Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive87

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

Noticeboard archives


MeteorMaker reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24h block)[edit]

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

Editor has been removing or modifying the phrase also known as "Judea and Samaria" for some time now (e.g. [6]). In the past few hours has gotten a bit "smarter" about his tactics, and is making complex reverts, slightly changing the wording each time, or removing it altogether, in order to mask the fact that he is reverting. Has been warned in two separate places that this is a 3RR violation, and asked to revert himself,[7][8] but has so far refused to do so, preferring to wikilawyer.[9] His talk page also shows many previous warnings for edit-warring, 3RR, etc. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and disruption. CIreland (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Rurik (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [10]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [15]

User replaced content on page with incorrect information, which was reverted. User then started a revert war to re-enter the incorrect information. Twice, on his user page, user was notified that what he was entering was incorrect and was reverted. User has ignored all comments on talk page, and many editors are also on verge of 3RR in reverting his edits. Rurik (talk)

  • Blocked 72 hours for flagrant disregard of rules --B (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reported by Trupial (Result: S-protected)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [link]

  • 1st revert: [link]
  • 2nd revert: [link]
  • 3rd revert: [link]
  • 4th revert: [link]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I'm very new to reporting these sorts of things. Trupial (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • S-protected and IP blocked. --B (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Magog the Ogre (Result: warning; semi)[edit]

Real-life superhero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:19, 12 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  2. 07:07, 12 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  3. 19:16, 12 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  4. 01:51, 13 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  • Diff of warning: here

Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Another diff by a possible sock of the above user.

 *Everyone* one that page is reverting without talking. So I've put a polite warning on the talk, in the hope that sanity might prevail William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

another diff TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
[16] TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is much profit in blocking IP-hopping anons, so have semi'd the page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this incident needs to be re-opened. Since the warning issued by William M. Connolley, two more reversions diff 1, diff 2 have been made to the page by two different editors with very similar IP addresses. I have simply run out of warnings to issue in this case. At this point, if I revert the links, its just going to get re-added. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:GoldDragon reported by User:Clausewitz01 (Result: no violation)[edit]

I dont know how to link to each of the examples because editors are taking it upon themselves to undo his edits in bulk now. So if I compare from before and after his edits, it is always going to be the same, for example:

There is long discussion about GoldDragon's editing bias here:

I'd rather just post that link instead of cutting and pasting all of the comments by all of the editors that have noticed his activity. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a technical violation of 3RR in either this report or the one below. This page is not a phase of the dispute resolution process. --B (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Clausewitz01 reported by User:GoldDragon (Result: no violation)[edit]

Clausewitz01 copied and pasted some contentious material from the 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute, without really explaining why it would be a wedge issue. Out of the editors from 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute that I am having conflict with, Clausewitz01 is the only one that gives a generic excuse "your edits are biased, you are POV" without any reference to the material. GoldDragon (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a technical violation of 3RR in either this report or the one above. This page is not a phase of the dispute resolution process. --B (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reported by MikeWazowski (Result: Stale, both warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [link]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeWazowski (talkcontribs)

Fixed report so it can be read, result TBD. --B (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Stale, both warned; if reverting continues, both will be blocked. --B (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gune reported by AnmaFinotera (Result: 72hr block for EW and incivity)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: link

  • Diff of 3RR warning: link

An IP first addressed the issue of this list violating WP:NONFREE by removing the excessive individual images from the list. Gune reverted. He repeated, and another editor reverted as the IP did not use an edit summary. The IP user posted to the project about the issue, so I reviewed his edits, found them to be well done, and reverted them. Gune reverted this, despite the edits being appropriate. He continues attempting to restore the images inappropriately, and after I left him the 3RR warning, he left an uncivil message on my talk page,[22]. This editor has a history of both edit warring and incivility. When I removed his message, he reverted that too.[23]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for 72 hours for violation of the three-revert-rule and incivility. CIreland (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Melonbarmonster2 (Result: talking?)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [24]

3rr violation on the 12th

Previous reverts from 8th and 11th which I reported even though they were not 3rr violations per se. They show a continued pattern of revert warring.[[29]]

