Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:DanielUmel reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: stale)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] (see comments for earlier warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: While this is not a cut-and-dry 3RR violation in 24 hours, it is clearly edit-warring. DanielUmel does not display a significant capacity to assume good faith and act in a collegial manner. Even when he brings up discussions on talkpages, he opens them with bad-faithed, accusatory headings [8] [9] and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him in textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. Note the accusations of "vandalism" in all of the diffs presented above. He was blocked for 2 days earlier this month for sustained edit-warring, but clearly has not taken a clue from that at all, even after I reprimanded him not to do so. See also his behaviour at his own talkpage: reverts an edit-warring reminder and calls the editor who posted it a "troll" again again same thing but to a different user. While removing warnings &c. on one's own talkpage is permissible, the "troll" name-calling and the fact that all removals were of EW notices is telling. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR rules is when someone make 4 reverts in 24 hours in the same page, not in 38 hours. If else, I can easily name 5 other person who did more revert than me on this page. I have not broken the 3RR rules, so the report is pointless and baseless. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to break 3RR in 24 hours to edit-war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point still fail. My addition was completely sourced and was turned down simply by "I don't like it". I am not entitled to respect bad faith reverts and as I don't break the 3RR rules, all is fine. You are just upset that I called your revert vandalism, as it was deletion of sourced content and without any explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thread your posts, dammit. There was an unresolved discussion on the talkpage as to whether or not to include the content. Merely having sources is not a free pass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged in a long discussion, but someone just tell that he does not like it because it hurt his feeling that one category has more item than another, I can't talk anymore. I have took time and numerous posts to resolve the issue. But talk don't work when you bring all the proofs, all the source, and someone resort to I don't like it. I have talked more than it was reasonable to do. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 messages, 14 days, and the person who initially had the objection admitted his mistake. I don't think a single editor can hold out for months against multiples sources.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thread. Your. Freakin'. Posts. Your "discussions" generally are laced with bad faith and condescending digs at other editors. Don't be surprised when you fail to reach your desired consensus when all you have to offer is vitriol. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am always discussing, as I have opened a lot of talks section on diverses page and I have not broken the 3RR rules. So I am not edit warring because I am always open to talk on the issue and as I do not break the 3RR rules. But there is a limit when the other person show pure bad faith in the talk page.--DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have previously tried to warn this user about edit warning and nearly breaking the 3RR, and they just deleted it off their talk page and called me a troll. I have taken no part in edit war myself, and I mentioned in my warning that both sides were continuing it, not just DanielUmel, but they wouldn't really listen. To be honest I think everyone involved needs to take a step back and calm down, and come back with a level head. Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:DanielUmel is still engaging in low intensity edit warring on the Battle of Aleppo article. He is totally ignoring talk page consensus and reliable sources. DanielUmel is a persistent problem user with only two modes; huge problem user and lesser problem user (the latter behaviour being only when he is the subject of a noticeboard incident like right now, this being the third such incident that I know of). Action needs to be taken. حرية (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stale. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soniarangel reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Article protected)

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

1st revert: [10]
2nd revert: [11]
3rd revert: [12]
4th revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

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

Comments:

No comment on the edit warring per se, but I've protected the article for three days just for its stability. If this is resolved sooner, please unprotect. Thanks. Ged UK 11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, since article is currently protected and additional sanctions would be punitive rather than preventative. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: No 1RR vio; referred to unblocking admin re: violation of unblock conditions)

My initial edit: [16]

1st revert: [17]
2nd revert: [18]

Altetendekrabbe is under 1RR. No attempt at discussing his reverts was made on the article's talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those reverts are three days apart. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not familiar with 1RRs. Does this mean Altetendekrabbe was allowed to do the revert even though he did not abide to the rest of his unblock agreement, namely to "use appropriate talk-pages, administrative noticeboards and seek outside help rather than getting into fights. " Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also this series of five reverts by A. at another article:

