Revision as of 22:06, 22 February 2009

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Reports

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))

• Page: Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Kmhad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User:216.26.217.157 reported by User:wtshymanski (Result: stale)

• Page: Winnipeg Folk Festival
• User: User:216.26.217.157

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This isn't yet strictly a 3RR violation but may be by the end of the day.

Would someone more familiar with the procedure please caution the user at IP address 216.26.217.157 that a long narrative story is not really appropriate content for the encyclopedia? I've left a message at the IP talk page to no effect. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem seems to have gone, closing as stale, let me know if it recurrs William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's still happening as of today (Feb. 16). How do I make a link to the edits? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Somone in Thunder Bay really likes the long story and keeps re-inserting it. I suppose it could be *several* people from Thunder Bay, but that seems unlikely. Still active this evening (Feb. 18 CST). --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now inserting the story into Birds Hill Provincial Park. Using IP User:216.211.71.68.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jetskere reported by User:NYScholar (Result: stale)

Page

Malaka Dewapriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User

Jetskere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reverts of well-sourced and previously-correct text today (17 February 2009)

1. 1st revert today: Revision as of 11:38, 17 February 2009 (Reverting of correct artwork title "SheFits" or "She Fits" (depending on source citation followed); documented by reliable and verifiable third-party published sources).
2. 2nd revert today: Revision as of 11:39, 17 February 2009 (reverts editorial interpolations of correct information: "Susitha R. Fernando" is the same person as "Sachie Fernando": one author, not two different authors: see talk page of article)
3. 3rd revert today: Revision as of 21:30, 17 February 2009 (Multiple reverting of correct title of artwork, as documented in source citation previously provided and further source citations added since this revert)
4. 4th revert today: Revision as of 21:39, 17 February 2009 (see above: "She Fits" is the artwork title by the subject. It is documented by the reliable and verifiable third-party published source citations provided.)

.... (More can be found by following links to this user's edits throughout editing history. S/he is engaged in an editing war in this article and has been over an extended period of time. Despite having his/her errors pointed out to him/her, s/he persists in making them, reversing sourced information provided by earlier editor(s). --NYScholar (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• See linked AfD at top of article talk page for contexts related to these incorrect edits by this user. The user's facility with the English language is weak, making his/her comments extremely difficult for native English speakers to understand. S/he does not read or write in idiomatically-correct English and misses important details in English-language sources. S/he cannot understand explanations in English on the talk page, and has a long history of creating problems in this article.
• The article has just survived an AfD by dint of the sources that mostly I have added. The version that s/he created was nominated for deletion recently and recently saved from deletion due to major reconstruction. Yet, this user is back to deleting correct information based on the reliable and verifiable and verified sources and substituting incorrect information from unreliable sources that are not verifiable and not published by third parties (not the article subject). Whether or not the user intends to be correct, s/he is incorrect, and the constant reverting of correct information amounts to vandalism of Misplaced Pages, since the errors have already been brought to his/her attention multiple times. The user does not provide edit summaries explaining the reverts and no prior discussion on the talk page of the article, where s/he was directed to "take" comment made in the recent AfD. --NYScholar (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)]

Stale now William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Political Achilles reported by Themfromspace (Result: stale)

• Page: List of Lego Star Wars sets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Political Achilles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 1
• 2nd revert: 2
• 3rd revert: 3
• 4th revert: 4

• Diff of original warning:
• Diff of 3RR warning:

Themfromspace (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have got bored, or gone away, or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff79 reported by MarkFD (Result: warned )

• Page: Template:Greg Eastwood
• User: Jeff79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

I am also guilty of the same crime as this man. MarkFD (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit war has stopped, so I have warned both sides. Kevin (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

MarkFD is a sockpuppet of User:Londo06 who was blocked for incessant sock puppetry and edit warring so really should be blocked. This account seems to have slipped thru this case--Jeff79 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Per this comment by MarkFD, he is an alternate account of User:Fronsdorf. Since MBisanz indefinitely blocked Fronsdorf in October for puppetry, I have left a note for MBisanz to see if MarkFD should be indef blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently that comment slipped by me. Yes, if he is a sock, he should be blocked. MBisanz 20:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked MarkFD per this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)

• Page: People_to_People_Student_Ambassador_Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Nowthenews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• All reverts