The user has continued the same pattern of revert warring since my last report[[35]] and has violated 3rr.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like (a) you're bother reverting and (b) you've both paused for the moment. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Paused for the weekend. But the report was made since the 3rr was violated by the user. I made a series of edit changes to the article revising a dozen different things all of which were not reverts but new edits changes. My reattempts at these edits after long discussion and third party comments in the talk page can be considered to reverts. Also they've been supported by other editors and consensus seems to have been reached. My reverts were not simply reverting back a single edit change back and forth with Badagnani. Neither has Badagnani actually. His reverts are mostly reverts of a new edit change that I would make to the article. It's just he made such reverts 4 times on the 12th and has showed continued pattern of revert warring instead of discussing in the talk page.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Faked his Death reported by User:dman727 (result:no action taken)[edit]

Warning: link]

This particular user seems to be a SPA who's intention is to disrupt. I became aware of this disruption after reading about it on this particular website which he/she describe as "fun with wikipedia". See [[36]] User probably also violates user naming rules. Dman727 (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only editing the truth. Why do you have a problem with the facts? Also, please explain how my USERNAME violates naming rules? Thanks for pointing out the revert rule. I wasn't aware of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus Faked his Death (talkcontribs) 06:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Faked his Death stopped edit warring after he was warned. Without commenting as to the validity of the rest of the report, I just wanted to make that comment. Grsz11 06:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, thanks for edit-conflicting me Grsz. Just kidding! And this report isn't properly formatted. :(
Anyway, there's no 3RR violation here. JFHD (as I'll nickname you for convenience, hope that's ok), please do not continue to edit war unless you can provide a verifiable, reliable source to cite your information with. Thank you, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Umm ... {{unb}}. --B (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Eisai Dekisugi reported by User:Thibbs (Result: IP hard blocked 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [37]

  • 1st revert: [38]
  • 2nd revert: [39]
  • 3rd revert: [40]
  • 4th revert: [41]
  • 5th revert: [42]
  • 6th revert: [43] (this follows the same spirit)
  • 7th revert: [44]
  • 8th revert: [45]
  • 9th revert: [46]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]

This is but one issue which has seen edit warring by this editor. A review of the article history as well as a review of his edits on other pages such as Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Sunshine demonstrate that he has been doing this for a long time. This disruptive editor needs some time to cool down and review the BRD cycle. -Thibbs (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One quick additional note, it should be made clear that though the above diffs represent up to three different accounts, the IP accounts are clearly socks. -Thibbs (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have hard blocked the IP ( (talk · contribs) 24 hours. It is clearly a static IP with only the one person on it so there should be no collateral damage. The IP is the only contributor that individually violated 3RR. If Eisai Dekisugi is the same person, he/she will be covered by the hard block as well. If there is more sockpuppetry suspected here than just one person editing while logged out, it may be a worthwhile endeavor to file a checkuser request, but really, if it's just a single account editing while logged out, they usually don't confirm or deny that. --B (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reported by Marauder40 (Result: 48h / semi)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [48]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]

User is a sockpuppet for numerous other IP addresses. Every week or two they come in an try to revert a POV edit. They has been warning many times my many different editors, they have been asked to come to consensus numerous times on the Talk page. Just a sample of other IP addresses include,, I also requested page protection on the page protection vandalism page. Marauder40 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

48h and semi'd the page ofr a week in the hope they might get bored William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reported by Roguegeek (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

  • Page: [[:
File:Monteverdi_450_SS.jpg]] (edit | [[Talk::File:Monteverdi_450_SS.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | [//
File:Monteverdi_450_SS.jpg& views])
  • Previous version reverted to: [56]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [63]

Anonymous IP is removing derivative and copyright violation tags. Has performed several acts of vandalism just in the last hour other than the 3RR violation. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked 48 hours - please report flagrant vandalism to WP:AIV and it will be dealt with much more quickly. Reports here sometimes don't get noticed for a long period of time. --B (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reported by EHDI5YS (Result: No violation)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [64]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [69]

