Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Ckatz (Result: 3 days)

Page: Dwarf planet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kwamikagami has been repeatedly editing the dwarf planet article, and numerous articles related to that topic, to reflect a perspective that he favours. The pages have used a convention for the past five years (since the IAU conference in late August 2006) that uses the IAU as the basis for what is categorized as a dwarf planet and what is a candidate for that category. There is currently an active RfC at Talk:Dwarf planet discussing the matter, an RfC that was brought about in large part due to Kwamikagami's repeated changes. While the RfC is by no means complete, there is clearly no consensus on the talk page for the changes that he is proposing, and specifically there is no consensus for him to repeatedly make his changes while the RfC is under way. Tonight, his newest tactic has been to delete a core section of the page in protest. While I am certain that Kwamikagami is operating with good intentions, his tactics are inappropriate and his arguments have been described as "speculation and synthesis".

For my part, I'll certainly admit to having been involved in trying to undo his changes. However, please note that I was not the first editor to remove his changes, nor have I been the only one since then. Furthermore, I'm not looking for a block at this time as I would really prefer it if Kwamikagami would indeed heed the concerns that have been raised about his actions. He has been repeatedly asked by myself and other editors to respect the spirit RfC and avoid pushing through his changes without a proper consensus to do so. I am hoping that a warning from a party unconnected with the dispute can get through to him where I and others have not been successful. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• 1st change: 24 August 2011
• Affected articles include Dwarf planet, plutoid, Haumea, Makemake and others

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here (dif)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Dwarf_planet#Is being a DP dependent on magnitude?
• Talk:Dwarf planet#Administrative or scientific?
• Talk:Dwarf planet#Moving On
• Talk:Dwarf planet#RfC: What is a dwarf planet?
• Talk:Dwarf planet#Sources for gatekeeping
• Talk:Dwarf planet#This is going nowhere

and a request for input on the repeated changes enacted by Kwamikagami while the RfC is under way:

• Talk:Dwarf_planet#Repeated changes to DP articles while RfC is in progress

Comments: Given that Kwamikagami is an active contributor to the project, with many useful edits, and a sysop to boot, I have been reluctant to bring these actions to this forum. I have tried to reason with Kwami, but he has repeatedly rejected the opinions of others in continuing to change the articles in question. He is actively participating in the RfC, which is good; the problem lies in the repeated attempts to change the page to his preferred version during the RfC, and despite objections from others. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated 13 13 October 2011:

Kwamikagami has subsequently deleted material from the dwarf planet page twice more, with both deletions being rejected by other editors:

• here, restored by Ruslik0 as " disruptive removal of content";
• here again, claiming "no pretend science" and restored by Kheider

--Ckatz^chat_spy 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz is edit warring despite repeated objections from several other editors that his desire to restrict sources on a scientific FA to what he considers "official" is non-scientific. I have removed the section to the talk page (only to be reverted), as no matter which direction I try to edit it, or which editors' opinions I use as the basis for those edits, Ckatz reverts to to an out-dated version which does not reflect current RS's. I suppose we could rescind FA status, but I hate to do that. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami continues his edit warring by disruptively removing content (which has been there for a few years) from a featured article. The only way to stop this is a block. Ruslik_Zero 08:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not disruptive to move dated material to the talk page until we can agree on how to update it, especially when we have editors such as yourself insisting on using nonsensical definitions of concepts they don't understand. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My own opinion on it, both editors should step back and refrain from editing the article while non-involved editors try to reach a consensual decision on the issue. It just seems like this will end up going badly, especially considering both users are sysops and should know better than to squabble over content and consequently violate 3RR in the process. Maybe try WP:DR? + Crashdoom ^Talk 09:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Kwami has twisted the facts to support his point of view. I am also growing tired of him intentionally misquoting my statements and insisting that he knows better than the rest of us. I also find edits like this to be unproductive. -- Kheider (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it needs to be stopped. If a block is the only way to do that, then that seems the only way to resolve this, there is still edit warring and a violation of 3RR now from the reported user. 3RR warning posted to user due to another revert since the submission of this report. + Crashdoom ^Talk 02:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Kwamikagami for 3 days due to extensive edit warring. (X! · talk)  · @933  ·  21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. At the time of the block, kwami hadn't edited the article for almost 30 hours. It doesn't look like there was any imminent danger necessitating a block. Mojoworker (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:JudgeDred1975 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Walid Phares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JudgeDred1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted From September 2011.