User:93.96.148.42 reported by Nudve (talk) (Result: please warn)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jewish terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 93.96.148.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 06:07, 19 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 271759689 by Nudve (talk)removed original research, as per talk, reinstated sourced material")
2. 07:05, 19 February 2009 (edit summary: "expanded article, with references.")
3. 07:13, 19 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 271769449 by Trusilver (talk)reverted unexplained action - see discussions on talk page.")
4. 07:52, 19 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 271774067 by Nudve (talk)Reverted reversion by Nudve, as per talk - feel free to edit, but don't just trash my references")
5. 08:05, 19 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 271775866 by XLinkBot (talk) Reinstated page, without the about.com reference")

Diff of warning:

User keeps making radical changes despite standing consensus. He was already warned today about NPOV by an admin

—Nudve (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning not good enough and should be on users talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Some other random report that no-one could be bothered formatting properly, as is all too common in these debased times. Ee, when I were a lad you wouldn't get way with reports like this (result: sarcasm)

User:Police,Mad,Jack keeps reverting edits to List of police firearms in the United Kingdom Orangepippen (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like 3RR to me. Oh course, had you bothered to provide a list of diffs like you are supposed to we'd have a bit more substance to discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Whippletheduck reported by User:Jackieboy87 (Result: 24h)

• Page: This Place is Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Whippletheduck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Whippletheduck added original research to the article in question with this diff and was subsequently reverted by User:JpGrB twice and by myself twice. He accuses us of edit warring and fails to understand what constitutes original research. Even after I explained why his edits were not productive on the article's talk page and his talk page, he continues to revert. His version still stands because I do not want to violate the 3RR myself. Thank you. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noted our dispute on the NOR discussion thread. If I understood the original research policy, then sure I get how using the offical[REDACTED] listings like I did the first few times as my source. So I went to abc.,com and I have been using the offical LOST episode summary's available on there for my last several edit's. It seems to me that the OFFICIAL website and teh OFFICIAL episode summary for the show is more then sufficient to establish grounding in what I am posting. The fact that we here at[REDACTED] have caught a major error in LOST continuity is something we should all be proud of, yet JackyBoy has gone out of his way to try to pretend this error in continuity does not exist. Whippletheduck (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We aren't here to catch errors. We are here to present information (which might include errors) that other people have already reported about in reliable sources. --Onorem♠Dil 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite following...your saying that even though there is a definite error in the continuity of the show regarding what is on the offical episode summary at the official website. Even if, why is my not citing both the official episode summary and highlighting that there is an error in continuity not within our scope here at wikipedia. I realize that if you are not a fan of the show LOST that this seems trivial but rest assured to LOST fan's, its significant. Whippletheduck (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYNTH. Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources. I would think that we'd need a secondary source that has reported a continuity issue before we explicitly point one out ourselves. Significance has nothing to do with it...except that, if it's significant, sources should appear soon. --Onorem♠Dil 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tempting to just delete the article but I suppose people would whinge. Oh well, 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hapsala reported by Skizzik (Result: warned)

• Page: Carl Lundström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Hapsala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

The user have linked the date without providing any links that backups his agenda, actually the one he/she provided says that it should not be linked, see , and . I'm in the danger zone of 3RR myself and don't really know where I should go with this. --Skizzik 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Skizzik is currently engaging in a personal crusade against linked dates of birth and death. According to his revision history, he has recently made a great number of destructiv edits in a long number of articles. The reason for unlinking dates is his personal interpretation of "unless there is a reason" for it (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)). He is currently warned about violating the 3RR. --Hapsala (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Both sides warned. Anyone who wants to delink dates needs to discuss it on the article talk if they end up reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Okej, Hapsala, can You just answer these questions?

1. Why are my edits destructiv?
2. How do You interpret "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. More information can be found at WP:CONTEXT#Chronological_items."?
3. How do you interpret "Items such as days, years, decades and centuries should generally not be linked unless they are likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic."?

