Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MinaretDk (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 4 February 2007 (→[[User:Nobleeagle]] reported by [[MinaretDk]] (Result:)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report



    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.



    User:RCS reported by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (Result:12h)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of very tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    There may have been a lot more than this that I missed



    Comments: Sorry if my report was formatted incorrectly. I don't normally report people on this board. Subject was warned about 3RR policy. Although I'm not sure if he's considered "new," he clearly read my warning (and repsonded to it on my talk page), and continued reverting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at his contriubtions, it's clear RCS is not a new user and should have been well aware of 3RR prior to my warning.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Reply : The Fat Man Who Never Came Back popped up in the middle of a conflict and took party for the wrong side. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see that some IP's (later appearing under an username) just don't want the 6ft 4 section to be kept deleted as it was for good reason for several days already. I don't know what's on The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's mind, but he certainly ain't an honest broker. RCS 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not want to block at this juncture, but RCS continues disruption by revert-warring. The duration of the block is 12 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, i did not continue (is this warring ?), but obviously Nick is either plain inept or plain dishonest. What a laughable administrator you are, anyway ! With people like you ruling , Musharraf or his successor will have his way. Okay, i admit this is harsh. Cheers RCS 08:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Aquarelle reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: warning)

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

    • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Wikipedia policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin


    Comments: Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Anglicisation. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My reversions were to the previously established version which came before user:Grcampbell's controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --Aquarelle 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you were waiting for 24 hours to pass does not negate the accusation of edit warring. 24-hours is a guideline, not a hard rule, trying to argue that edits fall just outside or inside a 24-hr window is wikilawyering. --Matthew 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aquarelle reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: warning)

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

    • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Wikipedia policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin as the user reverts to French when he is upset, edits almost exclusively on France related articles and Hardouin has a history of suspected sockpuppetry, although nothing has been proved to my knowledge. Weak evidence, but that is neither here nor there for this abuse of the 3RR). User is now trolling my talk page. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Anglicisation. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My reversions were to the previously established version which came before user:Grcampbell's controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --Aquarelle 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TharkunColl reported by User:MarkThomas (Result:No block, warned)

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

    Comments: User is involved in an edit war on United Kingdom to do with not replacing the infobox map. He has been blocked before for 3RR and has had many similar warnings on other pages, see User talk:TharkunColl for details.

    This is not true. I uploaded many different maps, and at no time reverted to the same one more than twice. However, User:MarkThomas has indeed reverted to the same map more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and even removed the official warning I gave him on his talk page. TharkunColl 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is true that in several of the cases above TharkunColl made subtle changes to the map he uploaded in a deliberate effort to avoid 3RR, but each time he was reverting the same Euro-map which is the bone of contention. If I've transgressed it was in an effort to stop this flagrant breach of Wikipedia rules, and would be happy to accept a block for it. MarkThomas 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, this is a travesty of what I actually did. I made a map and uploaded it, then the following day made a very different map because people had expressed an opinion to show the EU. The only person who broke the 3RR rule is User:MarkThomas. I did not report him, because in my opinion crying to the teacher is petty. TharkunColl 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's really pointless you going on like this Tharkun - the admins can see the log of diffs for themselves and will be able to decide on the evidence. MarkThomas 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely! I have made a number of different maps based on what was discussed. All you did was revert to the same map. TharkunColl 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Except it wasn't just me, you were busy changing reverts by other editors too, as you are doing tonight on United Kingdom. MarkThomas 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You reverted to the same map four times. I listed the times you did this on your talk page, but you deleted it (twice). I have proposed a succession of different maps based on the discussion for that day. I have not uploaded any map more that 3 times in 24 hours. You, on the other hand, uploaded the same map 4 times. TharkunColl 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the place where I inserted the official warning onto User:MarkThomas's talk page for breaking 3RR (it also lists the times that he broke it) [2]. He deleted my warning, and deleted it again when I put it back. User:MarkThomas appears to be under the impression that he has achieved some sort of consensus regarding the European maps issue, but this is very far from the case as a perusal of Talk:European Union will reveal. My intention was to create a better map for the United Kingdom article, and each new one I created was based on discussions held at Talk:United Kingdom over a period of three days. User:MarkThomas, however, apparently felt that he had an overriding right to continually remove my maps, based on discussions he had had on a different talk page - and in so doing breached 3RR. My own opinion is that an appropriate map always enhances Wikipedia, but a shoddy one devalues it. To see a selection of maps that I have created, including the three different ones under discussion here, please see my user page User:TharkunColl. TharkunColl 09:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Dismiss. This is not a 3RR case but a content dispute. I suggest both users take a deep breath and discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages. --Asteriontalk 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (editconflict) :As I can see discussion on the talk page of the article, and you seem to have reached an agreement as to the usage of the image, no blocks will be issued at this time. However, blocks will be used as a preventive measure to deter editors from edit-warring further. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvagnya reported by User:RaveenS (Result: no block)

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

    Comments: The above mentioned user has been blocked prior to this. Others have in the past complained about his behavior number of times . In the above mentioned article he is in edit war with others and has personally attacked other Wikipedians. He has called other editors “apologists of terror groups” and I have tried to reason with the editor to allow the wiki process to take it it cause but he refuses to let a request for comment to resolve this issue harmoniously instead keeps reverting the article. In the last 48 hours he had reverted it 4 times.RaveenS 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition on Saare Jahan Se Achcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a clear desire to edit war and troll can be found in the page history. Reverts on that page span 4 reverts in 25 hours [3] [4][5][6] Bakaman 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    71.139.4.32 reported by Griot (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Chris Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.139.4.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [7]
    • 1st revert: 14:56, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [8]
    • 2nd revert: 10:01, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [9]
    • 3rd revert: 01:36, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [10]
    • 4th revert: 01:34, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [11]


    Comments: User has repeatedly reverted over a period of several weeks. I have placed 3 Rule warnings on his/her page, but they were ignored. Griot 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Admin comment. There's not much point in a 3RR block, since this user obviously is resetting his/her IP regularly. A semi-protect will stop the shenanigens for a while. Bucketsofg 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:Page protected)

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

    For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->

    • Necessary only for new users: Not a new user

    Comments: Check also user's block log. All reverts are about removing a "border issue" section, which was agreed in Talk by 4 editors (me, User:Dl.goe, User:Dpotop and User:TSO1D) [12], but with which User:William Mauco don't agree. Some of reverts are also about removing other information. I have to mention that "border issues" section was a stable part of this unstable article from 2 September until end of December and its removal was one of the reasons of the edit war which was the cause of article protection for 3 weeks.--MariusM 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I made four edits, and not all four were clearcut reverts. The page was protected until less than 24 hours ago. Instead of seeking consensus in Talk, User:MariusM waited until it was unprotected. Then he immediately launched onto the page and made 9 major edits within 7 hours. It is not just a "border issues" section, as he claims, and he did not wait for consensus. In fact, some of the editors whom he cites are involved with me in an ongoing and very constructive discussion on how to improve this section in Talk:Transnistria right now. May I also request that you look closely at the DIFFs which he provides, as one of them shows an alternate border issues section added by me (and proposed by another user) which had broader support and consensus on the talk page. - Mauco 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All 4 are reverts, at least regarding "border issues" section. There is no alternative border issue section added by Mauco. Some are also reverts regarding US Department of State position or of usage of word "officially" regarding Pridnestrovie name for Transnistria. All issues were long discussed in Talk. Anybody who check my edit count can see that I have a lot more edits in Talk pages than in mainspaces, the claim that I don't seek consensus in talk is fake.--MariusM 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishkid has protected the talk page; also a good amount of time has elapsed since you engaged in edit-warring. I do not see blocks as being useful. Both the users have breached WP:3RR; and will not be subjected to leniency next time. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ramananpi reported by User:125.22.132.241 (Result: no block)

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

    Comments: User has history of reverting and deleting content with citations and adding content without citations including blogs.Please also see his reverts on Jan 3rd.this is despite another anon requseting in the talk page not to revert and adding expert India to accomodate is his point of view.125.22.132.241 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MariusM reported by User:William Mauco (Result:Page protected)

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

    For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->

    • Necessary only for new users: Not a new user, but I warned him anyway out of courtesy:[13]

    Comments: Cronic edit warrior, see his block log. Frequent use of uncivil and/or misleading edit comments. Background: Transnistria was under full protection due to previous revert warring. Many of us are in the process of working out the issues in Talk at this point in time, and making progress. Protection was prematurely lifted in 19 Jan at 12:56. Immediately thereafter, User:MariusM took advantage of this by falsely claiming "consensus" when there was none, adding disputed pet POV items, and removing of stable features of the article. Despite nine edits in seven or eight hours, he was notably unwilling to seriously discuss most of this in the same period in the article's Talk page where I and other editors meanwhile kept working on developing acceptable phrasing, with a lot of progress. - Mauco 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 5th, 8th and 9th are reverts, rest are edits long discussed in talk. Some of them are consecutive edits for different part of the article (you can see my name in previous edit). In fact, Mauco want to have veto rights for all Transnistria-related articles. Talk page is showing that the majority of editors accepted the changes that I added, only Mauco was against, he broke the 3RR (see above report) and I had to revert him. I stopped at 3 reverts.--MariusM 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example of bad faith by the person who reported me, he agreed to remove the paragraph "Transnistria in popular culture" [14], however now he listed the agreed edit as my 4th revert. Also, he agreed to split the "violent incidents" section in "antisemitic incidents" and "explosions" [15] but now he is reporting this agreed edit as my 3rd revert.--MariusM 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Page has been protected by admin Nishkid64. See above. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Toajaller3146 reported by User:Axem Titanium (Result:12h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom Hearts series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Toajaller3146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: This user has also added content of a similar nature farther back but they aren't direct reverts so I guess they don't count. He has been warned several times for several policy violations on his talk page but they have been summarily ignored or denied. Axem Titanium 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    12h. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Supaman89 reported by User:Corticopia (Result:24 hours each)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [16]
    • 1st revert: [17]
    • 2nd revert: [18]
    • 3rd revert: [19]
    • 4th revert: [20]

    Continued reverts in 24 hr; also see above:

    • 5th revert (I think): [21]
    • 6th revert: [22]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]

    Comments: After some rigmarole and prior edit warring (admittedly), an agreeable version of the article -- namely about Mexico's location in the Americas -- has surfaced. However, this user continues to revert to a biased version and eliminate unrelated edits (which are cited), is rather beligerent, has been warned by me and another editor about etiquette, and is also deliberately trying to incite an edit war and get me 'banned', soliciting assistance from another editor (translation: he's 'tiring' of me); also consult talk page. Corticopia 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The "previous version" is supposed to be the one he is reverting to, so we know that the first revert is indeed a revert William M. Connolley 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed; now, can you or someone investigate and take action? Corticopia 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    24h = Supaman89 = Corticopia ; 12h = Raveonpraghga. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Duderawk reported by User:Bdve (Result:48h by Alkivar)

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

    Comments: Continually adding of a spamlink to an image gallery -- not only to this article but to a number of bio articles -- under the premise that "they're models, so it should be allowed."

    Blocked by another administrator for a duration of 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:193.219.28.146 reported by User:Axlq (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Ass to mouth (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Ass to mouth|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.219.28.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Anonymous editor persists in writing an inflammatory trolling comment on the Talk:Ass to mouth, in spite of warnings and explanations. In between those reverts, a tag was added to the top of the page explaining that this article had survived an AfD, in the hope that this would convince the anon editor to stop the trolling. That intermediate version is now the "previous version reverted to", not the earlier version prior to the trolling edits.