• 1st revert: (practically a revert) Diffamation, Vandalism, Unfounded Propaganda, Smear Campaign
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: Vandalism, Propaganda and a targeted smear campaign
• 4th revert: Vandalism and Defamation against a living Scholar, by Wikipedia Rules
• 5th revert: Undid an add-on of false claims by controversial sources that are largely irrelevant to this WikiPage

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (a minute later he made his 5th revert).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:
Although the removal of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" is accepted, the WP:3RRNO states that users should "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption [Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)]." The main words here are "[Any] contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", which is not the case. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (by User:Edgar181) Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: 24h)

Page: Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• ?0th revert? 11:23, 12 October 2011(inserted currently disputed material that had previously been taken out)
• 1st revert: 15:33, 12 October 2011
• 2nd revert: 19:31, 12 October 2011
• 3rd revert: 21:54, 12 October 2011 (Note that summary: "Correcting error in URL" disguises revert)
• 4th revert: 22:03, 12 October 2011
• 5th revert: 22:13, 12 October 2011 (Note that summary "Correcting broken link" again misleading - disputed material reinserted)

• 6th revert: 12:18, 13 October 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on user talkpage about reaching 5RR (prior to the 6th revert) here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this whole section here and this section here are the most recent examples. It's been bubbling along for a while.

Comments:
Martinvl has persistently ignored the fact that his interpretation of sources (and thus the content he bases them on) is disputed by other users - by three others in this past 24 hours or so. This comment is probably the clearest indication of OWNership behaviour. He was warned at 5RR (but not reported - perhaps an indication that those in dispute with him would rather use the talkpage), but he went onto 6RR anyway. I appreciate I went to 3RR these past 24 hours, which isn't the best behaviour - but at least I was trying to get him to discuss things on the talkpage.

• I'm in support of the reporter with this, but retain that the reporter should also be careful not to exceed 3RR. The reported user does appear to have a case of WP:OWN and if an attempt with dispute resolution hasn't worked, the only option may be to prevent the user editing the article. Other editors do seem to have a consensus with other users on the talk page. + Crashdoom ^Talk 13:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree care should always be taken. I normally stop at one revert where I can. I was a little caught out by someone suddenly kicking off like this (and the dispute straddling two calendar days where I live). As soon as I realised I was at three I stopped.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note, I've left the user a friendly message explaining what he should do - this seems to have been omitted. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Response by Martinvl:
User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:DeFacto have been blantanly pushing a WP:POV by willfully misrepresenting a WP:RS. In particular, Asda did an in-house survey which was called into question by a report in Which? magazine (Details here). VsevolodKrolikov and DeFacto have persisted in reporting the Asda survey (a self-published primary source) but have supressed by addition of the Which? analysis of the survey. They claim that I am putting my own interpretation on the Which? report. However, any reasonable person, on reading the Which? article will see that these two editors have either have no clue about the meaning of secondary sources ort have been blinded by their own pushing of POV. The two versions can be seen here: [1].

I have also exhausted other avenues of negotiation, including

• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#ASDA,
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#Waitrose Weekend,
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#Putting together information from opinion polls,
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#Asda report - 12 October update,
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using reports of market research surveys,
• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Polls and surveys.

I request therefore:

• The Which? source article be read
• The two entries in Wikipedia be read
• My assertion of POV pushing be the two editors be noted
• Both editors be issued with warnings that by failing to note the very clear criticism that Which? made of the Asda survey, they are pushing a PoV.

I wish also to place on record that there was a different issue concerning education on the same page initiated by DeFacto in which User:Pfainuk participated. This particular issue is still being discussed.

Martinvl (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You say that point on the National Curriculum is still being discussed. It is. But given that you bring it up, I think it's worth mentioning that you didn't actually make any kind of argument or even substantive point in that discussion until after you had reached 3 reverts on that specific point (and 5 on the article as a whole), and after I had warned you about edit warring on your talk page. On the rest, I would simply suggest that this is not the place to bring up the details of the content dispute. Pfainuk talk 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(Response to Pfainuk) I was highlighting that there were two separate activities going on at the same time. The discussion regarding the curriculum yesterday was initiated by DeFacto as a wind-up - he has been WP:HOUNDing me and he was trying to make a WP:POINT. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, those are absurd and unjust allegations. There has been no wind-up, no hounding and no 'point' editing on my part. I would advise you to defend your own actions, or apologise for them, not attack the actions of others and not to be so complacent. -- de Facto (talk). 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Procedural Request by Martinvl to Administrators
Things are getting messy. User DeFacto has demanded an appology which I am not willing to give - I am however willing to justify my case. I see a number of alternatives:

• The administrators recommend that User:VsevolodKrolikov withdraws his report. In this case things will stand as they are.
• The administrators insist that I justify my accusations against User:DeFacto, (which will also involve acusations against User:VsevolodKrolikov, though of a lesser nature). If this is the case, then I must insist that they both face sanctions if my accusations are justified.

