrocket (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

User has repeatedly added their site to the main space of the article, in a very unencyclopedic fashion. User has also added this site numerous other times over the past few weeks, showing their pattern of behavior, as seen here [27] [28]. I attempted to get the user to discuss things on talk pages, but only received a reply saying their site was official and that they would willfully disregard wikipedia rules [29] [30] [31].

When considering this 3RR report, please be aware of an earlier 3RR warning to the same editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Already blocked for a week by MaxSem for spamming. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Fr4zer reported by User:Craw-daddy (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Also, there's a violation of 3RR on another page.

Continual insertion of vandalism on these pages (and others, see, e.g. Osmosis). --Craw-daddy | T | 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Vsmith got there first with a 31-hour vandalism block. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tausor reported by User:Countrypaula (Result:blocked indef)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [32]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

A short explanation of the incident.This is the same user that was blocked in December for doing the same thing.He engages in edit warring. He edits without any explaination,and has gotten uncivil in his summaries if we undo his edits.I noted on last edit that I was reporting this.The sources he is citing are gossip news sites, not reliable source. Countrypaula (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This report is improperly formatted (and after looking into it myself there is no 3RR violation today) but I have blocked the user indefinitely after looking through his disruptive SPA contribs. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still learning formatting. Countrypaula (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kendobs reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result:both blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 23:26

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 15:05

Persistent renaming of article, breaking links to other pages etc. despite warnings, introduction to the talk page and general offers of assistance. This user will not give up! Cloudz679 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Both Kendobs and Cloudz679 are clearly edit warring, so 24 hours for both. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Page protected for one week. When they get back from their break, they will have a few days to find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:SiobhanHansa (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

Editor continually readding external link. SiobhanHansa 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Chanakyathegreat reported by User:Athaenara (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

As discussed on Talk:List of countries by size of armed forces#Submarines with Pakistan Navy, the user has persisted in removing a sourced figure (10) and its inline citation, replacing it with an unsourced figure (5) with no citation. — Athaenara 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2 reported by Kookoo Star (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: see below

Editor "Realist2" has reverted at least 4 edits in less than 24 hours. He has already received a 24 hour ban for breaking the 3RR only 2 days ago, and the first thing he did once the ban was over was begin edit warring again on both the Michael Jackson and Thriller pages again. The user is something of an obsessive fan and has a history of edit warring (there is a warning for edit warring on his TALK page from only last week) and since he has been blocked as recently as two days ago, perhaps sterner measures are required. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can actually see all these edits were variations and we (as you can see on the Thriller talk page) were trying to come to a compromise in the issue in which the specific wording of the section was very key to the problem. Non, or those edits were exactly the same , rather alterations and some of the edits arent even related to each other. I reverted the inclusion of the 29 x platinum thing which had NOTHING to do with any of the other edits. I wasnt even given a warning that i was approaching an alleged 3rr and he never even informed me that i was reported. Many of my edits were reverts back to a neutral edit made by an admin.

  • In the second allegged revert all i did was remove the word "reported" as i wanted to maintain a npov. Their ALL reported, but if you specify that on one and not the other it implies 1 is more valid than the other.
  • The third alleged revert was the removal of the eagles statement. It has NOTHING to do with the previous issue and was UNSOURCED.
  • In the fourth alledged revert I removed the words "Very dramatic" , its removal of pov wording, whats very dramatic to 1 person is not so dramatic to another.
  • Many other editor not just me reverted his pov assertions as you can see from the edit history on the Michael Jackson page.
  • Additionally BEFORE i was aware of this report (so i did it of my own accord) at approx 9.30pm i reinserted the word "vary" seen Here therefore my fourth alleged revert was not that i removed the phrase "vary dramatically" rather that when looking at it as a whole i only removed the pov slanted word "dramatically". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talkcontribs) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is rubbish, i never broke 3rr, i was never informed of the alledged approaching event and i was never told of the report. He has alleged that i have a pro Michael Jackson stance so my edits are invalid, im the one removing the pov, he has the anti jackson bias and dislikes Jackson fans.

Also it looks like i WAS right about the tag teaming 2 days ago, they have both reported me in 2 days. Yes i know i did wrong the first time and i went about it the wrong way, but this today is a joke.