They have tried to Game the system to not violate the three-revert rule on Efrain Escudero by changing the flag in the Accomplished UFC fighters section of UFC with two different IP address, they did three reverts using IP and one revert under The way you can see how both were written by the same person is by the style of typing and the way they state their opinion (wording). I have also done three reverts myself, but I do not wish not to enter in to edit warring with this person over some thing this dumb! I have even tried to use dispute resolution by writing my views on the matter under the discussion page. Can some one help? --EHDI5YS (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No violation - even if they are the same person (doubtful since the IPs come from thousands of miles apart),'s only two edits immediately followed one of's, so there is no fourth revert. I don't know enough about the material to know if it is a good faith edit or a bad faith one (obviously if it's vandalism, that's a completely different situation), but there is no violation of the 3-revert rule. --B (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sprogeeet reported by User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [70]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [75]

Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--Smashvilletalk 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thibbs reported by Reviewer100 (Result: Reporter blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [76]

  • 1st revert: [77] although he said "rvv", this is just a content dispute because the content had not been included in the artcle for a long time.
  • 2nd revert: [78]
  • 3rd revert: [79]
  • 4th revert: [80]

The content he added had not been included in the article for a long time.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [81]

--Reviewer100 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reporter blocked as an obvious sock of the blocked User: --B (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

ViperNerd reported by CobraGeek (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [82]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

Violation of 3RR and continuation of an edit war over content that appeared to have been resolved with Admin involvement nearly a year ago. See Talk:University of South Carolina steroid scandal#Involvement of coach Joe Morrison. User continues to revert edits that are contributing non-POV, notable and well-sourced content that is central to the article. User has been previously blocked three times for edit-warring (see [[88]] including violation of 3RR on the article in question. Not sure what else to do here, dispute resolution will probably not be effective. --CobraGeek Merry Xmas!! 03:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked 72 hours - Seriously guys, you both should know better than this by now. Wikipedia is not an acceptable place to carry out your college rivalry. Hundreds of us - Hokies, Wahoos, Longhorns, Sooners, Aggies, Gators, Tigers, Orangepeople, and college fans from all sorts of places manage to live in peace here. If you continue with the puerile edit wars, it's only going to result in you both being banned. --B (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Betathetapi545 reported by JayHenry (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [89]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [96] (casual warning) [97] (formal warning)

Looks like at least a 6rr violation (looks like some more in the history), including after being formally warned. Editors Smallbones and Mikco have backed off to avoid edit warring and tried to discuss and been met with the likes of this as well as hostile [98][99] threats about banning.[100]. I have no stake or background in the dispute. I saw this on Smallbones talk page and looked into it a bit to find a fairly one-sided refusal to communicate and 6rr violation. --JayHenry (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tj terrorible1 reported by Scorpion0422 (Result: No action for now, consider all parties warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [101] User is continually readding a quote.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: Did not receive a warning this time, but is an experienced user and serial edit warrior has been warned in the past several times: [102][103][104] and he has been very sternly warned about edit warring and ownership of articles [105]

Scorpion0422 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not permission for reverting exactly thrice daily, which you have. I'm not overly inclined to block anyone unless the edit warring continues. If it's still an issue, I can protect the page to facilitate discussion on the talk page, but nobody has reverted in 7 hours, so I don't think that's necessary. So no action for now unless something changes. --B (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. He clearly violated 3RR and he has had many warnings and final chances. Take a look at the history of Barney Gumble, people would copyedit it and he would just revert back to his version. He has done this many times on many pages and all he gets is a bloody warning, every time. I didn't even get one warning before my first 3RR block. What is the point of the damn rule if violating users never get blocked? -- Scorpion0422 04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punishment. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:WorldFacts reported by User:Narson (Result: 24 hours for edit warring)[edit]

There is a general history of edit warring going on at the article and while many users are now talking or at least talking about talking on the article page, WorldFacts has "found that talking isn't productive". WorldFacts generally pops up every 2 weeks to revert things and then goes away again. There was an ANI about this that fizzled out with no action back in november. --Narson ~ Talk 14:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring. There is a very active discussion of the Moorer report and related matters on the Talk page; WorldFacts has not contributed at the article Talk page since November 12. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