I think it is you who should reconsider your editing, using expressions like "personal crusade" etc and reverting things without providing anything that can back you up, I have provided two (see above). And strictly speaking, You have reverted the article 3 times and I 2 times, but i think one could say that we both have done it 2 or 3 times. Anyway, is this the right place to discuss this things? Maybe any admin could help us in this conflict or at least direct me to where to go with it? --Skizzik 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

PS both sides are not warned. --Skizzik 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte on Astrology, Talk:Astrology (result: talk)

Argument (section link) between User:Cosmic Latte and I (along with User:Verbal), involving the usage of qualifying statements such as "claim" and "according to adherents." CL states that such terms violate policy, are weasel, and aren't appropriate for a topic of such widespread substance and acclaim as astrology. He refuses to be compromising, and appears to have an WP:AGENDA. Note that the Arbcom has singled out astrology as "generally considered pseudoscience" (see WP:PSCI), and has stated that such qualification is valid for such topics. Adding "claim" is not calling it "pseudoscience" but CL appears to be acting like it was. Wondering what others think. -Stevertigo 19:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have presented my arguments in full on the astrology talk page, and I refer interested editors to that page. Apparently my argument was a bit too full, however, as Stevertigo stated "TLDR" ("too long, didn't read") in an accusatory edit summary that, for some odd reason, he marked as a minor edit. My intention is simply to avoid unnecessary flourishes and potentially loaded language, when it is entirely possible to phrase the introduction to the article in full accord with WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. I never referred to WP:AWW, and I am no longer contesting the inclusion of the article in the "pseudoscience" category, although I do disagree with its placement there. A couple notes on the ad hominem attacks: As for my "refusal to be compromising," I have several times suggested "compromises," both in edit summaries and on the talk page (too tired to search for diffs unless someone asks for them). There is no WP:AGENDA. Perhaps Stevertigo means WP:Agenda account, which refers to WP:SPA's--an odd accusation to make of an editor with nearly 10,000 contributions to the project, including the promotion of an article to FA status. He also "guesses" that I am an adherent of astrology "and as such unqualified to make unqualified assertions about neutrality." Interesting double use of "unqualified" in a single sentence. Anyway, if he had indeed read my talk page comments, he would have learned that my academic background is in science, not astrology. I know very little about astrology, but I claim (/wink) to know a fair amount about the scientific method and, importantly, the philosophies underlying it. Anyway, in case my talk page arguments are indeed too long to read, my desire is to introduce Astrology in the following manner: "Astrology...is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs, according to which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in the understanding, interpretation, and organization of information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters." This seems fair and neutral. No need to insert loaded language about "claims" or any other superfluous attributions to "adherents." The article contains extensive discussion about the relationship between astrology and science, especially in the section named for this very juxtaposition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There does seem (as in it appears that there may be) that there is a degree of advocacy going on at this page. Numerous compromise wordings have been tried and simply removed, but I'm not sure this is the right venue. There is a virtue to being concise. Verbal chat 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I am advocating for is neutrality and fairness. If it still appears that I have an agendum (yes, I'm a stickler for Latin singulars), I refer you to this diff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi I didn't mean to imply you are (I just returned to update my wording, I'm very tired today so sorry about that, mea culpa). What I meant is that the rather long posts do seem to give that impression, if you see what I mean - I can understand that impression being made. As it is, I don't think this is the right forum. Apologies also for not yet engaging fully on the talk page, conversation by ES is not a great way to go! Verbal chat 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Looks like this issue can be dealt with on the article's talk page and was brought here prematurely. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you are tlaking. Good. If you want to bring this back here, please provide diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

FTR, FWIW, CL keeps going back to this concept: "to avoid unnecessary flourishes and potentially loaded language, when it is entirely possible to phrase the introduction to the article in full accord with WP:NPOV and WP:WTA." He's asserting that what Verbal and I think is appropriate is simply an "unnecesary flourish" (he's used this term three times), and simply removing such "flourishes" makes the wording of the article more NPOV and in compliance with other policy like WTA. Note that he referred to the "claim" section of WTA, which I subsequently destroyed with a rewrite. See talk WP:WTA for my explanation. So that issue is invalid, because the policy itself was invalid, as it gave undue weight to negative aspects of "claim."