[19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

- Ankimai (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is the most ridiculous and spurious filing i have ever seen on this noticeboard. gunpowder and ankimai should get banned as wp:boomerang applies here. please also note that gunpowder is trying to add a "segregation"-section to the islam-in-europe-page. clearly, he has no intentions to contribute in a balanced way.-- altetendekrabbe 15:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are three days between the reverts, I'm not willing to block for them. I do think there's a serious concern that Altetendekrabbe isn't abiding by the second part of his unblock agreement, namely to use the talkpage and other dispute resolution appropriately rather than getting into fights. That's a bit outside the scope of this board, but I will refer the question to Bwilkins, the admin who unblocked Aletendenkrabbe, for additional input. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mystichumwipe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: 24 hours)

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

Article is subject to WP:ARBPIA remedies and is under WP:1RR.

1st revert: [24]
2nd revert: [25]

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

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

Comments:
Ankh, I don't think you provided the right diffs - it just goes to the revision history. Anyway, here are the 3 diffs:

1st revert - [26]
2nd revert - [27]
3rd revert - [28]

--Activism1234 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear 1RR violation; blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not as well-versed on general sanctions as I probably should be, and I'm not familiar with this particular user and their history, but it looks to me as if the user may have been improperly warned. They seem to have been editing in good faith, and first edited the article today. As far as I can tell from the user's talk page, they were only warned about the 1RR restriction four hours after their last edit, and a half hour before they were blocked, making it implausible that they would be able to self-revert. (Of course, I could be way off base here, as it's possible that they knew about the sanctions and chose to ignore them when editing this article.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:RightCowLeftCoast reported by User:MastCell (Result: 31h)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:28, 26 August 2012

1st revert: 15:47, 27 August 2012
2nd revert: 22:13, 27 August 2012 (two consecutive edits; undoes this preceding edit)
3rd revert: 00:46, 28 August 2012 (undoes this preceding edit)
4th revert: 16:11, 28 August 2012 (undoes this preceding edit)
5th revert: 17:45, 28 August 2012 (partially undoes this preceding edit, undoes this preceding edit, restores "what they viewed as" language from here)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:RightCowLeftCoast#Edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See last several threads at Talk:You didn't build that

Comments:
There's a clear 3RR violation in reverts #2 through #5. I included revert #1 to show that there's also a pattern of additional reverts just barely outside the 24-hour time limit, per WP:EW (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). MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me of this. I am happy to defend myself here. I stand that my edits were not strait reversions, but some where substantial edits to the article. Others are tag teaming to advance a change that advocates the increased weight of some POVs over other POVs in violation of WP:NEU. Additionally, by doing so they are gaming the system to decrease the neutrality of the article. What should have occurred was WP:BRD, and if I am a party as well as others in engaging in edits that contradict others than they should be hauled to this noticeboard as well. Perhaps the best solution is to lock the present article, allow the discussions to occur, and reach a consensus as to how this article will be moving forward.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit clearly neither added nor removed anything at all -- it appears to have been at most a "moving" of content within the same section of the same article while retaining all of the content and adding no content. The Wikipedia definition of reverts requires that something be added or deleted -- which is not the case for the "first revert" on which the entire complaint depends. In short -- tempest in a political teapot for this complaint. And the definition of revert says It can involve as little as one word which is the problem - zero words were changed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, you're completely incorrect. A revert is "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". There is no requirement that something be "added or deleted", and I'm not sure where you got that idea. The first edit reversed the action of the preceding editor, by rearranging the article and thus changing its emphasis. That's a revert - always has been, always will be. If you're not sure, please re-read policy. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am notifying relevant WikiProjects of this conversation, per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "relevant WikiProjects" to notify of the fact that you've been reported here for edit-warring - that's an odd understanding of the purpose and scope of WikiProjects. And I guess part of me thinks it's odd that you notified WikiProject Conservatism but not, say, WikiProject Barack Obama, which is equally relevant to the article at hand but contains a potentially less sympathetic mix of editors. But whatever; the diffs speak for themselves. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31h. Fairly straightforward report (apart from the notifying WikiProjects part, which is frankly bizarre). Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strike2216 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: No vio)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

