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 Smartissexy (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 12 February 2008. 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:Momento reported by User:24.98.132.123 (Result: semi-protected)

    Prem Rawat. Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


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

    Despite requests on user's talk page [User:Momento] has not discussed issue and instead has performed multiple reverts. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I repeatedly deleted 24.98.132.123 inclusion of this article [[8]]. as a violation of BLP. It has since been deleted on 21:20, 6 February 2008 by David D. (Talk | contribs) (52,115 bytes) (→Media: this has nothing to do with the subject) (undo). Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Observation from the sidelines: Both editors appear to be acting in good faith, although I am disturbed at the apparent bias displayed by Momento in zealously eliminating all traces of sourced and notable criticism of the subject. The criticism exists, it comes from notable sources such as ex-members of the organization, and respectable publications (books and newspapers) are available to back it up. Citing WP:BLP as a catch-all excuse for deleting criticism doesn't seem proper. If the criticism is valid (and it appears to be) then it should be included, with sources, and improved rather than deleted repeatedly. If it were me, I'd block both editors for a week so that others can make positive contributions to the article. =Axlq (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ex-members and tabloid newspapers are not suitable sources for a BLP when there are many noted sociologists and religious scholars to use. In this case The Register article is completely innappropriate.Momento (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as someone with no involvement in this article: On the contrary, ex-members (especially an organized group of them) have a perspective and experience that sociologists and religious scholars sorely lack. When it comes to criticism, Momento appears to have a double standard regarding sources; this comment is telling. Verifiability and reliability are sufficient; academic credentials aren't a requirement. Ex-members are verifiable and reliable sources for their own criticisms.
    I see no need to continue this conversation further. I stand by my comment that both editors should be banned for a week, for violating 3RR. =Axlq (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As the article has been semi-protected, apparently due to vandalism concerns, there's probably no block necessary, but I'll leave this up for a bit in case another admin disagrees. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know whether IP 24.98.132.123 relates to any of the editors of the article. At the time he couldn't have edited the article without logging in as the article was already semi-protected before this incident (I think... a semi-protection tag was up all the time and I saw no IP's edit the article in that period). Anyway, I also issued a 3RR warning for Onefinalstep (talk · contribs) [9], who was Momento's counter-part edit-warrior most of the time for (re-)insertion of the material deleted by Momento in the same period.

    As an alleviating circumstance, both engaged in talk page discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My contentions were incorrect for the 6 february incident, which I know nothing of. They apply to the 8 february incident which is reported by user:cirt below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Soulscanner and reported by User:G2bambino (Result: )

    Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:47, 7 February 2008

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]
    • 1st revert: [11] 04:40, 6 February 2008
    • 2nd revert: [12] 03:20, 7 February 2008
    • 3rd revert: [13] 03:37, 7 February 2008
    • 4th revert: [14] 03:47, 7 February 2008
    • 5th revert: [15] 04:01, 7 February 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning issued, but as this user reported User:Quizimodo above, he's obviously aware of 3RR.

    A short explanation of the incident. Restoring original complaint by User:G2bambino. I'd unintentionally deleted it as a duplicate upon posting the complaint below. Consequently, no administrator has viewed this. I'm hoping all accept these restorations. They are all done in good faith to set the record straight on a complicated set of mishaps. --soulscanner (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:G2bambino reported by User:Soulscanner (Result:See above)

    Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:47, 7 February 2008

    • Previous version reverted to: [16]
    • 1st revert: [17] 04:40, 6 February 2008
    • 2nd revert: [18] 03:20, 7 February 2008
    • 3rd revert: [19] 03:37, 7 February 2008
    • 4th revert: [20] 03:47, 7 February 2008
    • 5th revert: [21] 04:01, 7 February 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning issued, but as this user reported User:Quizimodo above, he's obviously aware of 3RR.