Note also that he's refusing to be brief. He could after all state his view succinctly and give at least the appearance of compromise - suggesting alternatives, asking for our input, etc. I'ts not always possible to reason with people who are absolute about a particular view, without actually having a point. He knew when he responded above that his WTA reference was defunct, and yet he still cites it. Just an example of what he's up to. -Stevertigo 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of succinctness, here is my final reply to this thread: Firstly, WP:AGF; secondly, . Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Orlady reported by User:Audreetucker (Result:48 hours for the reporter )

• Page: Percival Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Article is undergoing repeated attempts for release of personal information that is 1. Personal -and/or- 2. Unsubstantiated -and/or- 3. Malicious. This war began due to user Orlady bearing a grudge against myself, as I disagreed with her about the wording/impartiality of a separate article. Orlady has now followed me to this particular article, and is attempting to revert edits in revenge. In addition, she has enlisted 'friends' to help her continue to alter the page. This is causing an innocent third party (Percival Davis) to suffer and it's a direct violation of the living persons/biography rule.

Comment: I've left a message on the talk page, but these contributions don't all appear to be from the same editor. The edit warring seems to be coming from the other side, if the IP address making the same changes is considered to be from the reporting editor. Dayewalker (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Note I have blocked User:Audreetucker and the IP for 48 hours. Kevin (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon reported by Hfarmer (Result: no vio)

• Page: The Man Who Would Be Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous version reverted to:
• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• Diff of 3RR warning:

This user and I have been going through all manner of dispute resolution, and was the subject of a user conduct RfC not very long ago due to violations of WP:NPA.

You do realise you warned him a day after he stopped reverting? yandman 13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Never the less do you doubt that he was aware of the ruel? He's not exactly a newbie.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He stopped editing for as long as he has because at least where we live in the USA it is just now morning, So basically he was stopped by sleep, not restraint.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Where's the 4th revert? (The one that would make this a breach of 3RR). yandman 13:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There need to be four reverts in order to break 3rr? There is no fourth revert. However as it says at the top of the page edit warring is not simply measured by a number of reversions. It is a tone, an attitude of confrontational editing, which has been a problem for Dicklyon (hence the recent RFC/U).--Hfarmer (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Only 3 "reverts", of which 2 are contiguous so count as 1, so only 2 really. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratel reported by CENSEI (Result: warned)

• Page: Drudge Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous version reverted to:
• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th Revert:

This user has a long history of ownership issues with this article. CENSEI (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned Blocking would be excessive per staleness and lack of evidence he was aware of the rule (plus the linked first revert is not by Ratel, though I did independently count 4 reverts). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dewan357 reported by Xinjao (Result: 24 hours )

• Page: Indus Valley Civilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Dewan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following reverts show how he swaps the country names to give India more importance, even though the sentence becomes factually incorrect.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Edit warning:

This user has a history of editing info he doesnt agree with in India related articles. This involves pointlessly swapping country names to give India more importance, and generally adding unverified info. I have warned him but the user insists on reverting info and adding his own facts to the articles. Xinjao (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety 20:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Schwnj reported by 208.120.47.96 (talk) (Result: 12 hours for both)

• Page: List of largest United States university campuses by enrollment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Schwnj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous version reverted to:
• 1st revert:

07:02, 19 February 2009

• 2nd revert:

15:46, 19 February 2009

• 1st revert: 17:25, 19 February 2009
• 3rd revert: 01:01, 20 February 2009
• 4th revert:

19:01, 20 February 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has a long history of ownership issues with this article.

208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was coming here to report this same user (Schwnj). But I was also going to report this anonymous user (208.120.47.96), too. Both have exceeded three reverts. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In my (schwnj) defense, I should note that a second editor stepped in partway through this dispute and the latter two reverts had to do with the version created by that other editor. There is a full discussion of these reversions on the talk pages of the above mentioned articles. My biggest problem is that the anon editor who reported this seems to be confused and thinks I am somehow substantively changing the topic of this list. I suggest other editors (e.g., ElKevbo) chime in on the discussion.-Nick 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As I can judge this IP refuses to discuss anything on the Talk page. And I actually do not understand why (s)he tries to insert online institutions (without physical campus) into the list titled List_of_largest_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment. So if someone needs to be blocked, it is this IP. Ruslik (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has responded on the Talk page (albeit in a very disjointed and confusing manner). But both of these editors were engaged in a protracted edit war before either of them posted anything to the Talk page. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As I look back, it is true that I 3RRd. But, to be fair, I was convinced at first that these were vandal edits. Anon reverted the page either with no explanation or a very confusing statement that didn't seem to be applicable to the page. And, as these reversions actually made the page less factually accurate, I assumed them to be vandal edits. When I finally started to understand what anon was trying to say, I went to the discussion page. (Although anon hasn't cleared up exactly what his/her problem is.) -Nick 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours. Both violated; Schwnj reverted again after knowing of the rule, and the anon knew of the rule.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43 reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result:24 hours )

• Page: British overseas territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand TRHoPF's issue here - is this really an edit war?? IMO, my edits have been constructive and improved the accuracy of the article. One of my reverts was the result of a typo. My most recent edit was an attempt at a compromise. I haven't brought anything controversial or obviously contentious to this article, and articles on the Commonwealth itself (Commonwealth_of_Nations_membership_criteria and Commonwealth_of_Nations) clearly support my version.