    He has been reverted by a group of (I think 5, maybe 4) editors now. Please block him as he is not helping improve the article just making wide ranging comments about the site.-Localzuk(talk) 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one little comment. Please, stop using misleading plural form "comments". Thank you. 193.219.28.146 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-21T00:20:04 Wangi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "193.219.28.146 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption) William M. Connolley 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As soon as the 24h was up, the user resumed past activity, and has already built up another 3RR violation. He has promised to continue on his talk page. His last comment stated that if his IP is banned, he'll continue with a sock account. =Axlq 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VictorO reported by User:jossi (Result: 1 week unblocked)

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

    Comments
    • request 24 hrs block for 3RR and another 24 hrs for disruption

    2007-01-20T22:21:02 Sandstein (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "VictorO (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) William M. Connolley 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not vandalism. I have approached Sandstein to reduce the duration of the block as this was the first fault of the user. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the discussion below regarding his fellow edit warrior and on Nick's request, I've reduced the block to 24h for 3RR. Sandstein 10:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)OK, Sandstein has responded below. However, this user was not vandalising, and was blocked because he was reported on WP:ANI. And since the user below was not blocked, I am going to unblock this user and leave him with a warning. I am going to continue discussion with Sandstein on this. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, now that you have agreed that it was not vandalism, it is only appropriate to unblock VictorO, as the user below was not blocked for the violation of WP:3RR. In case they feel like returning to revert-warring, we can reinstate preventive blocks again. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, feel free to unblock him. Although one could just as well block the other guy too, their editwarring is no longer going on and so blocks on either side appear to be no longer required. This is getting to be a waste of our time, even though I was less than perfectly diligent, I guess, in slapping the "vandal" label on this case at the outset. Sandstein 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mael-Num reported by User:jossi (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mael-Num (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    • Request 24 hrs block for 3RR violation and another 24 hrs for disruption

    In view of the prev block for vandalism, no block William M. Connolley 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was as disrupting as the other, reverting without seeking consensus, on an an item that is disputed and that is being discussed. I would request a re-assesment of the unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made my determination purely on the basis of the other edits being decreed vandalism. I'm happy for others to look at this users edits, though William M. Connolley 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    William, It is unacceptable that a user can get way with violating 3RR, by claiming that he is "reverting vandalism". The material that one was adding and the other removing, is currently being discussed by other editor's at that article's talk page. New users need to learn not to engage in edit wars, and I had hoped that both editwarriors be blocked for 48hrs or more. I would appreciate another pair of eyes to reassess the unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may speak in my own defense, I attempted to open discussion with my fellow editors through the edit notes and submitted requests for dialogue and ultimately warnings on users' talk pages. Two admins reviewing this situation, William M. Connolley and Sandstein, seem to be in agreement that the reverts were vandalism, and that I therefore shouldn't be banned. Is it really necessary to continue soliciting additional opinions? Mael-Num 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to comment here. I can't see how the edits that were reverted could count as vandalism. It looks like a regular content dispute about whether the external links were appropriate, and as such I see it as a clear 3RR violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I to take it now that Jossi is privately soliciting opinions to have me removed from participating in the Prem Rawat article, while pro-Rawat editors simultaneously rip the article apart? [24][25][26][27]. As it is, due to this spurious set of accusations, my hands are tied in protecting long-stable material that has consensus for being there. Am I the only one who finds all this a teensy bit suspect? Mael-Num 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "long stable material"? The material about which you edit warred was added yesterday. Rather than revert each other and violate 3RR, you could have discussed rather than accusing a fellow editor of vandalism, to get him blocked as you did here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the material being removed in my examples above has, for at least several months, been part of the article Criticism of Prem Rawat, which despite consensus being against merging, was suddenly (and expertly) merged by a previously uninvolved editor, with no prior indication that this was to be done and no apparent solicitation of his help or advice. I could show that there was no consensus for this move, and that the material was stable, but all information was expunged from Criticism of Prem Rawat, so I have no evidence to give. I noted the behavior of vandalism, and followed proceedure, and the involved admin agreed with my assessment and took appropriate steps. Mael-Num 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No material was deleted in the merge by a third-party editor. In any case, note that this board is not to discuss content disputes, Mael, but to look into violations of WP:3RR and disruption. 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    That is a straw man argument. I never claimed it was deleted in the merge, but stated explicitly that it is occurring now, after the (unexpected and contested) move occurred. I offer this information not to seek resolution on it but so that investigating admins may more readily understand the "bigger picture" of events involved. Why are you trying to minimize this point and misrepresent my argument? Mael-Num 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there is no excuse to editwarring, and no excuse to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, as you did with your six reverts and spurious "vandalism" reports and sockpuppet acussation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's the reason for misrepresenting my argument? Quite Machiavellian, IMO. Mael-Num 05:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that William did not support the block, just unblocked you because of the allegations of vandalism upon which Sandstein blocked your edit warring partner. He asked for other admins to take a look and did not oppose a review. My opinion is that both of you should be blocked for 24 hrs for 3RR violation and another 24hrs for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that William didn't look into the matter and make a judgement on his own? Mael-Num 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what he says, Mael "I made my determination purely on the basis of the other edits being decreed vandalism. I'm happy for others to look at this users edits". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that, in William's judgement, it's likely that another admin's decision that it was vandalism was probably a good decision? Or are you saying that William just closed his eyes and started mashing buttons? Mael-Num 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And finally, I would ask you to be cautious with your accusations of socket puppetry as you did here. If you have such suspicions place a request at WP:RFCU and provide the necessary evidence as per policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have blocked VictorO for vandalism either. Both parties appear to have violated 3RR. Both should be blocked for 24 hours; longer if they're engaged in other disruption, or if they've been blocked several times already for 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an odd opinion, given that he received warnings of vandalism both on his talk page and in the comments section of the article's history. I know for a fact that he saw the vandalism notices in history, as he mimicked them back to me. Mael-Num 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask that admins checking this board, implement a 24 to 48 hr block on both users. VictorO (talk · contribs) to be unblocked and re-blocked and Mael-Num (talk · contribs) to be blocked for the same period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to block both for 24 hours, but I don't like undoing other admins' work if they object, so I'll put a note on William's and Sandstein's talk pages and ask for their opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just so I'm clear on this, you don't see a decision as being vandalism even if vandalism warnings were made, attempts to dialogue attempted, and blanking of cited material continuing despite a big "final warning" being placed on the user page? I guess it's a good thing Jossi called you for a second opinion then! Mael-Num 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (De-indent) I was the admin blocking VictorO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 week on an AIV request by Mael-Num, and now I've been requested to comment here. As far as I could then tell, VictorO was repeatedly removing large amounts of content that looked prima facie quite valid and that did not appear to be unsourced libelous material, without engaging in any discussion about it. Looking closer though, it's probably better to characterise this as a content dispute about the appropriateness of external links, as SlimVirgin does. So, now what?

    • I'd not reduce the block on VictorO until he actually complains about it. When he posts an {{unblock}} message, we'll have a request to consider.
    • I can see how it could have been justified to have also blocked his fellow edit warrior for 3RR (with which policy, I'll have to admit, I don't have a lot of experience). I'm just not sure what the point would be to do this now, as the edit war is perforce over now. In my understanding of WP:BP blocks are ever only preventative and not punitive in nature.

    At any rate, the time spent here might be better spent on the article talk page discussing the appropriateness of the content at issue. I hope these comments have been helpful and I'll not revert any action of SlimVirgin that they might want to take in this issue. Best, Sandstein 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that VictorO seems to be a newbie and the block template you placed, does not have the wording for requesting an unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the ruling was that VictorO was blocked for vandalism, I don't see how another editor should be punished for removing such said vandalism. Smee 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    VictorO has been unblocked. No point in blocking this user; lot of time has already elapsed. Continue discussion on talk page of the article. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me clarify my position... first, I thought I'd made it clear that if anyone wanted to reblock M-N, I was happy with that. Second, It is unacceptable that a user can get way with violating 3RR, by claiming that he is "reverting vandalism" isn't true: there is a reverting-vandalism exception, and since VO was blocked for vandalism, it seemed reasonable to invoke it. However, it may well have been inappropriate in this case William M. Connolley 12:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks William, for the clarification. Sure, we have an exception in reverting vandalism, but when claims of vandalism are made to obfuscate one's editwarring, that is surely not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't relying on M-N's claims, but on the fact that VO was blocked for vandalism William M. Connolley 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm late. But no one told me this was on!Momento 13:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Martin181 reported by User:SteveLamacq43 (Result:96 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Brock Lesnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martin181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: 3rd time this user has broken the rule on the same article. SteveLamacq43 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    96h. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkThomas, User:Haham hanuka reported by User:Feba (Result:48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mark

    Haham

    Complex, need an admin to look through this and over this to decide who all is at fault and what actions should be taken. -- febtalk 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually as far as I can tell, none of us were specifically in breach of 3RR, although there has been some frustrating editing going on. Perhaps if Feba can fill out the template properly, we can speed things up! MarkThomas 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, sorry about that, busy busy -- febtalk 02:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The 5 you present as mine are in the wrong order and two of them are the same edit done in two steps. The remaining three are spaced over more than 24 hours. A simple check on the history page will confirm this. MarkThomas 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I know they're backwards. I don't have any programs or bots making this easier on me. This is all CTRL+V. And again man, it's not worth getting angry on wikipedia. I'm not taking sides in this, because I don't really care about the subject, I care about making wikipedia a better medium. If you want to call me a crappy editor or something, my sig has a link to my talk page, feel free to use profanities. -- febtalk 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both blocked. MarkThomas, I count 4 reverts in under 26 hours, and combined with your incivility in edit summaries (calling others "vandalistic") and the fact that you have been blocked before for edit warring, I think you need some time off, 3RR or no. Dmcdevit·t 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvabhaum reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:48h)

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

    Comments: Not a new user, so no warnings were served. Infact, this user has been blocked before for violating 3RR and also for using socks.

    I am a new user. Mr.Kannambadi and his friends are removing cited info. U can check the history and talk page of the same. It seems Mr.Kannambadi is coming with new ids, be it above or KNM who woked up alive only after December 2nd minutes after mr.kannambadi and mr.sarvanya reverted?I have only added citation details and reverted the removal of info.Plz check the blanking of above user.Sarvabhaum 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    48h. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bosniak reported by User:Psychonaut (Result:31h)

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


    Comments: See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosniak - POV pushing, WP:POINT, and bad faith assumptions.

    2007-01-21T12:30:55 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Bosniak (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (disruption, revert-warring, trolling, incivility - discussed on ANI) William M. Connolley 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nssdfdsfds reported by User:Arthurberkhardt (Result:No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Center for Consumer Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nssdfdsfds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User:Nssdfdsfds clearly tried to vandalize the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) article. He/She deleted anything remotely critical of the Center for Consumer Freedom, including the verified donations from tobacco giant Philip Morris and the list of the board of directors for the CCF. User:Rosemaryamey tried to add back the board of directors list, but User: Nssdfdsfds deleted it again. This user clearly has a pro-CCF bias, and it shows in all twelve revisions. I believe user:Nssdfdsfds should be banned from further editing on the Center For Consumer Freedom article.

    Provide the reversions in sequence, all you have done is provide consequent diffs; where the reversions are appropriately visible. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the history of the article, I don't even see a possibility where 3RR could've been broken. It's essentially a list of edits by Nssdfddfds, one edit by someone else and then more by the first user. Not even possible to violate 3RR. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Adyarboy (Result:Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Vaikom Satyagraha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User:Rumpelstiltskin223 has engaged in edit warring in Vaikom Satyagraha.[28]despite being warned he continues to do so remove and delete content which is cited without raising the issue in the talk page.[29] User is prone for edit warring and has banned in the past for 3RR violations[30] [31] atleast 3 times before.Adyarboy 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see 4 reverts. The complainant, in fact, has been abusing this article and filling it with statements not supported by the references, and eulogizing an extremely violent and reactionary racist (along the lines of Slobodan Milosevic). He has not shown the willingness to discuss and, in fact, has gone against consensus as seen by this revert of his tendentious edits not done by me [32] so I am not in the wrong here. Rumpelstiltskin223 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is a prone for edit warring has been blocked 4 times before for persistent edit warring and violation of the 3RR

    1:[33] 2:[34] This is the 5 time he is doing so and I feel he cannot say he did it in error .He was warned yesterday.The Consenus is in the page and another user had clearly asked others not to revert cited information.The content dispute can be solved with the help of a India editor.This is delibrate as it 4 time he ahs done in different articles despite being banned 4 times earlier.Further Periyar is not responsible for even a single death and equating him with Slobodan Milosevic is merely a matter of personal opinion.Adyarboy 10:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    3 reverts by RPSS. I am going to protect the page. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is suspected that User:Rumpelstiltskin223 is another sockpuppet account of User:Hkelkar currently under 1 year ban and on 1 edit allowance along with those who reported him due to extensive edit warring on similar type of India related contentious pages.87.74.2.15 11:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is suspected that User:Rumpelstiltskin223 is another sockpuppet account of User:Hkelkar currently under 1 year ban and due to extensive edit warring on similar type of India related contentious pages. He has been blocked 4 times since Dec 16 and 3 times this month for 3RR violations this month and this his 4th this month.I feel merely protecting the page is too lenient as he is a repeat offender as he did in Vaikom Satyagraha.Sorry to write for if repeated edit warring are not stopped Wikipedia will suffer 220.226.140.53 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M.K reported by User:203.214.13.209 (Result:Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Šarūnas Jasikevičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User M.K insists upon restoring three inaccuracies to the Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎.