    A short explanation of the incident. A brief inspection of User:G2bambino and User:Quizimodo talk page histories, and patterns of reverts above show that two cited editors are colluding to remove neutrality tags placed by me on that page. I've already pointed them to Wiki's policy that if there is a dispute about neutrality tags on an article, there probably is a neutrality issue. [User:Quizimodo]]'s pledge above seems somewhat disingenuous given this context. Again, tags in question identify pertinent claims and sources currently being debated by various editors at relevant talk page. Soulscanner (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quizimodo hasn't contacted me for months. Since he did yesterday, I've taken one look at Dominion, and offered a comment at talk. That's hardly collusion; perhaps you need to tone down the conspiracy theories? Regardless, I believe you've violated 3RR, in the process of an antagonistic edit war, no less. But, we shall let more experienced people be the judge. --G2bambino (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Folded into the above report. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Later protected for a week by me. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked G2bambino for doing this, which is completely out of order. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should most certainly think not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. It arose from another user and me taking edits out of conflict, and G2bambino was not out of order. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying, Stifle. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    G2bambino acted in good faith when he switched the names, but they still needed to be switched back. I've taken the liberty of restoring the original posting here. The incident report on this error is here --soulscanner (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:206.174.18.117 reported by User:Maxamegalon2000 (Result: 24 hours )

    "Weird Al" Yankovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.174.18.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeatedly adding a comparatively nonnotable detail to the article's lead, despite consistent calls from multiple editors to discuss such an addition first. Maxamegalon2000 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll block for 24 hours, but you'll need semi-protection if he comes back as another IP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Momento reported by User:Cirt (Result: Blocked 24 hrs)

    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: 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing image
    1. 19:42, 8 February 2008
    2. 20:31, 8 February 2008
    3. 05:32, 9 February 2008
    4. 11:31, 9 February 2008
    Removing external links
    1. 19:42, 8 February 2008
    2. 20:56, 8 February 2008
    3. 21:12, 8 February 2008
    4. 22:07, 8 February 2008
    5. 05:34, 9 February 2008
    6. 11:31, 9 February 2008
    Previous warnings for 3RR
    1. 23:31, 12 March 2006, by Jossi (talk · contribs)
    2. 00:00, 21 May 2007, by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
    3. 19:38, 6 February 2008, by 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs). (Reported to here for 3RR, was not blocked, as described below.)
    4. 19:47, 6 February 2008, by Jossi (talk · contribs)
    5. 13:09, 9 February 2008, by Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) (This also serves as notice of report here, see DIFF.)

    Momento (talk · contribs) was already previously reported to WP:ANI/3RR on this article 19:38, 6 February 2008, by 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs). Axlq (talk · contribs) had suggested a block to both parties. No one was blocked because he was edit-warring with an IP address, and the article was then semi-protected. He continues to revert, edit-war with multiple other editors, even after the semi-protect was put into place. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There was no edit war with an IP address IN THE SAME PERIOD, the page was semi-protected at the time. See my comments here: [22] (WP:AN3) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, yes, there was. Just check the contribs for 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These edits were from two days earlier. Semi-protection occurred 20:29, 6 February 2008. In the period you're speaking of for Momento's edit-warring on this content (8 february) the re-insertions of the material were most often by Onefinalstep (talk · contribs), although I didn't count.
    If you think IP 24.98.132.123 could/should be linked to any of the other editors of that page in roughly the same period, it is always possible to file a checkuser request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood me? I was only citing the prior case involving 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs) here because that IP had recently reported Momento (talk · contribs) for 3RR. After the semi-protection, Momento (talk · contribs) continues to be disruptive and edit war. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I recognised my error above. I only intended to comment on the 8 february incident. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. My point was just that Momento (talk · contribs) was not blocked after the first 3RR report (as you mentioned, still on this page, above) and continues disruption after the article was semi-protected. Cirt (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs) maybe links to one of the other editors reverting the same material a few days later, so a checkuser would probably not be completely out of order here, in order not to be one-sided. I leave that to the admins assessing this incident. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Momento does appear to be somewhat disruptive here and recommend the admin to review his edits here. Lawrence § t/e 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further above the initial 3rr report; this user has continued removing material that myself and another editor have added. He needs a break. Here adding material to disqualify a source; here again scrubbing material with a reversion/deletion. Lawrence § t/e 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 24 hours. Nakon 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tasc0 reported by User:Chubbles (Result: Page protected)