I see TRHoPF has contributed much to various articles on European empires. Perhaps he/she feels I am on his/her turf. If he/she had brought this up on the talk page or addressed the points in my edit summaries instead of rushing to declare Edit War I would have been happy to discuss it.

hippo43 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Swapnils2106 reported by C21K (Result: 24 hours each)

• Page Bhimsen Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User Swapnils2106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Swapnils2106 is adding unrelated language script. and he refuses to discuss in article talkpage C21K 10:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note: User:Swapnils2106 uses a sock IP 202.63.253.30 to disrupts my edits

previous version

1st revert

2nd revert

3rd revert

4th revert

5th revert

diff of 3RR Warning

after 3RR warning

1st revert

2nd revert

3rd revert

reverts by his IP

1st revert
2nd revert
3rd revert

It needs to be discussed in on the talk page weather or not it is unrelated. Till then the Script should be there. Swapnils2106 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

you can't add unrelated scripts without discussing in article talkpage. C21K 10:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced. see the personal life section. he is a Kannadiga not marathi. C21K 10:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Majority of his life was spent in Maharashtra, singing marathi songs and Abhanga's so that script is needed. Swapnils2106 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you need to add marathi script to all the Bollywood actors page. because they are all living in Maharashtra. C21K 11:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

His mothertongue is Kannada not marathi. It is wellsourced. C21K 11:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

so we prefer only native language. not what he sings. tomorrow some person will add Hindi, Bengali etc... which will be totally mess.C21K 11:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood actors have nothing to do with marathi, Panditji has been an integral part of marathi "sahitya" Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Bhimsenji is Kannadiga not marathi. in[REDACTED] only native language script is added. C21K 11:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

see some examples Lata Mangeshkar(native-marathi, career-hindi) , Aishwarya Rai (native-tulu,career-hindi), A. R. Rahman (native-tamil,career-hindi), Satyajit Ray(native-bengali,career-hindi). C21K 11:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence, only native language is preferred. not other languages. C21K 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say Lata Mangeshwars career was hindi, you cannot say that for anyone you mentioned above Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG, I guess you don;t know anything. Lataji has sung more than 40000 hindi songs which is a world record. and you say her career is not hindi. C21K 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is no hard and fast rule to add the native language only Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

He is a native speaker of kannada, so kannada is added. There is no rule to add Hindi,Marathi,Bengali or any other languages ..etc.... C21K 11:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

He has been an integral part of "Marathi Sangeet", since you cannot create a seperate article of the same name the script can be added. Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

he is an integral part of Hindustani music,Bhajans not only marathi. he also sings in many indian languages. so that we can't keep on adding every script. C21K 11:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Wow, mega editing warring, 3RR blown away by several parties. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours IP got 24 hours too. Sockpuppeteering looks likely, but not sure it makes a difference to the overall picture. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

• Page Bhimsen Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User C21K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cunado reported by General Disarray

• Page: Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Cuñado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st Revert Unilateral revert of 12 contributions
• 2nd Revert Reverted contribution attempting to address concerns from talk
• 3rd Revert Reverted back to previous revert after another rewording attempt
• 4th Revert Unilaterally reverted 4 edit contributions explained in talk attempting to remove WP:SYN and add referenced detials.

• I did not have a chance to offer a 3RR warning, but neither did I expect the violation as Cunado has been blocked for this twice before (under his old user name Cunado19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). As of late, I've observed on several different pages we both contribute to that he regularly reaches 3 reverts without going over, so I have become accustomed to assuming he's aware of what he's doing regarding this issue.