HP1740-B reported by Grey Fox-9589 (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [106]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [113][114] (As to your 'report', I don't care)

Apart from constantly ignoring editing rules, this user has a history of edit warring on this exact page. I guess I'm the first one to report him, after months. Grey Fox (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all obvious reverts, but at least 4 are, and he has continued: 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ganesh108 and User:Lawranceofarabia reported by User:Onorem (Result: 24 hours each)[edit]

Take this as a 3RR report or take it as a notice of an edit war in progress. Either way works for me. Two relatively new users with no apparent desire to discuss continue to revert/undo each other. Warned each about 3RR earlier today, and both have since gone on to revert again.

No opinion on the dispute itself. Looks like the info is sourced, but how well and how undue it might be is a matter for another page. --OnoremDil 00:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • blocked 24 hours apiece. --B (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:JpGrB and User:F-22 Raptored reported by User:Timmeh (Result: Page protected, users warned)[edit]

Both have violated 3RR and are engaged in edit warring over the genres in the article. Each is removing the other's additions and sources and adding their own. Timmeh! 03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like they've gone to bed. It's clear they are both edit warring, though. Protonk (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Protecting the page and warning them both. If they go back at it they will be blocked. Protonk (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reported by EHDI5YS (Result:with drawn)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [115] keeps changing the flag on Efrain Escudero in the Accomplished UFC fighters section of UFC. I have even tried to use dispute resolution by writing my views on the matter under the discussion page. But they are so sure on the facts over a Mexican flag that was behind him on the Ultimate Fighter 8 show! This was his statement: "tell that to the ufc when they had the Mexican flag shown during the "tail of the tape". When every one knows a flag in the background is no real proof, but I got real proof he is American! Two MMA web sites that call him American & even his own myspace account says nothing about Mexico, but all about Arizona! If you take a look at the myspace pics you can see personal pics of him that you wouldn't find on a Efrain Escudero faker myspace account.

My proof

Can some one please help? --EHDI5YS (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WLU reported by Guido den Broeder (Result: Page Protected 3 Days)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: various
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [128]

User keeps promoting his view that this disease, classified as neurological, is psychosomatic, and will declare any source that disagrees with his pov unreliable, etc. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to re-review, but isn't it not 3rr if I revert to "various" versions? If I'm reverting different edits for different reasons, I don't think that'd be 3rr, but I'm not sure. I may have to pull a mea culpa. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, the first two are reverts to the same version, to remove the same content (for a discussion now at WP:RSN#Journal of Mental Health). The third replaces a source that was removed for not being a reliable source when it's published by McGill-Queen's University Press. The fourth removes a dubious source being discussed at WP:RSN#Nivel. I'd say these are separate reverts about separate issues. I don't think this is 3RR, but it's not up to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It does not have to be the same stuff. However, since there is other underlying stuff going on here, I'm going to ignore all rules and protect the page for 3 days instead of blocking you both (Guido is also in violation of 3RR). --Smashvilletalk 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected --Smashvilletalk 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated anything, thanks. You are now basically protecting WLU's reverts, encouraging him to do it again, so I'm not sure how we should proceed from here. Protecting a page can be helpful, but only if there is a follow-up in the form of dispute resolution. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should try discussion, Guido? ScarianCall me Pat! 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention...I protected it at Guido's version... --Smashvilletalk 03:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No, you did not. For some reason, you wrongly keep assuming, without looking, that all my edits were reverts, too.
Scarian: please check the COI and RS noticeboards. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! Guido hasn't violated the three revert rule. There is absolutely zero reason for reporting. Please check carefully from now on before coming on ANI noticeboard WLU! Cheers dude (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, WLU didn't make the report, and this isn't WP:ANI. One of us is confused, and I think it might be you. --fvw* 03:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake! Perhaps I didn't read clearly. I'm a little worked up over WLU's behavior in terms of what I've seen in the interactions between he and Guido. My apologies again! Cheers Cheers dude (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have concerns, take them to ANI, but I highly suggest you figure out what all is going on first before you jump to conclusions. --Smashvilletalk 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The main problem here is that Guido keeps re-adding non-reliable sources (Nivel and Jason), and one of them Guido himself is one of the reviewers. And now because of this nobody can edit the CFS article for 3 days. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Your contention is not supported on the RS and COI noticeboards. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr reported by tc2011 (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • revert 1 (6 edits, 3 editors reverted): [131]
  • revert 2 (2 edits, 1 editor reverted): [132]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [133]