    • User has not at all verified Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎'s marriage details. It's up to the user placing the statement there to cite it, no one else. If it's not properly sourced, it gets removed.
    • Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎ is a Golden State Warriors player, as he played his first game with them recently. If he is not aware of this, that's too bad - ignorance about a subject is not an excuse for reverting.
    • Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎ was born in 1976, when Lithuania was then part of the former Soviet Union (whether anyone likes it or not).

    M.K has reverted three times, but should know the rules regarding this. Please someone talk to him; he or she has clearly not done the right thing here. --203.214.13.209 10:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all there is no WP:3RR violation. Second if you asking information stop reverting peoples, because they can`t produce ref then they are all time reverted. Second if you had any interest you could find universal information which you deleting in several articles like this one: Linor Abargil. Second hiding proper category is not very constructive, your statment such as [35] only because you do not know is unaccountable, btw he scored 10 points in this team. second on your "statment" He was born in 1976, when Lithuania as we know it was then part of the Soviet Union while yes, this why in article is written Lithuanian SSR now Lithuania; missed this one too? So next time before reverting edits better go under proper investigation. M.K. 10:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)P.S I would also like to ask that neutral editor evaluated anon`s remark left on my talk: You realise you're free to take your personal biases to a blog site or something...'[reply]
    3 reverts, but not WP:3RR violation. I have protected the page. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, M.K. 11:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nationalist reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result: No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Guantian, Tainan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: I explained in the talk page why it is better to use Taiwan, and so did another person.--Jerrypp772000 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Nationalist only made 3 edits, for 3RR to be broken, more than three edits have to be made within a 24 hr period. There is no breach of 3RR. TSO1D 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also explained my position. Apparently, he doesnt listen and thinks hes correct, which several people have proved him to be Incorrect. He is pushing a proTaiwan independence extremist view. I am just trying to counter it, because things were fine before he came along with his mass deletions of "Republic of China" The ROC is a sovereign nation with jurisdiction in Taiwan. Please see Republic of China article -Nationalist 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.87.183.178 reported by User:Clayboy (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Pederasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.87.183.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    There aren't ANY messages on his page, including 3RR warnings. Considering he's an IP user who doesn't even have a week old contribs log, I say we give him the benefit of the doubt and just let him know he can't do that. -- febtalk 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point. However, ample warnings were giving in edit summaries. He replied to those warnings with a personal attack. Clayboy 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still give him the benefit of the doubt. WP says to be bold, he probably took it more personally than he should've (which is suggested since he didn't seem to read WP policies ahead of time, which most people don't.) Give him another chance, and some knowledge instead of outright banning him -- febtalk 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem here. I should probably have tried to reach him through talk pages instead of edit summaries. Clayboy 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    24h William M. Connolley 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:193.219.28.146 RE-reported by User:Axlq (Result: 48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Ass to mouth (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Ass to mouth|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.219.28.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User blocked 24h, resumed 3RR immediately afterward. History prior to blocking:

    At this point the user was blocked 24h. After promising on his talk page to resume previous activity after block was up, another 3RR violation was racked up almost immediately:

    Comments: This is a repost and expansion of a similar report above. Anonymous editor persists in writing an inflammatory trolling comment on the Talk:Ass to mouth, in spite of warnings and explanations. He was blocked for 24 hours. During that time, he promised on his talk page to resume previous activity after 24h passed. His last comment on the talk page indicates he will resume this activity under a sockpuppet account if the IP is banned again. I personally don't care at this point, just reporting 3RR because it happened; he probably won't cause trouble if his little message can only appear on the talk page. =Axlq 05:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And once again, as soon as this second ban completed, this user resumed the same disruptive activity. The user's talk page is filled with explanations, requests to stop, and requests to explain himself, to no avail. =207.191.61.50 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Toajaller3146 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom Hearts (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Toajaller3146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Repeated violations of 3RR against consensus.

    Not again! 24h this time William M. Connolley 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miltopia reported by User:Rangeley 24h (Result:Handled)

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

    All reversions occured on January 22nd.

    Comments: Repeated violation of 3RR.

    User a marginal troll; 24h William M. Connolley 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked and unblocked already. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SolRosenBerg reported by User:zzuuzz (Result:Indef block)

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

    Diffs: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] etc

    Warned as SolRosenBerg and 13.8.125.11 Comments: Repeatedly inserting copyrighted screenshot after being notified of this and 3RR. Uses IP and account above (see article history for reference). -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Report malformed and unreadable. Please format appropriately to aid us with assessing this case. --Deskana (request backup) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been indefinitely blocked for disruption. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MajinPower reported by User:Ned Scott (Result: 8 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Dragon Ball AF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MajinPower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    The warning was well after the edits in question. --Deskana (request backup) 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further examination shows that the user continued reverting after the warning. Blocked for 8 hours. Please include further diffs with the report if the user continues on edit warring. Thanks. --Deskana (request backup) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? 3RR warning came at 15:09, after the second revert (14:46) and before the third (15:48) with a fourth at (15:52), as noted above. -- Ned Scott 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got your preferences set so they don't display the time as UTC, so when I looked at the diff for your warning it said it was at 22:09, and I took your word on the times of the reverts. Was simply a misunderstanding. Not that it made any difference in the assessment of the case, mind. --Deskana (request backup) 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *smacks forehead* oops. Sorry about that :) -- Ned Scott 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Psychohistorian reported by User:Ramsey2006 (Result:24hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Illegal immigration to the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Psychohistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments: There are many other violations of WP:3RR involving other phrases, headings, etc, but for convieneince, I'll stick to the opening sentence of the section. The sentence is as follows: The US federal government uses a variety of terms to refer to people whose presence in the United States is unauthorised. --Ramsey2006 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24hrs for breaking 3RR. TSO1D 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:63.105.65.5 reported by User:HokieRNB (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Baptist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 63.105.65.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    24h William M. Connolley 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nationalist reported by User:Borgarde (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Nationalist (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Nationalist|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    Gave that guy a {{non-admin fwarn}} with a link to this section. Told me to fuck off. Tuxide 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-23T06:11:00 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Nationalist (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (profanity directed at other users) William M. Connolley 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ezalb reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: 31h)

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

    Comments Not all of these are exactly alike, but are effective attempts at putting across the same POV. Seraphimblade 06:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-23T06:59:32 Ryan Delaney (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ezalb (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism) William M. Connolley 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:218.167.167.67 reported by User:Mallarme (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Theosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 218.167.167.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments:

    24h. This may well not work in which case the easiest thing is to semi protect the article William M. Connolley 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mais oui! reported by User:Mkdw (Result:Handled)

    Three-revert rule violation on Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    • This user has been warned on is talk page and on the article page.
    • Comment This user does not assume good faith and is ignoring WP:CIVIL by leaving messages such as "Never use the "Minor edit" button to attempt to disguise reversions. And while I'm here, the "oh I forgot to fill in the Edit summary box" is not very convincing I'm afraid." when I forgot to write in an edit summary, or in his edit summary calls other edits "blatant vandals" when Talk:Vancouver its clear they're trying to help. Please help. Mkdwtalk 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A discussion is ongoing on the Talk:Vancouver page to try to reach consensus on the structure of the Twinned cities section. User:Mkdw is attempting to implement changes to that section before consensus has been reached on the Talk page. User:Mkdw appears to misunderstand the nature of 3RR. I only made three reversions on 21 Jan, and the 4 edits of today are reverting different things. The first two were reverting a table that is still under discussion at Talk, and (after User:Mkdw accepted that we should restore the article to the condition it was in before the POV warring began) the 2nd two were restoring the status quo prior to an IP account first mucking about with the relevant section on 25 December. --Mais oui! 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're skipping out the point that you're reverting to the version that was 'mucked' with and started the controversy. I'm trying to prevent your reverts by reverting it to the version before it was mucked with. Mkdwtalk 12:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just not true. You persistently try to apply intermediate changes to the article, trying to pre-empt the discussion on the Talk page. The Vancouver article's twinned cities section was first mucked about with by an IP address on 25 December. The pre-25 December version should stand until/unless consensus is reached at Talk. All other editors are happy to discuss this issue, but you repeatedly try to implement changes prior to consensus. Please desist. --Mais oui! 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes I reverted to were from 13:00, December 2, 2006. That's pre-25 Dec. and has 2 flags. The version you're reverting to is Dec 25 with 1 flag. The whole issue is about having 2 or 1 flags and for as long as I've been an editor to the article, around Dec 25 and moreso Jan is when the whole issue of removing the 2nd flag really came out. Still doesn't mean you can do it in a civil way. Also, you keep saying "you" when you are the only one reverting to that version. Everyone else: User:Bobanny, User:Carson Lam, User:Kanaye, User:Langara College, User:Lofty, and myself have been adding to the article or reverting your edits. No one else but you is reverting back to that version. You keep talking about concensus, but you're forcing non-concensus by reverting everyone's work. You even reverted User:Carson Lam's work that had nothing to do with that section and he was forced to revert it back again. Mkdwtalk 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, your case is based on: "we should revert it back to the version that existed when I first started editing the article"?!? Heavens above! Please read WP:OWN. At no point did I remove the work of another editor - show us the diff. However, you did remove my edit under the guise of reverting the History of Vancouver section. This is a preposterous waste of everybody's time. I have only just realised how little you understand about policy and protocol here at Wikipedia. --Mais oui! 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Today's 4 edits all seem to be directed towards the flag issue and I suspect it is a violation of the 3rr. There's obviously something of an edit war going on, anyway, and it certainly is a preposterous waste of everybody's time. On the other hand, it has been entertaining in one sense- I am laughing myself silly at the gross hypocrisy on display here- "implement changes...before consensus has been reached on the Talk page". One of these editors has a history of making spam alterations, often controversial, sometimes major, and usually politically motivated, and almost invariably without any prior warning or attempt to build consensus. Attempts to initiate discussions with him are often ignored, and he has himself in the past been known to deliberately revert efforts to revert to the status quo pending discussion, in a blatant effort to ensure that his own preferred version is maintained- regardless of consensus. The pot is very much calling the kettle black here. Badgerpatrol 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mais oui! did not revert any of my rather mundane ISBN additions.[47] Carson 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its blindingly obviously 4R: of the last 4, 2 are marked "rv" and two "restore" William M. Connolley 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And how on earth is that a breach of 3RR? They were not "rv"ing the same things! --Mais oui! 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment of mine wasn't intended to imply I thought it was a 3RR violation, or the opposite (I didn't want to get involved with the 3RR report). I was only pointing out to Mkdw that the first set of "reverts" they linked to were outwith the 24hr period that the other four were in... And it doesn't matter really if it's different things you were reverting, see WP:3RR#What is a revert?: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted". Best guideline to stick to is 1RR! Ta/wangi 10:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:196.205.123 reported by User:ISubmit786 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rashad Khalifa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). United Submitters Nation Member (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments: This is related to a guy named Ahmad Nishitoba who has been harassing other editors consistently along with his small group of followers. He has started his own group called USN - United Submitters Nation, www.usn2161.net; and has been repeatedly forcing his groups website on the Rashad Khalifa Wikipage while removing the editing of others. If you look at the history, has has been blocked for the same behavior in the past, and he just figured a way around the block by using different user IP addresses, but the edits are always the same. He is wasting Wikipedia staff time and other editor's time. Other editors have discussed the issue of his USN website, and consensus is against putting it on this page. He and his few group members refuse to concede to the consensus of other editors, and harrass the others by constantly removing/ changing their edits without reason or scholarly discussion. Is there a way to give him his own Wikipage? That way he and his group can edit it to their liking.

    User:MatriX reported by User:Dirak (Result:)

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


    Comments:

    User:Tedblack reported by Khoikhoi (Result: warned)

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

    Comments:

    User:Zsero reported by User:Fredrick day (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Hiram Bingham IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Nationalist reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result:No block)

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


    Comments: I think putting Taiwan would be more appropriate. 1st of all, the ROC is known as Taiwan, and we should always put the common names in Wikipedia. 2nd, if this user like the ROC that much, in the article Taiwan, it says that it is governed by the ROC anyways. 3rd, Most, more than 55% of the people living in the ROC refer themselves as Taiwanese and not Chinese. 4th, putting ROC would confuse people because they would not know the difference between ROC and PRC. See talk page of Guantian, Tainan, there is a 3rd opinion there too.

    What can I do to stop him?--Jerrypp772000 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Levine2112 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    All reverts of User:GigiButterfly below:


    Previous block for 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Levine2112

    -->

    Comments: Provoked by User:GigiButterfly below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please note that I was engaging in talk profusely and providing much citations of Wikipedia policy. Also note that the diffs above don't illustrate a true 3RR violation. They are all different edits except for two. Finally, with regard to my last and only 3RR block, please make note that the admin later admitted that he/she made a mistake in issuing the block and apologized. I add this to let you know that I am a considerate editor not interested in engaging in needless edit wars. My intention here was to help a hostile newbie better understand Wiki policy; and never did I violate 3RR. Thanks for your consideration. Levine2112 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No block; 3RR not clearly broken and the case is now days old. Bucketsofg 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GigiButterfly reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: no block)

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


    All the ones without commentary, the edit reason given was "Undo..." or "Revert"


    A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.