As basically the only two contributors to this article, the history is obviously loaded with a lot of back and forth between the two of us. I'm a member of the small religious sect the article is about, and Cunado is a member of the larger group ours broke off from, and has taken a keen interest in the article over the past three years. In the past week a lot of contributions have been made to the page by both of us, most of them I'd consider improvements. Although we often engage in healthy debates on the talk page to reach compromises, in the past two days I have made a total of 5 requests in between these reverts asking for considerations on the talk page which have gone entirely ignored. # # # # # Basically after every contribution I've made has been reverted, I've gone to the talk page to make my case, and comment on the edit summary of Cunado's reverts, yet there has been no response. My efforts to pursue dispute resolution on the talk page have entirely stalled, and now reverting is the only participation Cunado is engaging in. _Disarray 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: this doesn't really look actionable here. As you say, it's basically you two fighting, and I can't see C being obviously unreasonable. I think you are doomed to WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well actually I wasn't concerned about edit warring, per se, but that there was a 3RR violation. Is this not the right place to report this? _Disarray 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There was never a 3RR violation on February 20. Look through the history. I think anyone reading through the talk page and looking at the content of my edits would quickly see that I'm trying to apply policy and editing appropriately. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This report was actually intended only to report a 3RR violation by Cunado, but in the past few days I'm not sure if a case couldn't be made that the behavior isn't reaching the bar of warring. Since this report was filed every single contribution to the page by me, which I'm explaining in the talk page discussion, have been unilaterally reverted without so much as a an edit comment (besides "rvt"), let alone having any participation in the discussion. Talking to myself doesn't seem to be moving the process along. There has been zero participation from Cunado on the talk page between any of the 9 reverts back to his original wording. I'm only pointing out that reverting three times a day, every single day, has been Cunado's only contribution to either the article or discussions. Since 2/20 I've made a total of 8 posts to the discussion page stating my concerns over his removal of reliably sourced details, and article structure; basically one for each of his unexplained reverts. With the exception of one dismissive comment and logic-defying comment from Cunado, all of my posts have received no reply. I'm not excatly sure where the line in for edit warring, but this is now looking a lot like it to me. _Disarray 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Opole.pl reported by Lucas (result: please talk)

• Page: Silesian tribes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Opole.pl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st Revert
• 2nd Revert
• 3rd Revert
• 4th Revert

The article talk page is this way. Oh look, it's a red link isn't that odd? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:68.183.246.93 reported by Mark Shaw (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bernard Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.183.246.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 22:54, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */ A Settled issue")
2. 22:55, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */")
3. 23:00, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "added other Regnery authors")
4. 04:44, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
5. 07:14, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 272212188 by Threeafterthree (talk)")
6. 08:33, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Add addl. sources")
7. 20:06, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
8. 20:08, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */ See talk page. There can be no edit war if you stop editing.")
9. 20:51, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */ added source because of dead link")
10. 20:54, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop reverts. I have discussed this on talk, you have not.")

• Diff of warning: here

User continually reverts article to restore verbiage which had been removed by editor consensus several days ago. User ignores requests to work out differences on talk page before implementing these changes. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark Shaw continues to revert edits before reading discussions on article talk page. He also does not comment on talk page before reverting edits, then he issues 3RR warnings. This is a continuing pattern with this editor. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's talk page will reveal that 68 is attempting to thwart consensus previously reached by him/herself and others. Of course, "consensus" is not set in stone; and if s/he wishes to use the talk page to argue for his/her changes before implementing them, I'm all for that.

Note that 68 has also removed the 3RR warning from his/her talk page. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What the article's talk page will actually reveal, is an ongoing conversation between me and another editor that was attempting to achieve consensus. A conversation that (Mark Shaw) chose not to contribute to. Instead, this editor was busy reverting edits without explanation or comment on the discussion page.

Also this editor has, in the past asked me to stay off his talk page, when I am simply responding to his incessant messages on mine. His idea of civility was to call me a "loon". As a result, I now remove all efforts by him to place anything on my talk page. As he has also just removed my latest attempt to get him to stop this uncivil behavior from his talk page. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: on review, I see that I have included too many diffs in the above. Here's a cleaned-up reformulation (again, from earliest to latest):

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

Mark Shaw (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the history, I also could have reported Mark Shaw for his 3RR violations. However, I did not because I realize it would not be helpful in the long run, and would only fuel his childish desire to prolong an unnecessary and unproductive edit war. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Going through the article's history, I find three reverts by me (from latest to earliest, in this case):