I await guidance from the administrators as to how they wish to proceed. Martinvl (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I have not demanded anything. I offered you advice as to how I believe you may have been able to ameliorate your situation here, charged as you are with breaking the 3rr. I believed that the best response would have been to either defend the multiple reversions or apologise for them - not to irrationally attack other editors. -- de Facto (talk). 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling that admins may be waiting to see if this all calms down and that no action need to be taken (even in a case of 6RR). However, as you can see from Martinvl's statements above, there appears to be not even a concession that he was edit-warring, despite going to 6RR, and that despite having been warned at 5RR (4RR is the bright line, isn't it?). Dispute resolution has been tried at RSN and identifying reliable sources (the latter seemed to be possibly a forum shop and certainly an attempt to edit relevant sourcing policy to affect the dispute - and without informing us on the page), and it is very difficult to have confidence that Martinvl will heed any of the advice he receives from third parties if it does not suit his particular POV. I strongly suspect that editing has gone quiet on the article page because we're all waiting to see what happens here, not because the problem has gone away. I suspect the rest of us want to keep our noses clean and not be seen to instigate a second round of warring. Some admin attention would be very welcome - Martinvl needs to understand that editing to consensus takes precedence over any conviction that he is right.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment to Martinvl: Personally, although I'm not an administrator, I would like to see your justification for the violation of the 3RR policy so broadly and attempting to mask your edits using false edit summaries. Depending on your answer, it may speed along resolving this report, or hinder the resolution of it, if an administrator is willing to wait to hear this out before making a decision. + Crashdoom ^Talk 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to User:Crashdoom (and anybody else who is interested) - Please refer to my comments at Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Let's try to establish consensus. The relevant comment is easy to spot - it has extracts from the source document in a box. Please also see User:VsevolodKrolikov's response to my first comments inTalk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scottish education system sources. My second comment in that section sums up my view of his response. I will leave you to form your own judgement. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to bring the dispute here - the section Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scottish education system sources indicates a continuing battleground mentality. We both recommend precisely the same text from a primary source as appropriate for inclusion, yet when I consider this to be agreement (hooray! or so I thought), I'm attacked for misrepresentation. How is an editor supposed to proceed with this? Martinvl has now been asked by three independent editors to address the issue of his edit warring (here is the third, which he will have read by now), but is yet to do so. Instead, he posted what he did above this post - another insistence that his being "right" (as he sees it) forgives all behavioural issues. He needs to understand that abiding by the principles of collegial and consensual editing are paramount. I leave it to admins' experience in how best to get this message across.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Note - he's now apologised for accusing me of misrepresentation in suggesting we were agreeing on something (!). Nevertheless, he still needs to come here to address the issue of edit warring.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 24 hours for long-term edit warring (six reverts altogether). The last revert was October 13, but User:Martinvl has continued to argue his position in the current 3RR report, blaming others for the situation, while his last revert remains at top of trunk. He has not undone his last edit and insists that he is correct. The bogus edit summaries which disguise his reverts remain as an issue. (Here he claims he is correcting a broken link, while reinserting the disputed material). If he changes his mind and indicates he will wait for a Talk page consensus before reverting again, any admin may unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Takabeg (Result: both 72 hours)

Page: Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kermanshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

This user was blocked on October 10, 2011 by same abuse at same article. But user declatered Oh, haha, very funny. You do know that that "lengthy block log" was for sockpuppetry I did not commit and for which I was cleared. But OK, I'll make sure to only revert these attacks against articles twice a day, from now on., and considers later blocking as trap and tries to legitimate his/her own abuses. Furthermore, user doesn't stop shout "vandalism" to other users (Daily revert of Kemalist vandalism, undo vandalism by unknown user) and continues his /her "daily revert". Takabeg (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You started this edit war, not me, and you also started the personal attacks by consistently accusing me of POV while all I wanted to do was keep the infobox clean. Since user:Takabeg started both the edit war and the personal attacks, and rejected every time I reached out to him and proposed to start dialouge, if anyone should be banned it is him. However, in recent hours I have more or less come to agreement with user:Khutuck who was also involved in the edit war and a compromise has been reached in which most of the changes have been kept into the infobox with some amendments to keep it clean and short. So unless Takabeg decides to re-start the edit war, it is practicaly over.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocking both for 72 hours. Can't sort out all the nuances, but there is an edit war, and its spilling into a personal dispute, the underlying issue is an ideological dispute, which Wikipedia is no place for.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Tznkai As below. + Crashdoom ^Talk 21:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Takabeg reported by User:Kermanshahi (Result: both 72 hours)

Page: Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Takabeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user started an edit war on this article and refused to negotiate with me, although I continuously allowed his changes to take place and merely tried to keep the infobox neat, he immedietly turned the conversation hostile by accusing me of POV pushing edits. He has numerous times tried to get me banned merely so that he can have his way and doesn't need to discuss the changes he makes with other editors, he has used this tactic before. I also suspect he has been using IP-edits to get aroudn the 3RR rule, which he used to get me banned the first time. The edit war has however, despite Takabeg's complete unwillingness to act reasonable or compromise, been ended before even he reported me. Kermanshahi (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocking both for 72 hours. Can't sort out all the nuances, but there is an edit war, and its spilling into a personal dispute, the underlying issue is an ideological dispute, which Wikipedia is no place for.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Tznkai + Crashdoom ^Talk 21:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict does not show that User:Takabeg participated in edit war here. He only made only one edit in the article (during past three days) which seems quite reasonable explained. His other todays edits (five of them) are made on the article's talkpage during discussion. Discussion is exactly the way how to resolve disagreement.

Wikipedia:Edit warring says:

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

Therefore I believe Takabeg did not participate in edit war and should not be blocked because of it. I think this block should be reassessed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• From my own viewing both editors have been reverting each other's contributions multiple times over the past week or so on the article. Since they couldn't resolve it by attempting a discussion on the talk page, the reverts should have ceased between the involved editors and one of them should have attempted to get an impartial editor (or editors) for dispute resolution. However, since the block is only 72 hours, it's a time for both to try and stand back for a little while and let uninvolved editors attempt to help resolve the issue. If the block had been longer, I would have agreed in the fact that the block should have been shorter. (This is only my opinion on the matter, an administrator may see differently) + Crashdoom ^Talk 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:91.122.1.39 reported by Dicklyon (talk) (Result: 31 hours )

Page: Planck constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 91.122.1.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 03:33, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "The nonsense is in your head")
2. 03:40, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "Hayward says h is the constant of areal momentum")
3. 03:46, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "You need to articulate your objections ("Nonsense" is not a properly formulated objection). Otherwise, there is no point in talking to you")
4. 04:16, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "The cited source contains extended quotations from books by trustworthy authors (Wiener and Hayward), with direct Google Books links")

• Diff of warning: here

This very confused editor keeps adding material from his recently published knol article. Same junk added 5 times today there, and 4 times in Mass–energy equivalence. I've removed it from each three times, my limit. — Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Ironholds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has semi protected the article. Tiptoety ^talk 05:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But he has done it twice more at Mass–energy equivalence, so the problem is ongoing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tiptoety ^talk 05:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I also protected the page. FYI, if he comes back again -- it's this banned editor, who has been active in this particular area before. Antandrus (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 24h)

Page: Southern Baptist Convention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] also in the edit summary in [8] and this editor was recently warned in another article [9].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Southern_Baptist_Convention#Images

Comments:

Four times in the last 24 hours User:StAnselm has reinserted File:Saddleback3.jpg despite an ongoing discussion at the article's talk page. I have offered to withdraw entirely from the dispute and let other eds go either way. I also gave StAnselm a chance to self-revert before posting here. Novaseminary (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I do note that you have also been edit warring on that page, along with the reported editor in your report. Note the second part of the edit warring/3RR warning template: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.", I believe that both editors are at fault, and should have resorted to dispute resolution at an earlier stage to get a proper form of consensus. + Crashdoom ^Talk 02:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I made clear I would not violate 3RR and tried to discuss (on this article's talk page and elsewhere). I also suggested DR. But this ed has now clearly violated 3RR twice since August. That behavior should not be rewarded. I would be fine if another ed reverted StAnselm's violating edit, gave StAnselm a short block (or a super super final warning), and sent it to DR.Novaseminary (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I should point out that I posted at WP:3O here and received a response here. StAnselm (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• StAnselm never noted on the talk page that he requested 3O. And still no excuse for violating 3RR, which he doesn't dispute (or self-revert). Novaseminary (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's not an excuse for either editors to have violated 3RR or engaged in an edit war. Also, I don't believe there is a compulsory note that WP:3O being requested must be noted to the talk page, from the wording, it seems only to be to help the third opinion editor. + Crashdoom ^Talk 02:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to imply 3O requires a notice (though it is good form). I just noted it to make clear I was not hiding the fact, but didn't know StAnselm had done this. And as for an excuse, I didn't violate 3RR and have noted I will not revert again and have engaged in much discussion. And my reverts were only to keep things as they were until consensus couild be reached. Novaseminary (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but even if you think something is right, you shouldn't edit war to keep it that way. + Crashdoom ^Talk 02:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. That is why I stopped. And went to talk. And reported here. StAnselm's version is the current version despite it being the result of a 3RR violation. Novaseminary (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I hate sullying the clean block log of a contributor in good standing, but it has to be done here. A clear-as-day 3RR breach, editor was warned about another 3RR breach in August, no take-up on the opportunity to self-revert here. Cannot possibly go without a block. A warning to Novaseminary that 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts and should he/she take it as such in the future it may very well result in a block. Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:58.178.181.234 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.178.181.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. I'm just watching the page and noticed the edit-warring. Note that the user did two reverts under another IP address but georesolves to the same location, so likely the same user on a dynamic IP.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)