    Comments: New user, but argumentative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maleabroad reported by User:Orpheus (Result: 1 week)

    Three-revert rule violation on Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maleabroad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: This user is not new - he has been blocked before for 3RR violation. He edits both logged in as User:Maleabroad and logged out as various IPs all beginning with 136.159. His most recent IP addresses are 136.159.32.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 136.159.32.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are clearly the same user, as they are reverting to the same content and using the same inflammatory edit summaries. Please see the previous incident report for more background.

    Please also note that this user has a history of block evasion. Orpheus 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the five minutes or so since posting this, user has violated 3RR on Rigvedic tribes, Battle of the Ten Kings and Sati (practice). Orpheus 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of this user's rather harsh language and prior blocks, I've given it a weeklong block. Luna Santin 06:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: no block)

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


    The edit reason given was "rv" in all cases.


    Comments: Definiately not a new user, but I can't find a specific 3RR warning before. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He was warned after the second of the above reverts, and accused of even more ("You were already over yesterday, 8RR by my count"). He has a history of 3RR warnings (e.g. [48] [49]) and in a recent arbitration case was found to have edit warred and cautioned by the ArbCom. Tim Smith 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well no, the edit reason was *not* rv in all cases; and its not clear why [50] is a revert William M. Connolley 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That edit (#3) reverts the previous edit, adding back the sentence that was removed. #4 adds the sentence again. #1 removes a quote added a few hours earlier, and #2 reverts the previous edit. Seems clear enough. Tim Smith 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This near-constant badgering of User:ScienceApologist by you at cases where you are only marginally involved, like here and previously at his RFAR, strikes me as a pattern coming perilously close to wikistalking. I'm becoming troubled by this pattern, particularly in light of the other recent issues. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is "you"? I'm generally on SA's "side", but I would just like this to quiet down for a bit. (He had some other near-reverts, but I thought those were fairly clear. If I'm wrong, I apologize to SA and to the reviewing admin.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not you Arthur, but Tim Smith. He sadly has a troubling history of coincidently popping up at unrelated discussions scrutinizing the actions of others he's been involved in content disputes elsewhere and rushing to aid of the attacker, such as Langan. FeloniousMonk 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised that this was listed, but I looked through these carefully and I count only 3 reverts (the first one is not a revert, I just removed a few choice phrases in an honest-to-goodness attempt to collaboratively edit). I know I'm jutting up against the limit (and WMC wisely counseled me to stick to 1RR, which I'm attempting to do to avoid these kinds of nasty bouts), but as can be seen from the other listings here, there is a lot of squabbling happening at Quackwatch right now. However, today seemed to be a bit better. We may be turning the corner. What I really find distasteful is User:Tim Smith's advocacy. Not only did he misrepresent my edits in his post in an attempt to get me blocked, he continues to goad, bait, and Wikistalk me. Luckily, until now, he has been only a minor fly in the ointment, but as he becomes more and more savvy with Wikipedia, I'm afraid he may be more of a problem. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tim Smith should continue to document his obsessive behavior in this regard. --ScienceApologist 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    #1, like the others, is clearly a revert. Hours earlier, ScienceApologist had removed the quote beginning "At least 3"; it had then been restored. In #1, ScienceApologist removed it again, reverting the restoration. By the way, I didn't file this report. I saw Arthur Rubin's comment about not being able to find an earlier 3RR warning, and having (unfortunately) firsthand experience with ScienceApologist's history in that regard, thought I would offer some background and comment on the diffs, which seem clear enough. Tim Smith 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave the semantic arguments to those who are more obssessive than myself to determine if this is equivalent to this. I have summarized Tim Smith's Wikistalking of myself at the User RfC related to his conduct. I invite those who read this report to comment. --ScienceApologist 08:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the question is whether undoing the addition of a quote by removing the quote is a revert. The answer follows from the definition of "revert" ("undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors"). Tim Smith 20:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MinaretDk reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Persecution of Hindus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MinaretDk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    2007-01-24T04:24:46 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MinaretDk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR Persecution of Hindus) William M. Connolley 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scorpion0422 reported by User:Otto4711 (Result: 12h each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Survivor contestants (edit | [[Talk:Template:Survivor contestants|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Scorpion0422 has been targeting the article for Survivor contestant J.P. Calderon and this constant revision is spillover from that. I added Calderon to the Survivor contestant template and Scorpion reverted it. It was restored and reverted four times and the fifth time I restored the information I noted in the edit note the three-revert rule. Additionally I placed a note on the article's talk page advising Scorpion0422 of the three-revert rule and asking him to stop reverting it (user has been with Wikipedia for a year). Under the guise of making a cosmetic edit to the article, Scorpion0422 once again removed the Calderon link from the template. Otto4711 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well congratulations, you have both broken 3RR and both calling each others edits vandalism doesn't help. 12h each William M. Connolley 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Downwards reported by User:TShilo12 (Result: 3d)

    Three-revert rule violation on Dikembe Mutombo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Downwards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 1 2 3 4 5 6 Even after issuing the initial warning (after the 6th revert) and responding to a message requiring (rather ridiculously, if you read the context) my strict adherence to WP:CITE, yet another user tried to reword it to a less "noticeable" statement, which User:Downwards still did not approve of, and proceded to revert as well. I gave him the opportunity to undo hir last reversion here, and am only now, over half an hour after the deadline I set, am I reporting it here...eventhough other users have since stepped in.

    A review of User talk:Downwards indicates that this is not the first time this user's "style" has come into direct conflict with WP:3RR, and in light of hir familiarity with WP:CITE and refusal to regard hirself as "bound" by WP:3RR, WP:CON and to some extent WP:CIV, might perhaps require further action. For now, however, I think it necessary to at least report this latest eggregious violation on hir part, so that it is "on the record".

    Regards, Tomertalk 07:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 3 days, repeat offender. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvabhaum reported by User:KNM (Result:1 week)

    Three-revert rule violation on Belgaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Origin of Rashtrakutas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sarvabhaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    3RR on Belgaum Article:


    3RR on Origin of Rashtrakutas Article:


    Comments: The previous 3RR violation for this user is still visible in this page, #User:Sarvabhaum reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:48h). The 48 hours block was just over and the user is back with the series of reverts on several articles. This user had been blocked multiple times for 3RR violations earlier, (Block Log) and very recently he/she has been cautioned against violating 3RR, User_talk:Sarvabhaum#Edit_warring. Inspite of all these, the user is reverting back continuously on several articles, and has violated 3RR on at least above two articles. - KNM Talk 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1 week. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stevietheman reported by User:Animesouth (Result:)

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


    User:Freedom skies reported by Monitor1 (Result:)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: complex reversions actually. Seems to revolve around user not wanting mentioning of Taoism in Zen article. [52]
    • 1st revert: [53]
    • 2nd revert: [54]
    • 3rd revert: [55]
    • 4th revert: [56]

    Reverts seem to be around the existence of Taoism and it's influence in Zen. Went on the discussion page and user seems to be edit warring. This also seems to have occured in Nov. 21st of 2005 as user blocked for similar reverts twice on this archive. No diffs here as I can't seem to get them[57]

    - * User actually seems to have been warned before and actually locked multiple times for revert warring on the same article. Please scroll down page to 2 blocks on Nov. 21 and Nov. 23rd by Rama's arrow and William Connelly - actually these blocks were on the same current article Zen. Can't seem to get diff's for this page as it is archived.[58]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Most recent warning [59] but prior warnings are on this page.[60]

    Comments: Sorry if there are any errors. Not very used to Wiki code at all.Monitor1 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colin Keigher reported by User:Animesouth (Result: 3/48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of anime conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Colin Keigher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    3h for CK, who should have stuck to 3R. But I've blocked AS too, for 3RR and (presumed) socks William M. Connolley 09:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TigranTheGreat reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:72H each)

    Three-revert rule violation on History of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: This user reverted the article four times in 24 hours and 5 minutes. This is clearly gaming the system as is described here: [61] He ignores the talk page and simply rvs the article to his version. He’s very well aware of 3RR rule as is evident from his edit summaries. Grandmaster 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And with three reverts made intentionally to use 3RR as a tool to get your way ("you'll have to [stop, mind 3RR)"]), and previous 3RR blocks, you are gaming as well. Both blocked. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.179.80.13 reported by User:Jack Bethune (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Longcase clock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.179.80.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User 81.179.80.13 appears to be a determined spammer who repeatedly links a commercial clock site to the WP article on Longcase Clocks. His recent links have been disguised as links to "Clock restoration," but the nature of the linked material is unchanged from its original commercial orientation. I hope this determined spammer can be stopped. This is my first report on the 3RR rule, so please forgive my mistakes in procedure and reporting. Jack Bethune 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Contiguous reverts count as one, so he has at most 2. Also http://http://... doesn't work very well William M. Connolley 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prosfilaes reported by 86.27.64.111 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (Result: 12h each)

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


    Comments: This user refuses to discuss dispute on talkpage, until AFTER he has broken 3RR and reverted to "his version".

    You've both broken 3RR. And all over an invisible comment. Silly people. 12h each William M. Connolley 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aminz at Criticism of the Qur'an Result: No violation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Qur%27an&action=history

    Despite having an RFC filed against him, User:Aminz has been doing "sneaky reverts" to re-put contentious and NPOV-violating edits back to the page today. I warned and reverted and User:Itaqallah began tag-team reverting with Aminz. RunedChozo 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You are removing huge chunks of material sourced to Patricia Crone, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Encyclopedia of Islam without discussing them on the talk page. This is a strange WP:3RR request(4 diffs are required). From the history page, it seems you are edit warring, not me. --Aminz 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been under RFC for inserting large blocks of NPOV-violating material, and you came in today and just started re-adding it piecemeal to try to fit under peoples' radar. That is sneaky and deceptive editing and I'm reporting you for it. Since each of your edits constitutes a revert of something you've already added, you're about 15 edits past 3RR right now. RunedChozo 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    C'mon guv, at least *try* to file a correctly formatted report... you know, diffs and stuff? William M. Connolley 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation; Aminz made only two (series of) edits during the last 24h before this was filed (and one after that). Successive edits in a row count as one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quadzilla99 (and possibly myself) reported by User:Ned Scott (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Quadzilla99 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Quadzilla99|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quadzilla99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [69] is where he first removes my message, but he responds to another section so it is not the exact same version. This is the most "complete" version reverted to.

    Comments:

    I probably should just step away from this situation, but I admit it has just gotten too much under my skin. Basically Quadzilla99 keeps removing my messages from his talk page during the discussion, without moving the comments to another page. This might be speculation on my part, but it seems he just wants to remove the messages from his talk page because it's negative. During my re-reverts I also responded with new messages (my first restoration was to reply to him on his own page, but I had to restore a second time before I even had time to leave my reply). Personally, I don't think I violated 3RR, but I can understand if an admin feels I should have just walked away instead of responding. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Read the rules. You have to try very hard to get 3RR blocked for your own talk page and Q hasn't. Just back off, Q has seen your message, *you* can be blocked for 3RR on someone else talk page William M. Connolley 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh, I have read the rules. He no more owns his talk page than I own this very page. Telling me that I can get blocked but he can't since it's his talk page is a bunch of bullshit. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Constant replacement of warnings on the talk pages of established users is usually considered harassment under wikipedia policy. --Wildnox(talk) 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me you looked at the message I left on his talk page. This is not one of those warning templates or anything like that. Hell, I've removed such messages from my talk page, I definitely know the difference between such messages. The only thing close to a warning was the last comment I left where I said "And please stop removing my messages from your talk page, it's very rude." I initiated discussion on his talk page, he continues on my talk page but selectively removes the discussion from his talk page. That's not archiving, that's not removing unwarranted warning messages, that's misleading. Why else would I care if he kept it on his talk page or not? -- Ned Scott 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you understand that even though nobody owns their userspace, they are generally given control over it in all but a handful of situations. This is why continual edits to another user's userspace will result in the outside user being blocked and the inside user staying unblocked. I will say that it does look like a strange message to delete, but he isn't ever going to be blocked for a 3RR violation in an incident like this. If this incident should be reported anywhere, is should most likely be reported at WP:AN/I--Wildnox(talk) 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I can see your point on this. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paul_Raj reported by User:BostonMA (Result:24H)

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

    • Warning: Editor has been previously blocked for the same edits on the same page.