I have learnt from my block a few days ago and have strived to maintain neutrality on the issue, reverting back to edits made and advised by admins. Realist2 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No warning here was necessary because you have once again shown yourself to be edit warring less than 2 days after your recent 24 hour ban for 3RR was over. You know full well what you are doing and you know it is wrong. Trying to shift the blame away from yourself by implying that I hate Jackson and his fans and accusing me of tag-teaming is not going to work. You have reverted at least four of my own edits on the Michael Jackson page on 5 March - even ones which had relevant citations - whether by using "undo" or by simply copying and pasting to restore to previous versions written by yourself. You have shown yourself to be far too biased to contribute to Wikipedia articles and your obsessive (and possessive) stance over the Jackson articles proves this. Considering your behaviour over the past couple of days alone, it is clear that you are also a liar and a troublemaker. You have also misquoted or misrepresented much of the evidence you have written in your defence above. Kookoo Star (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You did not include the previous version reverted to, therefore it is impossible to determine that the first diff you gave is actually a revert. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As you never even bothered to inform be of my report its blatantly clear you knew that if i had the chance to defend myself i would probable win. Also hello 1 of those alleged reverts was the removal of something unrelated and UNSOURCED. you must source info.

I made over 150 edits in a 24 hour period yesterday. I cant remember what edits i made where. You must warn ppl if they are close to an ALLEGED 3rr or how are they ment to know. especially when you start counting untrlated issues that are unsourced suck as the 29 x platinum thing. My issue on that if whenever i see something unsourced i delete it in a heatbeat. Looking at your previous edits, its unlike you not to source anything. I have a suspicion you set that their deliberately knowing I would delete it so you could include it on your vague tally of reverts. Realist2 (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally this was reported 24 hours ago, all editing on the issue has since ended so the usage of a block is of less purpose now. Is there not a time frame when an alligation becomes stale? Realist2 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The previous version for the first revert has now been added. As you can see, it is a clear revert to the version before my own. The other three reverts listed are for items in the same article but not necessarily the same sentences. Would you like me to include "previous version" links to all of the reverts as opposed to just the first one? Kookoo Star (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on looking at what's going on even since the user was made aware of this report, it looks like he is still revert warring. A user has attempted to open a channel of communication with Realist2 on the talk page (starting 4 March 2008), but has so far not been answered. I can only assume this pattern of reverting will continue, based on the following edits:
  1. 05:37, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "they are all reported, no need to apply sceptism to it")
  2. 05:42, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "its still selling")
  3. 14:38, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "please source")
  4. 16:26, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "removal of pov slanting, just present the facts ppl can decide")
  5. 17:20, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "thats you pov in my pov it isnt a dramatic difference")
  6. 21:35, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Thriller */")
  7. 22:20, 6 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Return to public eye and 25th anniversary of Thriller */")
Moreover, this is coming directly off of another 3RR block that happened just days ago.
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakrtalk / 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Taiketsu reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: Various people blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 03:18

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 03:39

This edit war is stemming over a disagreement between two members, User:Urutapu and User:Taiketsu over the translation of several Japanese Pokémon episode titles into the English language. The translation being edit-warred over the most is whether a title should be listed as Lucario! Wave Shot of Anger!! or Lucario! Pulse Bomb of Anger!! While I am certainly no expert in the Japanese language, this edit war is simply absurd and has been ongoing for several days, with most of the activity taking place from 13:58 on March 5. User:Taiketsu is using another Wiki as a source for his translation(Bulbapedia), and has stated several times in the edit summaries to do a general search on the internet; something which I feel is incorrect considering that online translations often differ from website to website. I should also note that a difference of opinion between User:Urutapu and User:Taiketsu on episode title translations has occurred many times in the past, and that Taiketsu has been previously blocked four times for edit warring. I would also report User:Urutapu for this ongoing and unnecessary edit war, but unfortunately the user who initially gave a 3RR warning to User:Taiketsu neglected to do the same for User:Urutapu. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Dragon PULSE-----------りゅうのはどう
  • Dark PULSE-------------あくのはどう
  • Water PULSE------------みずのはどう
  • PULSE Bomb-------------はどうだん
  • Bomb - 爆弾 (ばくだん) ---->

Pulse 波動{はどう}弾 (だん) 波動+弾=波動弾(はどうだん)