    Bloods & Crips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The edits fall technically outside the 24 hour rule, but this appears to be a clear attempt to game the system. Editor keeps redirecting this page about a collaborative effort between two rap groups to one of their albums. However, the collaboration released two albums, both of which charted hits in the USA, clearly establishing them notable per WP:MUSIC, and references were provided. User simply reverts and stops discussion when confronted with this information. Chubbles (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected. Talk it out on the talk page. Use dispute resolution. --B (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making false accusations of me stopping the discussion, when you haven't discussed anything with me and I started a thread on the article starter's talk page where I hardly get responses.
    It's clearly enough to see that I want to put a solution to this matter. By just reading User_talk:Same_As_It_Ever_Was#Your_recent_edits. Thanks. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And just for the record, the admin who took action in this issue stated that I haven't broke the third revert rule. Diff. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pfistermeister reported by User:AndyJones (Result: No action - No reverts after warning)

    Hamlet (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pfistermeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: (10:31, 9 February 2008) Although this warning (by User:ThuranX post-dates the last revert. Does that in some way invalidate this report? Making it anyway: I want to lay a marker down on this user's intemperate edit warring.

    Edit war over some information which an exceedigly uncivil editor wishes to include. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pfistermeister. AndyJones (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: No action. As the reporting user states, the warning was given after the last revert. Pfistermeister did edit the article once more after the warning, but it does not seem to have been a revert. TigerShark (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [23] 15:30, 8 February 2008 (image removed; tag placed)
    • 1st revert: [24] 18:18, 8 February 2008 (tag inserted again)
    • 2nd revert: [25] 19:02, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • 3rd revert: [26] 20:52, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • 4th revert: [27] 21:57, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [28] 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]

    User:Blackeagles reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: No action - Stale request)

    Superman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blackeagles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Despite at least three editors reverting his edit about the fictional character Superman being a Methodist, and talk-page warnings about unreliable sources, an apparent zealot with a talk-page history of contentious and questionable edits has continued to make the same poorly sourced POV edit. As explained on his talk page: "the cite does not reach the bar of reliability. The cite is a[n]... opinion columnist [who] simply claims that "superhero scholars" say Superman is Methodist, but he doesn't provide any examples. And the website he points to, adherents.com, doesn't seem to have anything about Superman or superhero under "S". Given that this is a claim never made by the creators or the company that publishes Superman, there is a very high bar in terms of authoritative sourcing." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: Blackeagles has not edited since February 7th, making this request stale. As far as I can see, the user was also not given the 3RR warning until today (a day and a half after they last edited) so did not revert after the warning. TigerShark (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Verklempt (Result: 48 hours)

    Template:Ward Churchill misconduct issues. Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [29]

    User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters reverted Ward_Churchill_misconduct_issues five times on February 8. Given that this editor was once proposed to be an administrator, and given that he has been blocked several times before for violating 3RR, a warning should not be necessary. He knows the rules, but just doesn't care.

    Verklempt (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This may well be a BLP issue. Enormous amounts of possibly undue weighted criticism being added. Relata refero (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (1)The disputed material is not being added. It has been there for years. Rather, Lulu is attempting to delete it, repeatedly. Furthermore, Lulu himself is the editor who created this child article in order to separate critical opinions out of the main bio. Since then, he has been attempting to remove as much critical material as possible, even though it is all sourced to mainstream newspaper articles. (2) Even if there were a BLP issue, it should be negotiated in good faith on the talk page. Lulu has yet to specify which sentences violate BLP and how. I don't think he or anyone else can succesfully make that argument, given the airtight sourcing.Verklempt (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, please notify him of this so he can respond if you haven't already. Relata refero (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: Although there is clearly a debate taking place at the article's talk page with concerns from various editors, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is reverting extensively and is clearly in breach of 3RR. He has not clearly justified his claims of BLP violations, and his accusations of soapboxing and sockpuppetry are doing nothing to help consensus. His history of blocks for 3RR on related articles indicates that he is fully aware of the policy and warrant a longer block than previously applied. TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hyperbole reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24 hrs)

    Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hyperbole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Continues to edit war after warning. In addition, should be warned for personal attacks.. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: I cannot see a 3RR violation here, as the first edit listed above is unrelated to the last three. TigerShark (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not touching this one with a 10' pole, but 3RR applies to ANY reverts or partial on the same page, not merely repeating the same action. --B (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, correct. The problem: I'm not seeing how the first one is a revert; could someone show what it's reverting? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing anything is at least a partial revert (3RR applies to any revert, in whole or in part). Someone must have added the tag at some point and removing that tag is a revert. --B (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_chiropractic_care&diff=next&oldid=189411588 Original edit by QuackGuru adding POV tag. Quack Guru 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, yes, it looks like there is a violation here. I really have to go AFK now, so I can't finish this, but I'd support a block, especially if TigerShark consents (sorry not to take action myself, but family calls). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:45, 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) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A "strict interpretation"? It's the only interpretation. The first paragraph of WP:3RR says, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." That's pretty clear. Under the policy, you do have the discretion to (a) block Hyperbole up to 24 hours, (b) block both users, (c) protect the page, or (d) warn one or both users. You've chosen a solution without blocking and that's fine ... but the fact that 3RR applies to any four reverts is not an obscure technicality. --B (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is discretion here, as with any policy the goal is key. If somebody had incorrectly changed the spelling of a word and the user changed it back, along with three other reverts, would the goal of 3RR be achieved by blocking that user? There may be a time when admins are replaced by bots that blindly follow the criteria, but until then we have to apply common sense as to what the wording of the policy is trying to convey. You have only picked out one paragraph from the policy, rather than the whole wording and therefore taken it out of context. TigerShark (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [35][36] The reverts continue! Quack Guru 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first diff you gave was a removal of a link to Citizendium. No way in heck is that an acceptable source - it's just Wikipedia for people who are disgruntled with Wikipedia. The second does not appear to be a revert. --B (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours for continued edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Snowfire51 (Result: Blocked 3 days)

    Alex Jones (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User clearly warned, but unrepentant in ownership of this article. I've tried several times to ask him to slow down and explain, but he insists an AP article is not a reliable source and continues to revert changes with no productive discussion. When asked for clarification on why he distrusts the AP source, he threatened to blank the article just to make his point. [37]

    User has been blocked before for edit warring. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for three days as this is the second time he's edit warred on this article. Nakon 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I affirm this block and was about to make it when Nakon beat me to it. --B (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also bringing this to ANI for further discussion. Nakon 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must agree, unfortunately. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bakasuprman reported by User:Wiki Raja (Result: Not blocked)

    Caste system among Indian Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This user has broken the 3RR and has been notified by another user of his actions. During reverts, mispellings are overlooked which goes to show that he is not there to improve the article, but as a grudge against a particular faith. This is not the first time he has engaged in such acts. Wiki Raja (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There aren't five but I do count 1, 2, 3, 4. My inclination is to block Bakasuprman and Relata refero (talk · contribs) for edit warring, but Nishkid64 seems to be working with both users to try and diffuse this, so I'm more inclined to let that try to work. Please quit reverting each other. --B (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, this same admin who says he is trying to work this out with Bakaman also blocked me for a 3RR here without even blinking. I deem this as favoritism. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither party has edited the article in 4 hours. They have, on the other hand, been discussing it in that time. I'm not sure what purpose a block would serve. As for NishKid64 and favoritism? You're not a party to this particular dispute so I'm not sure that would be an issue even if he were inclined to be partial one way or the other. In any event, he frequently patrols this page so I seriously doubt his block of you was anything personal. --B (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Luke4545 reported by User:SmartisSexy (Result: No additional action)

    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 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [38]


    This article has been locked, but regardless the user Luke4545 is guilty of 3RR as he reverted more than three times.Smartissexy (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks are preventative, not punitive. With the article protected, there is no conceivable preventative purpose a block could serve. -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though this report has been resolved, I would just like to add that the 3RR report seemed to be a bait attempt. Notice how the IP 209.244.42.82 stated after my second revert that I would be reported for 3RR if I attempted to revert revisions again that were already deemed unconstructive by other users and bots (as evidenced by their own reverts), and then posted the same message again to seemingly bait me into reverting a fourth time. I tried to explain that the reverts by the IP 67.11.187.178 (which appears to be the user Smartissexy) were not viewed as being constructive, which once again, was evidenced by other users and bots reverting the edits by 67.11.187.178. Anyway, I don't want this to turn into some in-depth fight, but I thought I should present my case on the matter. -- Luke4545 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Coloane reported by User:huaiwei (Result: blocked both editors for 24 hrs)

    World's busiest airports by passenger traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Coloane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [43]


    The said user is not new to the 3RR policy, having been blocked for 3RR violation before[48], including a past attempt to evade the block. Without waiting for a resolution to be established in the talkpages, he proceeded to repeatedly revert the edits, despite my requests for him to explain his edit[49]. This comment in particular[50] suggests to me that he is gaming the 3RR policy.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This message should be posted by me not Huaiwei himself. He keeps reverted what I edited on that page. He tried to vandalise the table by changing the flag from HKSAR to PRC without reason. And I already explained to him that the title of the table is "airport", but not "country". I personally think that he is fully aware of 3RR policy. I also mentioned this on his talk page. Coloane (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is inconsequential who makes the nomination, for both parties will be scrutinised for 3RR violation. I am certainly aware of the 3RR policy, and I do not attempt to discount my responsibility in this affair as well, as alluded in [51]. If you are going to abuse the 3RR policy just to force others to accede to your demands as what you have done in my talkpage, then a report is a must, even if it costs me my editing freedom. This is gangsterism behavior, and is not acceptable in wikipedia.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Huaiwei reverts:

    I have blocked both editors for 24 hours for edit warring. - Revolving Bugbear 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: Karaku 48 hours, Rogue Penguin 31 hours)

    Code Lyoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Karaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user continues to add original research to the article in spite of repeated explanations about why it is so. The user also attempted to file a Wikiquette alert against me to have me blocked, which found that the violation was in fact on his side. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karaku has reverted at least four times today, trying to push his POV and misinterpreting a source which is questionable at best. He has been warned by at least three other editors about his disruptive style, and pointed towards policies on consensus and reliable sources. Yet he refuses to accept any of this, and insists that he is right and everyone else is wrong. He has already received a 24 hour block for edit warring and has not changed his ways. Harry the Dog (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to make a comment- I'm rving it back to the proper version. I have explained to him and TrP why that revision should stay, they won't listen. I gave sources/references. I would take it to the discussion page, but I know that doing so will only lead to more of them not listening to me and thinking the official site isn't reliable, and also, i tried doing similar things before, like on Talk:Matoran, Talk:Garage Kids, and it proved to fail at discussion. I do not deserve a block here, but If somehow I do, you might as well block TrP and Harry. -Karaku (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you have edit warred repeatedly over the article - this is ridiculous. My count - Rogue Penguin 1, Rogue Penguin 2, Rogue Penguin 3, Rogue Penguin 4, Rogue Penguin 5, Karaku 1, Karaku 2, Karaku 3, Karaku 4, Karaku 5, Karaku 6, Karaku 7. Blocking Karaku 48 hours (as this is a second offense) and Rogue Penguin 31 hours. --B (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jcmenal reported by User:Corticopia (Result: Warning)