    Comments: User appears unwilling to abide by the apparent consensus of editors that listing Ayyavazhi in the list of religions of India gives undue weight to this faith. Diffs show 4 reverts in 24:11. 3RR rule is not license to 3 reverts every 24 hours. Request that reviewing admin not permit gaming of the system. --BostonMA talk 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked by MrDarcy. --BostonMA talk 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vexperiential reported by User:Halaqah (Result:No action taken)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mohammed Al Amoudi‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Black billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vexperiential (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • ignore discussion and revert controversial points.

    --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)~[reply]

    According to wikipedia, the one time we're allowed to violate the 3 revert rule as often as we want is when removing poorly sourced inforation of a controversial nature from articles dealing with living persons. I did the responsible thing.Vexperiential

    Please follow the rules when listing users here. Thanks. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lovelight reported by User:Wildnox (Result:page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: 3RR violation in revert war over template placement. --Wildnox(talk) 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User may have been unaware, I left a message on his talk page, I'll report any further reverts. --Wildnox(talk) 03:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No point in any action now, the page is now protected. --Wildnox(talk) 04:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vweston3554 reported by User:Coelacan (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Victoria Woodhull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vweston3554 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Insistent upon WP:COI violation. May require further monitoring after this. — coelacan talk — 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 09:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vexperiential reported by User:Jerry_lavoie (Result: 24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [79]
    • 1st revert: [80]
    • 2nd revert: [81]
    • 3rd revert: [82]
    • 4th revert: [83]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [84]

    Comments: Reportee is engaged in a 3RR edit war in two or more articles. He has been warned. He is reverting several other editors who are explaining their reasons and attempting to compromise. He just reverts every time.

    Also other users have stated that this user appears as though he may be a sockpuppet of User:Minorcorrections, based on POV, and edit style. This discussion is found on User talk:Vexperiential. Jerry lavoie 05:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I explained above, wikipedia policy demands that poorly sourced statements of a controverisal nature MUST be immediately removed from any article dealing with living persons. According to wikipedia this is the one time we're allowed to violate the 3 revert rule. We can't allow people citing blogs to make controversial statements about living figures and this is clearly spelled out in wikipedia policy and it's our responsibility as wikipedia users to enforce this policy quite aggressively. I'm all for negotiating with other editors and reaching compromise, but not when it requires us to violate the basic rules upon which wikipedia is built.Vexperiential

    24h William M. Connolley 09:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arthur_Rubin reported by User:NuclearUmpf (Result:no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template_talk:911ct (edit | [[Talk:Template_talk:911ct|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arthur_Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Arthur Rubin has been edit warring on numerous pages related to 9/11 including this template, where he stuck directly to 3RR, the talk page of all places where he violated 3RR and 9/11 conspiracy theories where he again constantly reverts. Can something be done about this disruptive behaviour. Arthur seems to embrace reverting instead of participating in the ongoing discussions, including at one point stating he will not accept any middleground ... He seems to be on a revert spree, and of all places it hit this talk page. --NuclearZer0 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit weird. Not sure yet. Anyone else should probably read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults#Zer0faults_placed_on_Probation first William M. Connolley 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what one has to do with the other. Its not ok to violate 3RR unless reverting simple vandalism. This is not the case here and Arthur Rubin vioalted 3RR. Arbcom enforcements are not scarlet letters and cannot be used to break policies. I ask you look at this independantly without letting a previous Arbcom hearing bias your decision. I would also like to point out that I did not violate 3RR. --NuclearZer0 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out that they are not just reverting me but an anon and 2 other users: [85][86][87][88][89][90] --NuclearZer0 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All of Nuclear's edits were complex vandalism changing the meaning of my comments by removing formatting, in addition to attempting to restore Usenet-style quoting to the article. At the very least, it made they impossible to make a coherent reply to User:Lovelight's replies to my comments. No other editor's material other than (possibly) User:Lovelight was reverted. And see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:NuclearUmpf. Those were just a few examples of his edit warring, in addition to format warring here.
    In terms of the reverts on {{911ct}}, the anon is User:Bov, so, over the past 3 days, I've only reverted Nuclear, Bov, and Lovelight. One could make the argument that Nuclear's reverts are void under the Arbcom ruling, but that's still only 6 reverts of 2 versions I consider an attempt to damage articles including the template, over 3 days. (The template has since been reverted again by others.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No Arthur, it is you who are throwing nonsense (and stones) instead of arguments, acting robustly, reverting vigorously without addressing point(s) of discussion. To make things perfectly clear, I'm still puzzled about this user bov, don't think we've been introduced and I know very little about his position. I know user Nuclear and I admire his helpful knowledge of WP's, however if we seem to share the same opinion it is not because we have some sort of joint endeavor (as you are constantly, blatantly and regrettably trying to imply). For some reason, you are acting like we are in the middle of some "group agenda"? Why is that? I'm trying hard not to recognize such circus ever since I've joined here… you folks are making it a real effort. It is extremely hard to act decently, to constantly turn the other cheek, while listening to your insults and watching you enforce your irrationalities (just like Orwell; what you are actually doing is: "Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5") without any attempt to seek consensus. From any decent perspective, you, Morton, Tom, even Aude.., were running amok yesterday, and if there were some order in this chaos you would loose your driving license for a few days, because you're driving is, if nothing else, then reckless. As for those notes bellow, you shouldn’t talk about consensus if we are talking about revert (edit) wars. Consensus should be reached on talk page (which you've completely ignored), but it might be that I'm mistaken on that. Lovelight 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the meaning of your edits? you do realize the admin will look at the difs right? I put Lovelights comments back where she put them and added response in front of them in bold so it would stand out that she was responding to the comment, then fixed the numbering since she broke that when replying to you. How did I change the meaning of your words, far stretch Arthur. I do not know how it could have been impossible to just reply under her replies ... you are familiar with using ":" to indent I hope.
    Also please note Arbcom rulings do not allow you to ignore my edits. Your arguement that my reverts are void and do not count toward your 3RR is quite wrong. You are not allowed to revert people withuot discussion simply because they have been to Arbcom before. I hope you do not take rulings in such a manner. Rulings are not permission to disrespect your fellow editors and ignore them. --NuclearZer0 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also big of you Arthur to admit to reverting against concensus, stating you are reverting 3 people on the same template. --NuclearZer0 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In order:
    You changed the meaning of my edits the second and third time by removing the formatting on my reply set, causing the paragraphs to run together. As I had three paragraphs to reply to the four concerns on the second reply, the rethreaded version then would have made no sense.
    It's arguable whether the Arbcom ruling makes your tendendtious edits "voidable" or "void". If "void", my reverting them is considered reverting vandalism. If "voidable", it only becomes reverting vandalism retroactively if the Arbcom rules.
    And, finally, there is clearly no consensus for either of the two versions of the {{911ct}} template that you reverted to. If I were to count, there were two editors (Bov (and his IP address when he could not log in) and you) for the "Alternative" version, two (Lovelight and you) for the "controlled demolition" version, and 4 (including me) for the "conspiracy theory" version. If there was consensus, it was for the "conspiracy theory" version.
    I should add this false claim of consensus to the request for arbcom enforcement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You arent seriously counting Morton and Tbeatty who appear on the page once every few days just to revert someone and havent added any content to the template are you? It seems you are actually refusing to participate in discussions and edit warring with 3 people then, I am glad you admitted this. --NuclearZer0 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether there is concensus is irrelevant to the 3RR question; the questions with respect to 3RR on the talk page are my claim that two of the four of your edits that I reverted damaged my text, making them complex vandalism; and whether your violation of your probation makes those edits retroactively vandalism. However, I cannot edit the talk page while this 3RR is open; which is probably just as well, because the article is protected and may be deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has past and no action can be taken, you can stop your dramatization of the situation, good bye Arthur but remember I am counting your Reverts and will report you again in the future. I hope you can learn to participate in the community instead of just reverting, its really damaging to the spirit of this project. GG NO RE. --NuclearZer0 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SSS108 reported by User:Andries (Result:no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    The interpretation of the arbcom ruling Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba]] is now treated in a second arbitration case that was triggered by the edit war at Robert Priddy. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Robert_Priddy Both user:Andries and user:SSS108 are parties in this second arbitration case. Andries 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Only this edit [91] is covered by the arbcomm case - the others appear to me to remove rather more than just unreliable sources and so are not covered. But that makes 3R by my count William M. Connolley 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Biophys commended)

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

    Warning has been placed on the talk page. Violator refused to discuss any edits or changes. Matter was decided twice by Wikipedia administrators Alex bakharev and Mikka, violator didn't follow them.Vlad fedorov 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Biophys is commended for reverting edits in violation of our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. Do not introduce poorly-sourced accusations of criminal activity into Wikipedia articles in the future. Jkelly 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. User:Vlad fedorov continue inserting these poorly-sourced accusations in Boris Stomakhin article. I am not sure which action would be appropriate. Biophys 15:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Vlad fedorov continues inserting the poorly-sourced accusations in Boris Stomakhin article and claims that his actions are "approved by Administrators". Biophys 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Vf for 24h for re-inntroducing this material, given JKs determination above William M. Connolley 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Jkelly, being blocked by William Connolley on the grounds of your determination of reverts by Biophys as valid, I would like to have your explanations on how you come to conclusion, being English and French speaker, that reverts by Biophys of Boris Stomakhin article are commended? Please explain why you consider [92] Official Court Sentence on Russian language dated 20.11.2006 as unreliable source ? Also I would like to have your explanations on how you, person which doesn't speak Russian, evaluated the material in the reference? Vlad Fedorov.
    The bottom line is:
    • Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
    • Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
    • one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
    • Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
    • Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
    • Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
    • Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
    • Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
    • The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
    • Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.

    And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations? Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about User:Biophys good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:4.240.183.104 and User:4.240.183.7 (appears to be same user) reported by User:Chris53516 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Correlation does not imply causation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 4.240.183.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 4.240.183.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    No prev-version, so not sure #1 is a revert. And since the anon is across an IP range, semi-protecting may well be easier if required William M. Connolley 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:FireWeed reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:)

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

    This user is insisting on deleting a peer-reviewed reference from the article and insists on labeling the topic pseudoscientific without providing outside sources for his claim. I've tried reasoning with him and I've attempted to address his concerns, but have had little success in getting him to talk things over before reverting. Thanks! Skinwalker 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taco325i reported by User:Harvestdancer (24h)

    Article Kent_Hovind, fourth re-insertion in one day of an NPOV tag. Harvestdancer 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->


    Comments:

    Sorry I screwed up the original notice, but here's what I should have written anyway.

    User:Taco325i reported by User:Harvestdancer (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kent_Hovind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Taco325i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Warned on the talk page of Kent Hovind Talk:Kent_Hovind#NPOV_Dispute_Tag. Harvestdancer 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Six revert after being warned there and notified here.

    24h William M. Connolley 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rarelibra reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: 24h each)

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


    Comments: Four exact reversions of four different (the first and fourth only slightly different) proposals to do without a map which I deprecate as ugly and misleading, and which others have removed and deprecated. Rarelibra's last edit summary is: "you are violating the 3RR rule and purposely and selfishly removing the map)". I find the bolded part (my bold) strange; but it shows Rarelibra has excessive emotional involvement here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you broke the 3RR. Khoikhoi 04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not; I offered three or four alternatives; two of them completely novel. None of them are the version Rarelibra insists on, but that's why the 3RR exists; to compel editors to offer alternatives. If he had, I would not have filed this complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In all of these alternatives, you still removed the map he was adding (one, two, three, four times). There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. Khoikhoi 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both seem to have broken 3RR ovefr this William M. Connolley 12:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arcayne reported by User:Bignole (8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Martian Manhunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Not clear that these are all reverts William M. Connolley 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I forgot to show the second change. There were actually two original versions he was reverting from. His 2nd and 3rd revert were on a diffent paragraph (see "different section), and his 4th revert was with the initial page. Bignole 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has not reverted in awhile, and said user is fairly new. Don't see a need to further punish since activity ended after 4th revert, upon notification that there was a policy against endless reverting. If I can, I withdrawal the report. Bignole 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h first offence William M. Connolley 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ploughman reported by User:strothra (Result:24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mengistu Haile Mariam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ploughman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: I believe that he may have also violated 3RR in other articles such as Cheka and Great Purge. --Strothra 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note:Checkuser was "likely" [112]. Also, I reported him to AIV and was told that's not the place for that. --TheQuandry 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-27T22:10:15 Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ploughman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violations) William M. Connolley 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RonCram reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Attribution of recent climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RonCram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    Content dispute (he is wrong of course :-) spilled over 3R William M. Connolley 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:C.J. Griffin reported by User:Ploughman (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Mengistu. C.J Griffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    {{Ploughman}}

    {{Ploughman}}

    Comment: Please note that User:Ploughman is the only one who has violated the policy here, by deleting sourced material that he claims is "unauthorized" (!) from the Mengistu article about 8 times against a consesnus of various edtiors. I was about to report Ploughman myself, but found this here already. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-27T22:10:15 Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ploughman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violations) William M. Connolley 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Killerman2 reported by User:Bryson109 (Result: 48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on American Revolutionary War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Killerman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Killerman2 has violated the rule before.