1. 脈拍{みゃくはく}、脈{みゃく}、脈動{みゃくどう}、鼓動{こどう}、振動{しんどう}、波動{はどう}

(Taiketsu (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

  • What a mess. Right or wrong, revert warring is not the way we do things.
    1. Taiketsu has made nearly a dozen reverts in the last day or two and has four previous 3RR blocks. 4 days this time.
    2. Urutapu has made four reverts in the last 24 hours (and several more before that). He has two previous 3RR blocks so does not need to be re-warned about it. 24 hours for him.
    3. MelicansMatkin has also made four reverts (from 16:48 UTC yesterday to 02:10 UTC today). As he's warning and reporting other people, he is clearly aware of 3RR, but has no previous blocks. 8 hours.

Anyone else? Stifle (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:WebHamster reported by User:bsharvy (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [34]

More: [40] [41]

In addition to the reverts mentioned, he has deleted material without using the undo function, mostly in the warning tags, repeatedly. See his other edits on March 6.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME None. His homepage (which contains a nude image...) says he's been using Wikipedia for 5 years. He knows the rules.

This user is refusing to allow the addition of warning templates for lack of neautrality and unencyclopedic content, and he is refusing to allow the removal of POV-pushing content. Bsharvy (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 12 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Saul Tillich reported by User:Anastrophe. (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [42]

User believes he owns the article, and knows the truth about article subject. replaces majority of article with his own personal version, daily. contravenes consensus. (ginormous) amounts of discussion, unwilling to compromise. many more diffs going back weeks.(my dates above might be fubar, apologies.) Anastrophe (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts in one 24-hour period. Those are too spread out to constitute a violation. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
i would argue that they still constitute a pattern of clearly disruptive edits that do violate 3RR in spirit - per the following from the 3RR page: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.". this is a relentless pattern of making wholesale changes to the article every day - sometimes multiple times per day. the activities are quite disruptive. if not 3RR, then can you advise what other path might be taken? Anastrophe (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
hello? i'd be interested in a reply to this. i think the basis of my complaint is valid - the formal description of 3RR makes it clear that it is not strictly limited to '3 reverts within 24 hours'. we've got a handful of editors who are being worn down by one editor who finds it enjoyable to do a wholesale reversion of the article to a version that has not been agreed to by *any* other editors, and which is a pretty reckless abuse of NPOV and OR. it's frustrating, to say the least. Anastrophe (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hours. Disruptive edit warring, despite warnings from other users. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you, i appreciate it. Anastrophe (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:‎ reported by User:Chrisieboy (Result: warned )[edit]

Chrisieboy (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Going over limit was inadvertant, for which I appologise - I'd forgotten there were two yesterday. It is not my intention to start an edit war.
User Chrisieboy has been engaged in disruptive reverting, rolling back perfectly valid changes and re-introducing errors without any explaination (other than 'I didn't like it') despite requests to provide reasons.
User Chrisieboy has also deleted my comments on a third user's talk page (Ian3055), and appears to be intent on a course of disruptive behavior.
Finally, note that the warning was given after the fourth reversion listed above. I did stop on being warned. Report was given at that time because I pointed out to user Chrisieboy that they were also on three reverts - warning has been deleted from Chrisieboy's talk page by user Christieboy. (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Both editors should leave the page to simmer, though, for the time being, as both are now aware of the 3RR and should take their disputes to the article's talk page. I thank you two in advance for settling this in a civil and thoughtful way. Cheers :) --slakrtalk / 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Spitzer19 reported by User:Boodlesthecat (Result:24 hours each )[edit]

User:Spitzer19 is a suspected sock puppeteer who has been edit warring on this article and on the Neo-Nazi article, where he has received multiple warnings. His edit warring largely consists of removing sourced information that he replaces with his own unsourced POV. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Boodles has also been edit-warring here, and his contributions, while slightly less POV that Spitzers, also include BLP violations which he's reinserted before having the BLP violation explained in small words. Argyriou (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have asked Argyriou (who has engaged in belligerent edit warring on the Neo-Nazi article--including claiming that the New York Times wasn't a Reliable Source(!) to supply evidence of his claim about my "BLP violations." Until such time, such claim should be considered a partisan unsupported claim in this manner designed to minimize the violations of the above editor. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Spitzer19 and User:Boodlesthecat blocked for 24 hours each. - auburnpilot talk 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dablyputs reported by User:SWik78 (Result: Page protected )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [43]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [50]