• 21 Feb, 14:52:50 -
• 21 Feb, 14:48:31 -
• 21 Feb, 07:45:43 -

And then the next previous edit of mine (which was not a revert) occurred seven days earlier:

• 14 Feb, 11:16:21 -

So, where's the 3RR violation? Mark Shaw (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As further proof of Mark Shaw's WP:CIV violations, please note this on his talk page:

"ATTENTION: If I have asked you to stay off my talk page, any edits you make here will be deleted unread. Thanks! (Administrative activity, such as required warnings and etc, are not included in this, of course.)" 68.183.246.93 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson Delgado reported by OldMan (Result: )

• Page: Humanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wilson Delgado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was apparently warned before for revert-warring on Humanism. He is attempting to add the same content again, despite failing to achieve consensus on Talk:Humanism.

• First attempt to add bad content without consensus:
• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Those 4 reverts were days ago; he has already been warned for those once.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Today he is attempting to add essentially the same content, again without achieving consensus on the talk page, and reverting any attempts to remove it:

• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

The content he is trying to insert is in violation of WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. I've also reported that behavior here. OldMan (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Agatha doppelganger reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )

• Page: Pro-Turkism
• User: Agatha doppelganger

• Previous version reverted to:

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

The article in question is populated by highly contentious and unsubstantiated claims. The majority of the "references" when researched did not support the accusations.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

• --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

wikitools 3RR — redirects 3RR

This tool will track down up to 50 of the most recent contributions of a particular user on a particular article within the last 10 days, then output the data in a 3rr-friendly format.

If a particular editor is reverting to a specific version of the page (or something similar to it), specific its revision ID as well to generate diff links to that version as well.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT SUBMIT A REPORT BY COPYING THIS SCRIPT'S OUTPUT IN FULL. This script is only meant for helping reporters in their reporting (as opposed to constant copypasting). YOU MUST TRIM THE REPORT TO ONLY INCLUDE ACTUAL REVERTS OR YOUR REPORT WILL LIKELY BE REJECTED! Article: (e.g. "Some article") User: (e.g. "SomeDude") Add diffs to revision id: (e.g. "11565684" — optional) Link to diff of warning (recommended) HTML output? (optional)

User:Yaf reported by SaltyBoatr (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Right to keep and bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Long term edit warring, with prior blocks for edit warring this article.

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

1. 18:31, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ rm biased statement as comparison is largely meaningless, being the majority of homicides in the US are in urban areas amongst drug trade participants, & aren't widely distributed")
2. 18:33, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm uncited statement, and reword = rm ws")
3. 20:41, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm speculation in violation of WP:NOT,[REDACTED] is not a crystal ball...")
4. 22:09, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "rm content contrary to Misplaced Pages policy relating to WP:NOT; Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball; the content is speculating on what could happen -- out it goes...")
5. 23:12, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "rv; (article is about arms, used in almost all homicides, not about guns; restoring properly cited and referenced material); take it to talk before removing properly cited information")
6. 23:24, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm uncited statement")
7. 23:30, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm unnecessary comparison (per talk page discussions)")
8. 00:14, 15 February 2009 (edit summary: "rv to last version by Anastrophe (rm commentary that is uncited and sophomoric, the US Congress is not a "Parliament")")
9. 04:07, 16 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ grammar")
10. 04:07, 16 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ grammar")
11. 04:50, 16 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths */ rm uncited speculation")
12. 06:26, 17 February 2009 (edit summary: ""cites" fail to identify "right to keep and bear arms" as being related to "gun violence"; rm uncited and unrelated commentary that is only pushing a POV rather than providing relevant content")
13. 19:07, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "rm US content from UK section per talk page discussions; as for breaking out dead by firearms vs. dead by other arms, it really doesn't matter, for dead is dead and article is about arms, not firearms")
14. 19:09, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ typo")
15. 19:41, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ rm rest of US content in UK section")
16. 19:57, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm OR")
17. 19:58, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm OR")
18. 20:35, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Modern commentary: three models */ rm uncited content")
19. 03:50, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm OR")
20. 03:52, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Homicide and firearm homicide statistics */ typo")
21. 03:56, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "rm OR (equating "gun rights" to "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"); Need cites equating RKBA to gun violence for this to stay.")
22. 04:10, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "rm OR (need to add cites that establish that "gun rights" equate to "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" before inserting this)")