    48h William M. Connolley 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Classicjupiter2 reported by User:Jerry_lavoie (Result:48H)

    Three-revert rule violation on Surrealism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Classicjupiter2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments: All-out edit war going unchecked. This user is adding spam, othe user is reverting it. Both are violating WP:3RR. Bother should be indefinately blocked, as they have been warned, and involved in mediation over this, but continue to behave this way despite effors of other editors to mentor them.

    User:TheEvilPanda reported by User:Jerry_lavoie (Result:24H)

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

    User:Jerrypp772000 reported by User:Nationalist (Result: 8 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jiali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: <He keeps adding Taiwan to all articles and deleting Republic of China or ROC to all articles. Now, this is wrong because Taiwan is administered by the Republic of China. Also, it is clear that he is pushing a POV.>

    No, Mr or Ms Administrator, please see the talk page of it for more info.--Jerrypp772000 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is in violation of the 3RRR and has continually done this. He has done it to articles where Republic of China was fine there and no one argued. He is inciting vandalism and disturbances with his crusade. -Nationalist 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually we did argued in Talk:Chien-Ming Wang. And in my own talk page.--Jerrypp772000 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking about specific articles where Taiwan, Republic of China was present. And I did not do that. It was already like that. But you went in to delte Republic of China. Please read this English carefully. You dont seem to understand too well. -Nationalist 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And in Talk:Guantian, Tainan too, there was a 3rd opinion too, Mr or Ms Administrator.--Jerrypp772000 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h. But next time diffs not version please William M. Connolley 12:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shamir1 reported by User:George.Saliba (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: The user reverted a well-referenced section at the top of the article three times, despite ongoing discussions on the Talk page. The portion of text being reverted is well sourced, and thus far the ongoing discussions on the Talk page show two editors against the edit, and one (Shamir1) in favor – far from consensus. I consider the basis for the continued reverts to be Shamir1's original research, as discussed on said Talk page. The user is not new, and, based on their Talk archive, has been warned two to three times about violating the 3RR already in other instances. — George Saliba [talk] 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 3 at best. No block William M. Connolley 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why isn't this called the 4RR? :) The user seems to have stopped, at least for now, so I'm hopeful we can work this issue out through discussion or mediation and avoid a full out edit-war. Thanks for your consideration of the issue in any event. — George Saliba [talk] 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Becase you may revert at most *3* times in 24h - so you need *4* for a breach William M. Connolley 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bbarnett reported by User:BostonMA (Result:24 hr)

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


    Comments: User was blocked by User:William M. Connolley. --BostonMA talk 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:124.168.17.252 reported by User:Smjg (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on TextPad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 124.168.17.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Edit was a change of a seemingly reasonable statement on TextPad to something less accurate and in contradiction with the cited reference; reverts are reinstatements of this edit.

    24h William M. Connolley 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oxyman reported by User:Kesh (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Empire State Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Oxyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User has been copy & pasting the same anti-American comment on several article and user pages that is currently on their userpage. Reverting to POV edits made with no citations, claiming that current versions are "propaganda."

    D oesn't look like 4R to me, but then since you didn't bother to list them, who knows which edits you have in mind? William M. Connolley 12:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:E104421 (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [145]
    • 1st revert: [146] 02:34, 28 January 2007
    • 2nd revert: [147] 04:17, 28 January 2007
    • 3rd revert: [148] 04:27, 28 January 2007
    • 4th revert: [149] 09:06, 28 January 2007
    • 5th revert: [150] 09:06, 28 January 2007 struck by admin: same edit as 4th

    Comment: The user is removing paragraphs of sourced information in favor of his own [151], claiming that his references are more valid, cause the others are translations [152][153] and the total number of reference notes are less than his own [154]. The user had already been warned in the talk/discussion page and edit summaries by different users [155][156][157][158][159]. On the other hand, his contribution's history/summary [160] reveals that he's stalking Barefact's contributions. He was warned on this [161], too. However, he's still reverting the article. E104421 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blueboar reported by User:Eleganter

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

    User:DavidShankBone reported by User:Jersey Devil (Result: 12h)

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


    Comments: The user claims that the 3RR does not apply because he believed the edits to be vandalism but looking at the edits they clearly seem to be a content dispute over an image in the article.--Jersey Devil 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An anonymous User was making edits that were POV, and was called out by other editors. Then tried inserting images, taking down images, and reverting when the issues were under discussion. The User trid to create a gallery over images which were being discussed, and asked to stop several times. Then the anonymous User started to mimic myself and another editor. I don't see how 3RR applies when an anonymous user insists on changing content other editors have specifically asked them to leave alone instead of discussing it and coming to consensus. --DavidShankBone 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a content dispute to me. 12h each William M. Connolley 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jerrypp772000 reported by User:Taiwanlove (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Toucheng, Yilan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). {{3RRV|Jerrypp772000|}:


    Comments: Please look at user jerry's contributions. He has been committed to removing all Republic of China or ROC terms from all Taiwan/Republic of China articles. Now it is a reality and fact that the Republic of China governs Taiwan Province. Please look at these two articles if you are unclear about the situation. Now, Jerry keeps removing these terms without any discussion or consent and accuses others of not discussing when reverting. -Taiwanlove 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The same pattern occurs here in this article: Chuang Chia-jung. Look closely at the history of Jerry's edits. It was originally Republic of China, but he changed it to just Taiwan without any first dicussion and started a huge edit war. -Taiwanlove 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I did discuss first with Nationalist. Mr or Ms Administrator, I think this new editor should read WP:NC (common names).--Jerrypp772000 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again he is trying to make up excuses. Some articles included Republic of China long time ago, but jerry came along and deleted all instances of Republic of China. Also for article: Guantian, Tainan. In the history u can see that he changed Chen Shui-bian from being President of the Republic of China to President of Taiwan. There is definitely political motivation. The fact is that Chen is president of the Republic of China -Taiwanlove 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr or Ms Administrator, the president of ROC is commonly known as president of Taiwan. And there is a third opinion in Talk:Guantian, Tainan, which User:Taiwanlove and User:Nationalist are ignoring.--Jerrypp772000 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop making up excuses. The Republic of China is not equal to Taiwan. It is not commonly known as Taiwan. Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. Please see Taiwan Province and Republic of China. -Taiwanlove 02:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.147.218.231 reported by User:Jersey Devil (Result: 12h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Sexual objectification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.147.218.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: The talk page 3RR warning occured after the edit war but I thought it would only be fair to report this as I had already reported User:DavidShankBone above. Perhaps a strong warning on the user's talk page from an administrator is enough to convince him to stop this activity.--Jersey Devil 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    12h each William M. Connolley 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sean mc sean reported by User:Klptyzm (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Carl "CJ" Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sean mc sean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: His edits have been explained to be irrelevant and a spam link, yet he persists to add the deemed spam link.

    Comment: I changed the diffs to clarify.--Wildnox(talk) 04:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Seek equilibrium reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Gog and Magog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Seek equilibrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: The violator has been given a chance to self-revert but chose to poke fun instead. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not clear why first is a revert William M. Connolley 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beelzebarn reported by Isarig 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)(Result: protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Middle East Media Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Beelzebarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This was not a revert. Isarig was mistaken. Beelzebarn 16:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course this is a revert. In revert #1 you changed the word 'Persian' to Farsi. Then Wiki Raja changed it back to Persian, and in this revert you reverted Wiki Raja's edit back to Farsi. A clear cut reversion if ever there was one. Isarig 03:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A mistaken accusation one time is probably an accident; by the third or fourth time it is repeated after being contradicted, it is a sign of either incompetence or dishonesty. You are either a liar or incompetent, Isarig, unless you can show me where in Wiki Raja's edit[168] 'Farsi' was changed back to 'Persian,' or you can show me another edit to the article, whether by Wiki Raja or anyone else, between my first revert and what you mistakenly called my second revert, where 'Farsi' was changed back to 'Persian.' The latter will be particularly difficult, because Wiki Raja's edit was the only one that was made between my two edits. Once again, I declare that you are either a liar or incompetent, Isarig, and either way your credibility is nonexistent. If you prove that your claim was accurate (an impossibility) or if you apologize to me for your repeated slander, I will withdraw my condemnation of you. Beelzebarn 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    Comments: There is an ongoing editwar on Middle East Media Research Institute in which Isarig is taking part reverting User:Beelzebarn's edit twice. There was an ANI about Isarig's behaviour on 3rd January 2007, but he now seems to have returned to his conforntational behaviour of POV pushing, edit warring and in this case biting a newcomer. Abu ali 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not obvious why #1 is a revert. But anyway this seems to be a multi-side war, so I've protected the page William M. Connolley 21:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not clear?? It restored the paragraph that begins with "A controversy arose over MEMRI's ...", which was added by csloat, and subsequently removed by numerous editors (Elizmr, Armon, and myself). It is a very clear cut case of 3RR. Isarig 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So it was. Well, the page is protected so it doesn't matter William M. Connolley 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E104421 reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (no block)

    • Previous version reverted to: [169]

    Comment: The user reproached me for blanking contents because I disliked it yesterday on article Dingling, he also claimed my sources to be far superior than another reverted, I had explained my reason, but rejected by him and refused to went on for a discussion before making reverts. One revert edit without edit summaries, and I reverted it, thus made it 4th. Eiorgiomugini 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot see a three-revert violation. Those reverts are 31 hours apart and this one is not even a revert [174] - I can only see wikifications and reference format cleanup. For the three-revert rule to be broken the reverts have to constitute the removal/addition of the same info. Plus I don't understand why some of your diffs are showing up differently: This is the one that you cited [175], but this is the true edit [176] - am I missing something? Baristarim 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to be just a revenge report; "rv"s 1 & 4 are the same, anyway. No block William M. Connolley 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bbarnett reported by User:BostonMA (2nd) (Result: 48h)

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


    User has shifted to a new string of reverts

    • Warning: User has just gotten off of 24H block for 6 reverts made previously [177]


    Comments:

    • Suggest longer block to get the message through
    On his fourth revert I explained to this individual that it would be a good idea to self-revert to avoid facing a 3RR block but the response I recieved was less than harmonious with how Wikipedia works. This individual continues to revert across multiple editors. (→Netscott) 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbarnett has been blocked for 48 hours for his second 3RR violation in two days. Also, Aatif.haider (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. The page has also now been fully protected. Nishkid64 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good move.Proabivouac 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Aatif.haider reported by User:Proabivouac (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aatif.haider (talk · contribs):

    Comments: Ongoing multi-party edit-war on Muhammad; see report immediately above.Proabivouac 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aatif.haider (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for his 3RR violations on Muhammad. Bbarnett has also been blocked for 48 hours for his second 3RR violation in as many days. The page has now been fully protected due to edit warring between multiple users. Nishkid64 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nationalist/User:Taiwanlove reported by User:Vic226 (Result:72 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Chuang Chia-jung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Considering he has three block logs, two related to 3RR violation [179] (but the second was mainly because of profanity [180]), he knows the rules, but has attempted to evade from suspicion of violating 3RR rule by using sockpuppet User:Taiwanlove to substitute his 3rd revert and make his 4th revert appeared to be only his 3rd revert within 24 hours.

    This is a rather serious case: after two blocks due to his aggression on his political point of view on Taiwan- and ROC-related edits, he has not yet attempted to look at these situations in a different angle and stayed stubborn on his sole opinion. With the exploitation of sockpuppet, it shows that he is starting to be willing to do anything to protect his edits, instead of looking for any peaceful solution. Vic226(chat) 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:New identity reported by User:Vintagekits (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Thomas Begley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). New identity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Aggresive editor who has also been reported for racial and sectarian abuse. Broke the 3RR here despite a number of editors on talk pages asking him not to revert material. Basicially there is a mediation cabal going on over the term Volunteer (Irish republican) and this editor keeps changing it for member - despite being told that it was breaking with the mediation.--Vintagekits 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No 3 reverts in any 24 hour period. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Asian2duracell reported by User:Halaqah

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

    This user constanly removes one coments from nirmala rajasingam because of there POV, despite agreement by the other editors. The user has been know for 3rr in the past and has not made any attempts to stop. see user page for warnings.