This is an all-out edit/revert war between Dablyputs (talk · contribs) and Working terriers (talk · contribs). In addition to reverts listed above, there are at least half a dozen more within the last 24 hours as can be seen here. SWik78 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kilz reported by User:WalterGR (Result: 24h blocks x2)[edit]

Summary of incident:

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3 revert rule. Looking at the times of the so called reverts they are all wrong. On the 7th, the page was split and so edits were on a new page. The 1st and 2nd edits are consecutive. According to the 3 revert rule consecutive edits are considered 1. They are not a revert, but editing and removing part. This is an initial edit for the day. The 3rd was a revert, to cancel out a revert by HaL. The same with the 4th. That totals 2 reverts with no warning on that page. The warning posted was for another day and another page. That warning was for 2 edits and 2 reverts. Since the page was split, the edits happened on 2 different pages. The reverts were to remove poorly sourced sections. Kilz (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then:
WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The first is an edit, not a revert. The page was recently created, mine was the second edit after creation of the page, and the removal was a section while editing, not reverting. The removal of the sections was for non verifiability, per comments. The last was to undo the actions of a anonymous sockpuppet. There was no warning about 3 reverts on that page and revert after. Kilz (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no mention of requiring a warning on 3RR. Additionally, I had warned you about a different article the previous day.
Why have all cases before and after this one been dealt with?
WalterGR (talk | contributions) 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Zipbip reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No block)[edit]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [56]

An apparent WP:SPA to edit Googoosh, pushing the foreign language spelling before the English-language spelling. Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

i am not pushing the farsi spelling before the english spelling in the article, the info-box is mainly decorative. also, you reverted me 5 times, removing her height and other important info from the info-box. zipbip —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipbip (talkcontribs) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. My edits were not reverts of your posts (they were initial copyediting, and my specific reverts of your material did not exceed the rules), nor were they edit-warring, which your edits specifically constituted.
As well, I think you - being new and a single-purpose account - are unfamiliar with the terminology we use in Wikipedia. We don't use decorative, pretty little features. This is the English-language wikipedia. English spellings go first (as you were advised). As well, we don't include lists of past (or future) concert dates, as per WP:NOT. You were advised to use the Discussion page, and you flatly refused to discuss there, stipulating that you preferred to use the edit summary.
I understand that you are new, but newness doesn't excuse making the same mistakes on purpose and refusing to discuss them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a silly edit war. Please try and find common ground. The alternative would be to protect the page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would submit that this isn't an edit-war so much as it is the basic failure of a user to follow (or perhaps understand) the extent of our rules here; therefore, their common ground is not to be found within Wikipedia territory. While the page has been (to my reckoning unnecessarily) protected, the SPA Zipbip still violated 3RR, as noted in the diffs presented above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talkcontribs) 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that Zipbip did not make another revert after the 3RR warning, so he wouldn't be blocked anyway. It seems this user is just uninformed of our policies, and page protection will hopefully get him to discuss on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, even though I think we are splitting hairs - it was less than a minute. I hope he does learn, but I think we will be back here again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Patmar15 reported by User:Jéské Couriano (Result:24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [57]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [62]

Edit-warring at the template. When warned for 3RR, he replied with this. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours by Kafziel. Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Yosemitesam25 reported by User:Arjuna808 (Result: 24h & 48h blocks )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [63]

Yosemitesam25 has continued to revert consensus material and reinstate his own material with disregard to repeated warnings that his edits violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:COI. Note that the edit described above as 06:36, 8 March 2008 was the beginning of a series of six edits that either reverted previous material or reinstated previous POV material that was legitimately reverted by a consensus of other editors. Finally, I apologize in advance if I have filled out this report incorrectly -- coding is not my forte but I think I have it correct. Thank you for your attention. Arjuna (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe one of those was a consecutive edit (simultaneous) in which I was adding citations in response to Eekadog.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Result - I have blocked Yosemitesam25 and Arjuna808 for 24 and 48 hours respectively and warned a third user, Eekadog. It is recommended that all users please use discussion to calmly propose changes to the said article. If it happens again I would recommend that article bans be implemented. ScarianCall me Pat 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:ChipotLoser reported by User:YOUR_NAME (Result: No 3RR, but blocked for spam)[edit]