1st revert: [30] 22:03, 18 August 2012‎
2nd revert: [31] 02:58, 19 August 2012‎
3rd revert: [32] 22:59, 19 August 2012‎
4th revert: [33] 17:53, 26 August 2012‎

The reverts center around the constant un-bolding of the list entry for "Johnny Damon".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] 06:23, 20 August 2012‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] 07:13, 16 August 2012‎

Comments:
The editor has made over 400 edits with 0 in the talk namespace. Preventative action is needed to make the user aware of the value of discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No violation The problem with slow moving edit wars (these diffs are across more than a week) is that even if a short block is issued, it makes little difference. I would suggest taking this to DRN? Or if the editor continues to revert without discussion, perhaps ask for the page to be protected until they engage. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYR:Protecting the page, recommended by a 3O editor who denied 3O, was recommended and later denied. Zepppep (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Widescreen reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: Pages protected)

Previous version reverted to: diff

1st revert: diff
2nd revert: diff
3rd revert: diff

1st revert: diff
2nd revert: diff
3rd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

Comments:

Page protected for both. Both of you are equally guilty of edit warring, and you would've been blocked along with Widescreen had I decided to go that route, Diablo. However, seeing as there's no 3RR violations, I've fully protected both pages in their current state instead as you're obviously unable to discuss your proposed changes without edit warring. I would strongly advise you both to take the next two days to continue to try to resolve this, as further edit warring of any kind will be grounds for a block. Swarm ^X 05:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tm011g6433 reported by User:Yerpo (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

1st revert: [37]
2nd revert: [38]
3rd revert: [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:

Not 3RR, but edit warring nevertheless. It's a silly issue over an apostrophe signifying possessive. An anonymous user (not me) tried to correct it to what I also think is right, which Tm011g6433 reverted with a rude comment in the edit summary to go with. I saw that by chance in Recent changes, and reverted it back, with admittedly a borderline uncivil (or over the border, I'll accept if mine is also considered uncivil) sarcastic comment to Tm011g6433. To that he simply replied by reverting again with trying to boss me around, and an irrelevant example, all in the edit summary space. My second revert was accompanied by a call for discussion to which I got a rude reply on my talk page. Tm011g6433's argument had some examples that I feel are irrelevant. I tried to explain - again, admittedly with a sarcastic tone, but only got more examples of the same argument and more rudeness. The rest of the "discussion" went similarly, until today when the article was again reverted by an anonymous, assumingly Tm011g6433 who wasn't logged in. This time, the edit summary was extremely insulting to me. I won't argue with this person anymore, nor will I continue editing the article in question, I'd just like a comment on what should be done, ideally from a person that can provide a clear explanation on whose version is correct. If it helps, I appologize to Tm011g6433 for my initial sarcastic comment, but I was irked by his horrible attitude towards an obviously well-meaning anon. Thanks, — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, with an aggravating factor of edit warring back to a grammatically incorrect version. Sheesh. Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can someone please correct the article now? I won't edit it again as I promised, and an uninvolved editor's action to the same effect might be more convincing. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rtc reported by User:Yobol (Result: 3RR violation by Rtc, but no block due to staleness)

1st revert: [42]
2nd revert: [43]
3rd revert: [44]
4th revert: [45]
5th revert: [46]

This editor is edit warring against multiple editors who object to their edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]. Per their block log, they have also been blocked for edit warring before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:

I think rather that User:Yobol should be blocked, for he is trying to enforce his opinion in a content dispute by trying to get me blocked, just because I am against his POV edits. User:Yobol also is guilty of what he ~~accuses~~ me. --rtc (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those edits are not reverts, but edits to satisfy objections, but I have self reverted my last edit to even avoid the appearance of a 3rr violation. Yobol (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the third wasn't a revert, since someone else reverted then, and, as you say you merely further edited to satisfy objections. --rtc (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look now, but you two are talking. I don't suppose you would agree to discussing disputed edits on the article talk page after you're reverted once? That would be my preferred solution. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear 3RR violation by Rtc (talk · contribs). If I had reviewed this report yesterday, I would have blocked Rtc. However, since the most recent revert is >24 hours ago and Rtc is now participating on the talkpage, a block at this point is probably unduly punitive rather than preventative. That said, Rtc dodged a bullet here and I suspect that if this editor resumes edit-warring, it will likely be looked on unfavorably. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lysozym reported by User:Nasir Ghobar (Result: Remanded to WP:SPI)

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

Previous version reverted to: [49]

1st revert: HP
2nd revert: HP

1st revert: PK
2nd revert: PK

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Lyszym is Tajik (talk · contribs) who was placed on 1RR by the Arbitration Committee. [52] He has a very extended history of getting blocked for various violations. [53] He refuses to talk normal with other editors and forces his sometimes wrong opinions on everyone, and is fighting with everyone. [54] [55] He calls everything what others present to him as nonsense, and judges scholars based on nationality/ethnicity. His actions are very annoying and disruptive. I'm not sure but Alefbe (talk · contribs) may also be connected because all of a sudden it began reverting to Lyzosym's verion. [56] [57] If he's behind that then he's abusing multiple accounts also.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Ghobar is just trying to divert attention from the actual problem: that he is just another sockpuppet of User:Lagoo sab. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sockpuppet_abuse. I was just reverting POV edits by a banned user who is once again evading his block by using (yet another) sockpuppet. --Lysozym (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's you who is trying to do that because now you're exposed. You are the problem maker, not only did I report you but so did others. I have no reasons to use multiple accounts because I don't do much edits. You have violated your 1RR and now pay the price like everyone else.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who else reported me?! *sigh* See this comment by admin User:EdJohnston. It is obvious that you are another of the many sockpuppets of banned User:Lagoo sab. --Lysozym (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This report here is about YOU breaking 1RR and edit-warring with everyone. Explain why are you still engaged in edit-wars when you are on 1RR? I just have one name and I'm using that right now, I have no reason to use multiple accounts. Stop it now. It is normal that sometimes 2 or more editors may do things similar but that doesn't mean it is the same person.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is a bit too complex to handle on this noticeboard. The appropriate response here depends on the resolution of the sockpuppetry allegations. On the one hand, Lysozym did violate the terms of his 1RR restriction. On the other hand, if Nasir Ghobar is in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user, I'm not going to penalize Lysozym for reverting him - such reverts are exempt from 1RR/3RR/etc. I would suggest the following: a) Lysozym files a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations detailing his belief that Nasir is a sockpuppet of Lagoo Sab; b) in the meantime, until that question is settled, Lysozym should not revert Nasir's edits more than once/day. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mziboy reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result:Mziboy banned per discussion at ANI )

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63] (user was repeatedly encouraged to discuss on talk page, and ignored feedback)

Comments:
Comment from Mziboy: the entry Ken Sibanda has exited for months. They are trying to stop Mr. Sibanda being mentioned in black science fiction because they want to have the Ken Sibanda page deleted. thanks, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked Mziboy in light of the ban discussion at ANI, this report which clearly reflects edit warring, and the continued unfounded accusations of racism. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Settdigger reported by User:I Jethrobot (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

1st revert: [65]
2nd revert: [66]
3rd revert: [67]
4th revert: [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments: No major comments on the violation of 3RR here. The user was warned when they were at their limit. While the user has been discussing the changes over the talk page, the discussion has not been entirely constructive. The user does not seem to discuss matters in terms of policy. It's possible the user may be able to edit the article or related articles more constructively, but despite being warned, the user insisted on their additions despite a lack of consensus.

Note. You neglected to notify Settdigger of this report; I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip off Bbb23. And general apologoies insofar as I have not been dipped in the Ichor of Wikipedianess as of yet. Perhaps, before I die of a ripe old age, I will be so blessed by your high priests. If, in the event, the USA is mongrelized into the States of Coca-Cola, McDonalds and Wikipedia, I hope that California goes with the third option and my new citizenship can be constructive.