    You need *4* reverts William M. Connolley 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gailjones reported by User:Tony Fox (Result:24H for Vandalism)

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

    Comments: User has repeatedly copy-and-pasted a bio copied from an external website over the existing article, and has not responded to talk page warnings from three different editors over either the copyvio or the 3RR. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gailjones continues to both revert and remove content from article.
    Edits to this article are user's only contributions. -- Satori Son 07:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dahn reported by User:Dpotop (Result: 8h)

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

    List of successive reverts:

    User:Dahn is an experienced user, so a 3RR warning is not necessary.

    Comments: User:Dahn is an excellent lone editor, but he has a tendency to completely ignoring other editors' material. Instead of taking a constructive editing approach he reverts other users' contributions.

    8h William M. Connolley 09:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear. Failed to notice that the page is protected. Will unblock William M. Connolley 10:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Asian2duracell reported by User:Wiki Raja (24h)

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

    List of successive reverts:

    • history of reverts: [185]

    This user has been blocked for a violation the 3RR in the past on the Tamil people. However, he has failed to comply to the previous block and has further violated the 3RR by reverting a total of four times within a 24 hour period as listed above. I respectfully request for corrective action to be done. Thank you. Wiki Raja 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What was there about We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to that you found hard to understand? William M. Connolley 19:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, please bare with me since I am new at doing this. As far as I know, I have posted four reverts from user Asian2duracell. However, I am a bit confused about the Previous version reverted to part. Can you please explain what I must do. Kind regards. Wiki Raja 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What was there about WP:CIVIL that you found hard to understand? --Descendall 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually reporting a 3RR violation from a user and not on civility. Sorry for the mix up. Regards. Wiki Raja 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was not directed at you. --Descendall 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)== Civility on 3RR ==[reply]
    I was a bit confused with William M. Connolley's statement and wondered if I had done anything wrong. Regards. Wiki Raja 01:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    OK, let's try this again:

    -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Much better, thank you. 24h William M. Connolley 11:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shao reported by Kuban Cossack (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ukrainian postal codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: New user, seems to be preoccupied with different namings, in violation of WP:NC(UE), Warned on 27th of January. Just a note to the article above he made a total of 13 reverts to it, despite numerous pleas to end edit warring... --Kuban Cossack 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Messhermit reported by User:Descendall (Result:Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User is not new. User is on probation for similiar activity on similar articles (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit).

    User:Pejman47 reported by User:Atabek (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pejman47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User Pejman47 keeps reverting this page despite attempts from several users to keep the valid references. Please, revert to the prior version by The Behnam. Thanks. Atabek 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The rule is MORE THAN 3 reverts. No block. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.27.64.149 reported by User:Isarig (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Goy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.27.64.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    User:Jayjg reported by User:MEreport (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on If Americans Knew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: I'd like to see if the 3RR rule applies equally to all break it in pushing for their point of view. MEreport 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't look like #3 is a revert at all. Isarig 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd concur. I only count 3 reverts. No block. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yobikol reported by User:Thewinchester (Result:)

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

    - * No 3RR warning was issued, but was issued with a Uw-delete2 on on 07:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC), and was further warned about WP policies inc WP:VANDAL and WP:CIV by Flyguy649 at 16:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User persisted in removing factually substanciated content from a crediable source within the article in question despite being readded, warned, and correctly dealt with by other WP editors. thewinchester 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crumbsucker reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 8 hours)

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

    Comments: Blocked for eight hours. Clear cut, four clear blatant reverts, was warned before he/she made the fourth. Daniel.Bryant 08:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HongQiGong reported by User:Crumbsucker (Result: No block)

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

    Crumbsucker 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Um... The first one is not a revert. I was copy editing. And you've listed one of my reverts twice. I've only reverted three times total. [197][198][199] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The effect (read WP:3RR) of the first edit was a revert, so it is 4. Crumbsucker 06:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not undo your edits in my first edit, so how is it a revert? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you did. It was changed from [[United States|American]] to [[Asian American]]. That is a revert. You also changed my model/child model edit four times. Crumbsucker 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I did not notice that you had changed the "child model" link. I apologise for that, it was unintentional. But you had not changed the "American" link in your first edit, I was not undoing a change to that link. That was a fresh edit on my part. My first edit was not a revert, and that's clear to see in the diff. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial change was not a "revert"; note the absense of the "reverted-to version" in this request (which revert 1 forms). No block. I encourage all to talk about this rather than edit warring, though. Daniel.Bryant 08:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shuppiluliuma reported by User:Calgacus ('Result: 24 hours)

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

    Comments: Warned user not to revert[200], only to get a nasty reply. Also attempted a compromise, but no luck. He proceeded to violate 3RR. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Benjiwolf reported by User:Xiner (Result:)

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

    Comments: The only comments the user has made on this dispute is on the article's talk page, where he inserts hard-to-understand essays that seem to imply he's making WP:POINT.

    The 4 diffs you gave are over a span of more than 48h, and the'yre not all reversions of the same content. Am I missing some information? yandman 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that a user should be able to keep inserting an unsourced and OR passage (about polar bears being on the path to a sea mammal) again and again without any attempts at validating it. It is over 48 hrs but if you read the talk pages, you can tell that he is not going to stop. So while this isn't technically a 3RR violation, it is in spirit, IMO. Xiner (talk, email) 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned him, but in future take things like this to WP:ANI: This board is for "textbook" cases of 3RR violation. yandman 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for your help. Xiner (talk, email) 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ed g2s reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of Heroes episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ed g2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Multiple reverts removing images, the editor insists his edits are based on policy but consensus disagrees with his interpretation of it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed originally violated 3RR this morning (Starting from here, I asked him to stop on the talk page, he however did not seem interested (but did reply). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put a warning on his talk page (done independently of this notice). Cburnett 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NuclearUmpf reported by User:Alecmconroy (Result: Page ban)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [202]


    Comments: NuclearUmpf has been placed on probation by Arbcom for tendentious editing on articles related to the War on Terrorism. Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults Since that time, he has received multiple blocks for similar behavior. [203] [204]. He's been agressively reverting this same text: [205] [206] [207][208][209][210] --Alecmconroy 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Last one isnt even a revert, Its an edit to another users edit [211] Publicus added the longer phrase which is POV, and since Alecmconroy stated no the talk page that he opposed including WoT, I shortened the phrase to remove the PoV portion and leave campaign as text instead of WoT. This is getting old Alec, try using the talk page instead of attempting to bully your way. PS the block log of the old name are all blocks from before Arbcom since after Arbcom I made the new name, another failing move from Alec. --NuclearZer0 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a revert-- even if it's not letter for letter identical to your earlier reverts, it's still reverting. You've been gaming the system-- going up to the edge of 3RR without going over, for a while anyway. Combined with your arbcom on just this very issue, it's pretty easy to see you're engaged in disruptive reverting --Alecmconroy 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A revert is reverting to something, Its not even reverting to the style of the previous edits, if you are gonig to cry 3RR then at least follow the rules. Publicus made an edit, I edited that edit to be less PoV, and still in line with what Timeshifter and you were complaining about, WTA issue. Your attempts to stretch 3 edits over 2 days together is only highlited by your attempt to fit in a 4th even though its not a revert. What do you think a 3RR will do anyway? Even your RfC is showing concensus for the edit, after a while telling the 20+ people who want the edit that reverting is bad, then donig it yourself, isnt gonig to work. Stop attempting to bully people and discuss the issue, and stating you will not allow anything in the "partof" box regardless of what it says, is not in the spirit of discussing. --NuclearZer0 19:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert 4 is a partial revert of Publicus's edit. I didn't check the other 3, as I may not block, due to previous attacks disputes with the editor. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a partial revert of Publicus, cause it kept his formatting, at least you admitted our prior disputes, that is big of you. --NuclearZer0 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well this has been well over 24 hours and would now be a punitive block not a preventative one. Like my previous report against Arthur. --NuclearZer0 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm skeptical that we won't have any further trouble from you. If you haven't stopped edit warring after an arbcom case and multiple blocks, I doubt that you're going to just stop after getting a 3RR warning. --Alecmconroy 13:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've banned NuclearUmpf from editing the article (not talk page) for 3 months. This is nothing new; he knows he's on probation for edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 10:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Corticopia reported by User:Stellar_Void (Result:prot)

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

    Additional editors:

    Comments: This is not the first time he violates 3RR. He ask other users not to delete sourced information but he does the same just to keep the version he agrees with. He was already blocked for an edit war over the same article last week. Stellar Void 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Corticopia has violated 3RR again, today. Please check article Mexico. Stellar Void 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And so has Supaman89 (with whom AlexCovarrubias is conspiring), yet notice the bias of the report. Given the disruption of this editor and his admitted sockpuppet, administrative sanctions should be levied on both accounts, particularly the puppetmaster. Corticopia 15:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an incorrect assessment: this topic is being discussed ad nauseum. You might as well place blocks on User:Supaman89 and User:AlexCovarrubias, and other editors involved with this article too (consult article history). Moreover, this is a very specious request/notice: the reporting user -- who, after one edit only, added this notice and knew how to -- is very likely a sockpuppet of the instigating editor in the discussion (above; who conveniently did not report similar edit warring in the same interval [212] [213] [214] [215]), who has removed cited information in other articles while claiming to have "checked" it [216] [217], and who was also blocked for edit warring previously. Please advise on investigative measures. Corticopia 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In spite of being discussed ad nauseum, and in spite of the possibility of Stellar Void being a sock puppet, there have been repeated 3RR violations by all three users. The fact that it is being discussed ad nauseum does not justify breaking the 3RR. --the Dúnadan 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I deny nothing and will accept whatever I'm due: I am merely pointing out that this issue is more complex than presented by the reporter and ask that everything be considered before sanctions are administered. Corticopia 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I just want to point out that creating other accounts to protect your identity is not considered sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is very well defined, please read WP:Sock. And as Corticopia said, my one and only "contribution" has been this report. My main account is being heavily watched by user Corticopia, so I feel harassed and that's the main reason why I created this account. Stellar Void 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is editing under one alias and edit-warring, and uses another to selectively and simultaneously report my behaviour? I believe this is an admission: also note the hypocrisy and disingenuous nature of the report, which does not include a 'self-report' of edit warring. Anyhow, quantify 'harassment': all pages I have edited are on my watchlist, as are the pages of many users I interact with. I would like nothing more than to avoid this user, but it is after all a publicly accessible website where users must interact with limited expectations of privacy. Corticopia 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-02-02T22:43:53 Cbrown1023 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Mexico: edit warring (RFPP request) [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deeceevoice reported by User:CoYep (Result:)

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

    • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Wikipedia policies and who was blocked already several times for 3RR violations.

    Comments:

    DCV engages since months in edit wars, factual incorrect edits and general disruptive editing such as the repeated removal of the medical "Classifications and external resources" template and the "in need of attention from an expert" templates (see talk for details [218] [219]). She insists that a clinical approach of the dental term "Prognathism" is inappropriate despite an opposing consensus from other involved editors, among them a Ph.D. Anthropologist and several members of the Dentistry WikiProject. DCV accused editors who agreed on the clinical approach of the dental term of "Blatant Eurocentrist bias". DCV is already on probation for personal attacks, edit warring, racially-related incivility and frequent OR and POV edits. [220].