• Diffs of article talk page warnings: here, here

• Diffs of user talk page warning: here, here, here

—SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Callback verification policy disputes

Marcperkel reported by wrs1864 (Result: 12h each)

• Page: Callback verification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Marcperkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: wrs1864 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st large edit/revert: Note that there are 24 edits in this diff. This started with marcperkel making a large number of additions/changes. I reviewed these changes and, assuming most changes would be good, piecemeal reverted small sections until I had reverted a large portion of the changes and merged other portions into the existing "drawbacks" section.
• 2nd edit/revert: Note: 5 edits here. revert by Marcperkel, restoring much of the new stuff he added and I had deleted. In addition, he merged and move stuff around.
• 3rd edit/revert: Note: 3 edits here. I revered Marcperkel's re-addition of the "how to implement" section, along with more edits, including renaming the "drawbacks" section to what I thought was a more acceptable "Known problem cases when implementing Callback Verification".
• 4th revert: Marcperkel re-added "implementing" section.
• 5th revert: User:AndrewHowse removed all sections that had "implementing" in them as per WP:NOTHOWTO
• 6th revert: I restored the original "drawbacks" section because it isn't a "howto" section, renaming it again, now to "limitations" (as per the title in one of the references that covers the same material.
• 7th revert: revert by Markperkel back to AndrewHowse's version.
• 8th revert: I reverted to add back the "limitations" section (originally the "drawbacks" section) and added inline references as per a request by AndrewHowse on the talk page discussing re-adding this section.
• 9th revert: revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted.
• 10th revert: revert by me
• 11th revert: revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted.
• 12th revert: revert by me
• 13th revert: revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted. Note this revert was soon after User:RegentsPark had given a third opinion that the "limitations" section was important for the article.
• 14th revert: revert by Marcperkel to restore the "implementing" section, previously deleted by AndrewHowse
• 15th revert: revert by me.
• 16th revert: revert by Marcperkel
• 17th revert: revert by me
• 18th revert: revert by Marcperkel
• 19th revert: revert, with follow-up edits to address points from the discussion on the talk page
• 20th revert: revert by Marcperkel
• 21th revert: revert by me
• 22nd revert: revert by Marcperkel

• Diff of 3RR warning:

While there have been a large number of reverts, neither of us have technically violated the WP:3RR policy. There has also been a large amount of discussion on the talk page and many points that I thought we might be merging toward a consensus, or at least had the potential to be working that way. Many of the reverts had followup edits by both parties to try to resolve things. We appear to have had two third parties come in and try to resolve this situation. However, I no longer see a good way to proceed via the talk page and other resources and I think the article as it stands now neither represents the WP:CONSENSUS from the previous two years nor is it an encyclopedic article.

As a summary, I feel that User:Marcperkel is asserting himself as an WP:EXPERT to use this article as a WP:SOAPBOX to create a WP:NOTHOWTO article based on WP:OR.

12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Zencv reported by Afroghost (Result: delete)

• Page: Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Zencv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User keeps adding the claim that legitimate criticism of Israel is confused with Antisemitism, despite a rought consensus at the Talk:Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Criticisms_and_condemnations and repeated warnings that newsletters or blogs (i.e. CounterPunch and a The Brussels Journal) are not a reliable source according to WP:RS. The same editor also before expressed concerns about Misplaced Pages becoming "Judeopedia" due to articles such as this (see ). Afroghost (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd and 4th revert allegations are illegally constructed. User Afro is carrying out a personal vendetta against me because I made edits that he did not like. If anyone looks at history of the article, one would realize that it was the user who reported against me that started the edit war(from which I had gracefully exited). His mentioning of a comment I had made at a specific context in a talk page again and again wherever I make an edit shows him carrying personal vendetta Zencv 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring disaster area. As usual, all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order. Deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rapparee71 reported by NJGW (Result: )

• Page: Watership Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Rapparee71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This all revolves around a section which Rapparee71 has demanded be removed. After being reverted by 5 separate editors in the past week, Rapparee71 has started making POV edits which have also been reverted by different editors. He has made 5 sets of reversions in the past 24 hours. After being warned for a 2nd time of 3rr and asked to self revert the 5th set, Rapparee71 tried to compromise with a partial revert. NJGW (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Administrative backlog