    Middle America (Americas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jcmenal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user continues to insinuate a minority interpretation of what comprises 'Middle America', despite source matter to the contrary, in this article and others. User is fixated on what few sources indicate, despite others. The article was previously untouched for some three weeks. Corticopia (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The "first" one is a sourced edit, then Corticopia started to revert it. JC 11:35, 10 February 2008 (PST)
    Ok ... this is worthy of WP:LAME. My decision would be to block both but honestly, is that necessary? If you are both willing to stop editing it and talk it out on the talk page, I don't think a block is needed. --B (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with B's decision, was going to do the same when my internet connection crapped on me. Writing to say I will also be watchlisting the article to be sure the edit war does stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:PIO (Result: No violation)

    Three revert rule violation on National sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PIO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: THUGCHILDz 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Declined I do not view the behaviour of the editor on that article as disruptive enough to warrant a withdrawal of editing privileges. However, I do have concerns about future circumstances of edit warring that could arise, and, as such, I have issued the editor with a warning. AGK (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User: ASEOR2 (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Jacob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ASEOR2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [62]
    • 2nd revert: [63]
    • 3rd revert: [64]
    • 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

    Plus on a number of other pages including Hyksos. Hardyplants (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: No action. Apart from the fact that the report is malformed, I can see no indication that ASEOR2 has received a warning (although there has been a large amount of talk page blanking). I have now issued a warning [65], and this user needs watching closely. TigerShark (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ASEOR2&oldid=190416499 Hardyplants (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Groupthink (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Groupthink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User is continuing to revert and remove sourced content:

    User has been warned about edit warring and blanking pages several times, and is aware of the 3RR policy:

    Reported by: Dreadstar † 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: That's 5 reverts in 11 minutes, 24 hours for edit warring/3RR. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Asams10 (Result: 72 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on FAMAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asams10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: 79.212.215.217 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • remove's a otheruses template from "his" article because he doesn't like the other article. the last time he commented his revert with "RV per WP:HAT", even though a simple otheruses-template clearly does not violate WP:HAT.
    Blocked 72 hours (this is his 4th 3RR block) --B (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bleek25 reported by User:KellyAna (Result: 48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Las Vegas (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bleek25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: KellyAna (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Second violation in a week.

    None of the edits are the same.There is no violationBleek25 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't make that kind of comment. It's up to others to decide, not you, as the violator. There is a discussion started, the list has, in general, not had a description of the characters. Bleek added recent characters descriptions but not descriptions for all. When removed for consistency he reverted 4 times. He's had the same issue with other aspects of the article and been blocked before. KellyAna (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR does not require that all edits be identical. Any reverts or partial reverts count and from looking at these edits, you were repeatedly readding the same disputed content with little variation. KellyAna, I'm not sure why you say he can't comment. Obviously, he is allowed to comment.--B (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he can't comment, I said he can't make that kind of comment that there's no violation. That's for an administrator to decide, not him. He can, certainly, defend himself.KellyAna (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.27.105.10 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 48 hours)

    Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.27.105.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This anonymous user has been persistently reverting the present version of Naveen Jain to what existed before a COIN {{case opened and closed weeks ago with consensus on the current version. His reverts amount to removing well referenced material and adding unverifiable content that serves only to glorify the subject of the article. (relevant ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Borderline_vandalism_on_Naveen_Jain, relevant COIN thread: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Naveen Jain) Someguy1221 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 48 hours for 7RR, incivility, and possible conflict of interest. --B (talk) 13:38, 11 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]

    User:JacquesNguyen reported by User:Badagnani (Result: 72 hours)

    4 reversions in a 24-hour period (removal of Wiktionary links at Hội An) by user JacquesNguyen JacquesNguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has been asked not to do this several dozen times over the past two months.

    Badagnani (talk) 02:06, 12 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.[67][68][69][70]

    I gave several warnings to Koreakorea1 not to blank or alter information without consensus or talking, but the user keeps ignoring.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] 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: [78]


    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.[79]

    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: [84]

    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: [85] --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,[86] 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.[87] 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: )

    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: [93]



    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]


    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted.

    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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=191020646"