    User:Atabek reported by User:Nareklm (Result:protected page)

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

    Nareklm 03:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I warned this user repeatedly about 3RR, but he kept arguing that he was somehow entitled to more reverts because he was taking part in the talk page discussion and kept reverting the article. --Mardavich 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There are several people engaged in constant reverts in related pages, and I warned one such user, Mardavich, of his potential 3RR violation on the Nezami page. It seems like some just like to revert pages, and with them all the fully-sources facts. This could fall under the definition of vandalism, and requires rv. by responsible editors who actively use the Talk page and supply scholarly facts and references, as opposed to provocations and fights. --AdilBaguirov 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There's no reason to bring this here, leave it there, it does not fall in the category of vandalism, anyone can "revert" edits vandalism is different. Nareklm 07:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Edits were made to each revision upon RV, review the site and the talk page. The dispute is currently being resolved in Talk:Safavid_Dynasty page, after the page is blocked. Thanks, but this seems more like attempt to block the voice rather than attempt to report 3RR. Mardavich and Nareklm are involved in RVing my edits, and removing scholarly references. Thanks. Atabek 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Like i said don't bring this here if you ever want to negotiate. Nareklm 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I don't feel I need to negotiate anything with you. There is a talk page for that. The fact is Mardavich and yourself are engaged in edit warring without any discussion, and then putting users into 3RR warnings. This should be noted by admins. Thanks. Atabek 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Edit warring? you Grandmaster, adil, all have been edit warring all the time, and have been adding POV erasing any existence of Armenian nearby just because you have references doesn't make your work magic. Nareklm 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Exactly, because you edit and witch hunt after every single one of our references, keep RVing. So this needs to stop. Also all links that you put up there as "evidence" diffs clearly show edits in REF of a various texts. No interest to discuss the topic here, prefer to leave the judgement to admins. Thanks. Atabek 07:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There all reversions end of story. Nareklm 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Nareklm, you and the other user mentioned here have been reverting pages that were: 1) not only updated with fully-sourced reputable and verifiable scholarly quotes, but 2) have been wikified and otherwise improved (e.g., fixing spelling mistakes, fixing dates from 2006 to 2007, etc) and 3) have been discussed and compromised upon months ago (last summer, in fact) and 4) in case of the population table in NK page re-affirmed and agreed to by such admins as Golbez. Sorry, but this does look like vandalism or at least recklessness. One cannot blame others for restoring normal scholarly presentation of articles. --AdilBaguirov 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This user (Atabek) also has had a confirmed sock which has now been blocked and continually makes personal attacks.Azerbaijani 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-31T19:59:11 Gnangarra (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Safavid dynasty: edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 10:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.170.207.96 reported by User:Rosenkreuz (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Level of support for evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (talk page). 213.170.207.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: Repeatedly placing this irrelevant POV rant on the talk page, despite having it explained to them why it is not welcome there.
    • 1st revert: [229]
    • 2nd revert: [230]
    • 3rd revert: [231]
    • 4th revert: [232]
    • 5th revert: [233]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [234]; to which they responded with this


    Comments: They've been indulging in a goodly stream of vulgarity on their talk page as well.

    24h William M. Connolley 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:No problem 1254 reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rafida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). No problem 1254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Latest tentacle of "Iraqi dinar" vandal (see Talk:Rafida), also vandalized my user page. AnonMoos 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • He violated 4RR, he's a sockpuppet of a known vandal, and he's made yet another revert on the article since what I reported above, so why isn't he being banned?? AnonMoos 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timeshift9 reported by User:Joestella (Result: peace agreed)

    Three-revert rule violation on New South Wales legislative election, 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User, having sought 3O and disagreed, now believes that they "will ensure the MPL table stays". Joestella 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would advise no action on this complaint at this time, other than a sternly-worded warning to both parties – who, for record's sake, have both behaved poorly. The edit war has ceased and the parties are currently engaged in discussion on multiple pages.--cj | talk 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Joestella 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice to see peace William M. Connolley 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ALR reported by 204.122.16.13 (Result: 3h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Obligations in Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ALR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    I suppose it's open to interpretation, I've been making quite a lot of intermediate changes to the article so I might have lost track.ALR 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments:

    3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lovelight reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:)

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

    Warned above at: #Lovelight_reported_by_User:Wildnox_.28Result:page_protected.29] on 26 January 2007

    Comments:

    User:Aardman Animations reported by User:Static Universe (Result:blocked indefinitely)

    Three-revert rule violation on Universal Cartoon Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aardman Animations (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User keeps removing the Afd message despite warnings, along with previous removal of merge proposals on the same page. Static Universe talk|edits 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely for usernamevio. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Migye reported by User:Kjoonlee (Result:)

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

    Comments: Refuses to acknowledge other people's opinions, does not assume good faith, makes personal attacks

    Comments: User:Kjoonlee, you wrote these sentences in the Korean Language articel introdcution yourself, then you deleted it 3 times. I only restored your deletion twice and have never attacked you in any way. You're so ridiculous. Migye 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Diffs:
    As for attacks, you're doing it again! --Kjoonlee 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've only deleted that bit twice. --Kjoonlee 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should say I restored your deletion 3 times. "Ridiculous" is not an offensive word, not to mention personal attack. Migye 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Factually false. If you want to discuss this further, please use my talk page. --Kjoonlee 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be honest, I have reverted content more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you block Migye, block me too, please. --Kjoonlee 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Boris Stomakhin

    I do not really want to report anyone, but someone may take a look at Boris Stomakhin article and make a judgment. One of the RR warring participants (me) struggle to enforce LP policy, while another, User:Vlad fedorov, claims that LP policy has not been violated. This case was reported by me to LP notice board and it was also reported previously here by User:Vlad fedorov, and I was commended. Biophys 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC) See: Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policyBiophys 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I just would like to note that User:Vlad fedorov evaded your block previously. Biophys 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The bottom line is:

    • Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
    • Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
    • one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
    • Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
    • Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
    • Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
    • Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
    • Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
    • The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
    • Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.

    And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations? Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I never used it. Biophys 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about User:Biophys good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to notice that Biophys now deletes texts which were not disputed by him and which are taken from the most respectable and prominent Russian newspapers having their articles in English Wikipedia. Namely, articles from Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda and Rossiyskaya Gazeta.Vlad fedorov 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Biophys systematically discriminates me. He deletes my supported texts claimg that he is 'fixing sources' and claiming that he is doing neutral version.Vlad fedorov 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I also would like to notice that administrator Alex Bakharev has found no violations in my edits. See here his explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Block_of_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28discussion_.2Aclosed.2A.29 Vlad fedorov 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: the article has been protected; I hope this will let this little edit/flame war die down without administrative intervention and turn into something productive. —xyzzyn 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have protected version of Biophys. And it is discrimination of me. Biophys was deleteing and reverting versions done not only by me, but by administrators Mikkalai, Alex Bakharev. So it just simply protection of Biophys version. I oppose that kind of thing. I would like to ask Alex Bakharev or Mikkalai to revert the article back to their version.Vlad fedorov 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dahn reported by User:Icar (Result:No action)

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

    Comments: The first 5 reverts took place in less than 24 hours; same for reverts 4 to 7. User Dahn disrupts every attempt of other editors to modify the article. He was banned 2 days ago [235] for misbehaving about another article. There is growing sense of discontent among editors of this article at Dahn's attitude. Typically he reverts everything, saying simply that it was "vandalism", which is false. The other editors try to edit this article in good faith. Dahn does not, so he should be banned. Thanks (83.137.240.214 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    This is part of a bad, long standing edit war. Monitoring it for now. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anonimu reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:User warned)

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

    Comments: This repeat 3RR offender has committed 5 reverts in 28 hours and is being incivil. He was warned on his page for 3RR violation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, it is just beyond 24 hours. However, I will warn the user. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.121.144.14 (also known as User:Dharmaburning) reported by User:SagePose (Result:page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on The Freecycle Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.121.144.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    [241]

    Comments: User has repeatedly blanked out large sections of an article. Other editors have reverted changes back to the last stable version, with a request to discuss this first before progressing. User repeatedly reverts this back to his newly shortened article, insisting that discussion starts from this new base rather than the original article.

    Since original post, user has adoped a wiki name User:Dharmaburning, continued to make mass blankings without discussion, and further posted a 3RR block warning to my page without justification.

    Further reverts on 3rd February:

    1st reversion: [242] 2nd reversion: [243] 3rd reversion: [244]

    I protected the page. Really hot edit war going on. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These reversions are made for content defending of User:SagePose's insistence that all edits to said page, including grammatical, typographical and formatting, be discussed and approved by him before execution. A 3RR complaint has be filed. Dharmaburning 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is simply not true. There have been no arguments over grammar, typos or formatting, Dharmaburning has been unable to display any such reversions, and the charge seems an entirely unwarranted allegation. The sole arguments have been over Dharmaburning's mass blanking of long-standing content. At least two other editors have been involved in repeatedly undoing the damage and requesting that big and controversial changes are discussed. SagePose 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nkras reported by User:Coelacan (Result: User warned)

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

    Comments: Not every revert is exactly the same, but the intended effect is to remove any mention of same-sex marriage from the article, especially the lead. User has been warned of 3RR before, as above diff shows. This is an established user who was blocked before over behavior in this dispute. This diff may also be of interest: "let's just team up our quota of reverts".[245] — coelacan talk — 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry but the reverts are simply to different from each other to justify a block on the basis of 3rr. I will however warn the user on his talk page against edit warring. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rbj reported by User:Coelacan (Result: 48hrs)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: block log -- Rbj has been blocked for 3RR multiple times before, including specifically on Marriage

    Comments: Also an established user who has been blocked for behavior on articles related to this particular subject. Not all reverts are precisely the same, but in contrast to Nkras, above, Rbj's preference is to revert to an OED dictionary definition of: "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of a man and woman as husband and wife." The interesting diff provided above, "let's just team up our quota of reverts",[246] was said by Rbj to Nkras. — coelacan talk — 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    48hrs as habitual 3rr breaker and per the fact that user committed 8 reverts.--Jersey Devil 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pernambuco reported by User:MariusM (Result: warning)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user

    Comments: Pernambuco is trying to keep the so-called "compromise version of Vecrumba" for the introduction of the article, despite the fact that such compromise version didn't exist. There were 2 users that had a disscussion regarding the introduction, however the rest of the editors of that article didn't accept the result of their disscussion, mainly the presence of word "officially" regarding the name Pridnestrovie for Transnistria. We had a poll on this subject on the talk page [247] and the result of the poll was to remove the word officially, but Pernambuco don't want to accept this result. Even Vecrumba, whos name is used by Pernambuco to justify his reverts told in the poll that is preferable to remove the word "official".--MariusM 10:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure why this is a revert William M. Connolley 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is a revert of this edit of Bufadreen. I was not the only one reverted.--MariusM 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having taken advice, P gets a warning. Others may feel free to review William M. Connolley 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SagePose) reported by User:Dharmaburning (Result:page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on The Freecycle Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SagePose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: []
    • 1st revert: [248] 25-Jan
    • 2nd revert: [249] 31-Jan
    • 3rd revert: [250] 1-Feb
    • 4th revert: [251] 2-Feb
    • 5th revert: [252] 3-Feb (00:10am)
    • 6th revert: [253] 3-Feb
    • 7th revert: [254] 3-Feb

    Comments: User has repeatedly summarily reverted the entire article and all changes. Other editors have reverted changes back with a pleading to rationally discuss edits. User refuses to discuss merits of content, personally attacks other editors and demands that everyone submit to his terms or he will continue to summarily revert edits, insisting that even things such as grammar and typos must be first discussed and is prone to other harassing behavior such as filing a 3RR complaint for editors having to reverse his summary reversions, which the User characterizes it as vandalism - another complaint filed, where will it end? This has also been filed with Member Advocates.

    Response Above report is disingenuous. User Dharmaburning, under that and IP address, has made mass blankings. Other editors have reverted back to last stable edit. Dharmaburning insists on reinstating his contrversial edits, characterizing these as reverts. The statement on grammar disputes is misleading, as is evident from the page history and discussion page. The 3RR was filed after multiple reversions on the same day. This is one person with a strong PoV acting against all the other editors.SagePose 13:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Katrasay reported by User:Colin Keigher (Result:24h)

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

    Comments:

    24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Goethean reported by User:75.44.39.2 (Result: No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This is not a 3rr violation. You were told on that page that if you disagreed with the article existing to take it up for articles for deletion. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by these actions you will be blocked. No action.--Jersey Devil 21:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wondering if why I'm disruptive, when the other party can do what he wants and to disagrees is to be disruptive??? why so one sided??? Are policies enforced unequally. But asking such questions is "Disruptive". Now I will be banned for asking a "disruptive" question as to why this guy can be a bully and a known edit thug and no action is taken?.75.44.39.2 23:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nationalist/User:Taiwanlove reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Toucheng, Yilan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: It has been confirmed that Taiwanlove (talk · contribs) is Nationalist (talk · contribs)'s sock puppet, so it is clear that He/She used Taiwanlove to evade violating the 3RR. He/She also reported me for violating 3RR on this article before I knew that Taiwanlove was his sock puppet.--Jerrypp772000 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BuyAMountain reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on ECW One Night Stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BuyAMountain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Not much to add, but BAM has been told that what he keeps adding is not-notable to a results page and is the kind of detail that belongs on a wrestling news site (or a wrestling wiki). TJ Spyke 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nobleeagle reported by MinaretDk (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Persecution of Hindus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nobleeagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    MinaretDk was vandalizing the page and nobleeagle was adding sourced content. The 3RR board is not a soapbox for religious fundamentalists to try and get rid of good standing users.Bakaman 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 3RR violation - 3rd revert is not a "revert." Rama's arrow 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made it clear before my understanding that you abuse your admin powers to silence people who oppose your POV. According to WP:3RR, a revert includes reversions in full or in part. There are many more reverts listed on the page by him, which an unbiased admin would be welcome to check. MinaretDk 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===

[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

'''Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=105480067"