Errm... you're supposed to provide reverts by SB, not yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies... The "overall reverts" were by SaltyBoatr; the sub-points are the individual edits by multiple editors (4 unique) that SaltyBoatr reverted. I've trimmed the report down to just SaltyBoatr's reverts. --tc2011 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand the rules. Its per-revert; not how many edits that revert removes William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

While SaltBoatr has had some problems with edit warring and source use in the past, his current behavior seems perfectly in-line with our rules and the idea of WP:BRD. Checking the article history, two of his reverts are undoing vandalism.[137][138] Two of his reverts undo drastic changes on two different days.[139][140] He's made use of the talk page to discuss the article and explain his objections.[141][142][143][144][145] I recently declined to interject as an administrator for similar activity, noting nothing wrong with SaltyBoatr's current behavior and encouraging the complainant to give discussion a chance.[146] That complaint mentioned it was a GA article and that an independent review found no problems. However, SaltyBoatr put the article up for Good Article Review.[147] The result is that the article was delisted for similar reasons to SaltyBoatr's concerns.[148] I strong encourage the participants to seek assistance in settling the content dispute. Vassyana (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by Idag (talk) (Result: both warned) (New result:)[edit]

Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Previous edit warring on the edits in question:

  1. [149]
  2. [150]

3RR violaton on the 18th/19th

  1. [151]
  2. [152]
  3. [153]
  4. [154]
  • Diffs of warnings:
  1. [155]
  2. [156]
  3. [157]
  • Attempts to engage user in talk page discussion of edits:
  1. [158]
  2. [159]
  • Evidence that user knows how to use the Talk page: [160]

This editor has refused repeated attempts to get him to discuss his edits. He simply makes extremely controversial and POV changes to an already-controversial article and limits any discussion of those edits to his edit summaries. I cut this editor a lot of slack because he was new, but this is getting out of hand. I would also note that I have either violated or came close to violating 3RR, but I would ask for a good faith exception to be made because I made repeated attempts to engage this editor in a discussion, and this editor simply refused to respond to anything. I would have been happy to discuss the edits on the talk page instead of edit-warring, but it is impossible to talk to someone who refuses to talk to you. Idag (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'd find you've both broken 3RR if I looked through the diffs. Mostly on the basis of K's comments on the talk page, I'm avoiding blocking either of you and warning you both: you against 3RR and the anon, who appears over-enthusiastic, on following K's advice William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is somewhat unorthodox, but, after receiving the warning, the anon is back at it again.[161] He has again refused to engage in any discussion on the talk page and just keeps editing the article at his whim (his idea of a discussion appears to be edit summaries that are written in all caps). Due to the warning that I received in this proceeding, I'm not going to revert him, but I would ask an admin to address this issue. Idag (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roy Ward reported by Siru108 (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [162]
  • Version before that: [163]

Problem is that unverified or very poorly verified claims in this biography of a living person is reinserted when deleted. User do not want to participate in discussion, just undoing new edits (that can be verified). Same problem on Diamond Way Buddhism.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [164]

This isn't 3RR, its a content dispute. See WP:DR, or possibly WP:BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford reported by Sceptre (Result: Decline )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [165]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary; user was an ex-admin, so he knows he'll be going over 3RR.

Userspace exemption of 3RR may not apply as the material he is reintroducing - a thinly veiled metaphor/accusation of rape - is a personal attack on several contributors and is therefore a violation of BLP. Sceptre (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined While WP:3RR has been violated, the page is now protected making a block at this point clearly punitive. Like I stated earlier, this whole situation can be resolved without the need for blocks. So please, Bedford and the rest use a talk page, head to ANI, and come to some form of agreement. Bedford - it is really not that hard, take it down, move on. Tiptoety talk 03:16, 20 December 20