Ahhhhh. Constructiveness. So many ways to build things. It's like Jenga. And it's like kingergarten. Some wise person once pointed out that Kindergartners have to be really good at compromise becuase they're all small. Being small, no one kindergartner can physically impose his will on the others. They have to actually talk about it.

I look forward to any all discussions of the polite war over history inevitably a part of this unique communal historical document.

Cheers- Settdigger (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments, here and in other WP forums, may amuse you but they're not necessarily constructive to improving Wikipedia articles, which is the only thing you should be here for. You could skip some of the self-indulgent whimsy and the sarcasm and just focus on content AND on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Bottom line: do you understand WP:3RR, and do you understand that you violated it? I resisted blocking you because you hadn't been notified of this discussion, but now here you are, and it's not clear what your position is on the policy and your conduct (forget everything else). So, please clarify it for me, concisely and without the rhetoric.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23. First, please don't change history, either in the broad sense, or on the Talk pages of Wikipedia pages, as you did on the talk page of Direct Congress. If you don't like what I wrote, tell me. Don't delete my comments. I was not aware of the bright line rule for 3 edits in 24 hours, but as with the laws of the state of California, ignorance is no excuse. I accept any sanctions deemed necessary. Where would we be without sarcasm? As to rhetoric: guess what, dude? Language itself is rhetoric. It's basically what it is: how we construct reality. A more direct and more honest version of your "don't use rhetoric" suggestion is "shut up." Because as soon as a human opens his mouth, he is using rhetoric. Cheers Settdigger (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation and other disruptive editing. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:124.83.59.41/User:124.6.169.76/User:122.144.108.68/User:122.144.109.96 reported by User:ChasterUnit0 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Charice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.83.59.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 124.6.169.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.144.108.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.144.109.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1st revert: [71]
2nd revert: [72]
3rd revert: [73]
4th revert: [74]
5th revert: [75]
6th revert:[76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] and [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:
These IP editors which obviously is just one person, is persistently trying to delete some of the genres without posting an explanation in the talk page where there's a discussion going on about it to reach a consensus. Me and another editor who disagrees with the deletion keeps trying to undo his edits but he keeps reverting them back without any attempt to discuss his reverts.ChasterUnit0 (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the IPs are dynamic, I've semi-protected the page, which should address the problem. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Ellerochelle reported by User:Scjessey (Result: 31h)

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

1st revert: [80]
2nd revert: [81]
3rd revert: [82]
4th revert: [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A (no discussion took place and I was not involved)

Comments:
-First time editing, so I didn't know you were supposed to go to Talk page instead of reverting. Got it now. -ElleRochelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellerochelle (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(See duplicate report immediately below, by me). You were warned before the final two reverts, and specifically advised to use the talkpage to avoid being blocked. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and are refusing to self-revert, because you're convinced you're Right even though the 3-revert rule has been explained. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31h. Straightforward violation of 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ellerochelle reported by User:MastCell (Result: already blocked)

Previous version reverted to: 14:47, 30 August 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:16, 30 August 2012 (preceding the final 2 reverts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion at Talk:You didn't build that

Comments:
Straightforward 3RR violation; 4 reverts in <1 hour despite warning. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(See duplicate report immediately above by Scjessey). MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Duplicate report. Use the earlier one.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:128.30.64.21 reported by User:72Dino (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

1st revert: [86]
2nd revert: [87]
3rd revert: [88]
4th revert: [89]
5th revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:IP editor has changed the figures for the endowment. At first there was no reference. Then a reference was added that included non-endowment funds in the number. Editor refuses to discuss on their talk page or article talk page. 72Dino (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. This is a slow edit war (no 3RR breach) about content, and Dino is as involved as the IP.Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Wasn't sure of the best way to handle an editor inserting incorrect information (per source) but refusing to discuss edit. Thanks for reviewing, though. 72Dino (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards