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 Alice Mudgarden (talk | contribs) at 10:44, 23 April 2007 (rv known troll/vandal, Emir Arven, who currently has an RFC against him for repeated violations, including racism.). 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:68.126.3.32 reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: 24 hours)

    Six-Day War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.126.3.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    User:Perfectblue97 reported by User:Minderbinder (Result:)

    Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Perfectblue97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • 1st revert: 12:19, 19 April 2007 partial revert - addition of "anomolous", removal of "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" and "purported", addition of line about ITC
    • 2nd revert: 13:28, 19 April 2007 exact revert to 1st revert, marked as revert
    • 3rd revert: 14:07, 19 April 2007 exact revert to 13:34, 19 April 2007 labled as revert
    • 4th revert: 15:01, 19 April 2007 partial revert to third version above, some new text but as in all other reverts, addition of "anomolous", removal of "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" and "purported"

    Comments:

    • Two exact reverts, two partial reverts with slight variations in wording but the same key words and phrases added and removed each time. It could be argued that these two are edits and not reverts, but they make no real change and just make slight inconsequential wording changes to the reverted material. --Minderbinder 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Background:What Minderbinder has failed to mention is that at the time I was involved in an ongoing talk page discussion over a disputed section of the page at the time . Minderbinder was one party in that discussion, and so were two other users. I did not break the 3RR. I placed a proposed version of a new page intro on the talk page here and received feedback. I then listened to other users concerns and modified the page in an effort to reach a consensus as per standard wiki-procedure.

    Here I refactored the introduction. Here it was reverted by another users. Here I carried out my first revert. here I edited the introduction to try an address concerns from another user. Here my edit was rejected by another user. here I carried out a second and final revert and requested that the user involeved in reverting explain which part of my edit they had a problem with and why (they blanket reverted all changes that I made even bits that I considered to be non-contentious, so I had no way of knowing exactly what they were referring to). here I carried out an unrelated edit of something that I believed was caught up in the crossfire (deleted earlier on, not part of this dispute). the complaining user refactored my original edit based on the ongoing talk page discussion. here my edit was not acceptable to all parties so again edited in an effort to reach a consensus.

    In brief al my edits were legitimate and half were in direct response to concerns expressed by other users (of which the complainant is one):

    • 12:19, 19 April 2007 This was not a revert. It was a legitimate edit and a refactoring based on talk page discussion. Please observe the [1] between it and my previous version. Times and subsequent edits also mean that this is not a revert, but rather a standalone edit.
    • 14:07, 19 April 2007 - Revert, labeled as a revert. 1st revert
    • 14:07, 19 April 2007 - Revert, labeled as such
    • 15:01, 19 April 2007 - not a revert by any stretch of the imagination. Changed plurals to singulars (they are - it is). Exchanged short paragraph about one side in an dispute ("said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin") for a much large paragraph ("Believers in the supernatural often assign a paranormal origin to them, while those who do not believe in it either assign more scientific explanations to them, describing them as the result of a known process, or dismiss their existence of EVP as a whole, proposing that it is not a documentable phenomena.") mentioning both sides in the dispute. Replaced descriptive sentence ("Examples of purported EVP") with suspected weasel word, for a neutral pronoun ("they"). This is a classic refactoring. Certainly not a revert.

    It should also be made clear that was recently a party in an RFC who spoke in opposition to Minderbinder's standpoint, and I am also a part in a dispute that has been referred to ARBcom on which I am also on the other side to Minderbinder. It therefore my opinion that this 3RR call is in bad faith. I request that it be dismissed.

    perfectblue 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is very obvious that these edits are reverts per the evidence that User:Minderbinder put forth. User:Perfectblue97 seems to be arguing that he should be allowed to revert simply because he was also discussing on the talkpage. As we all know (and this user should be aware since he is not a newcomer) breaking 3RR never has an excuse. --ScienceApologist 10:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it is obvious that I was involved in an attempt to find an acceptable middle ground. I have clearly demonstrated that I ASKED for feedback and that I responded to it. Somebody wasn't happy about my wording so I changed it in response. This isn't reverting, it's trying to find an acceptable solution to a problem. For example here. This obviously can't be considered to be a revert

    I refactored "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" to read "Believers in the supernatural often assign a paranormal origin to them". Which is not a revert by any stretch of the imagination. I then added "while those who do not believe in it either assign more scientific explanations to them, describing them as the result of a known process, or dismiss their existence of EVP as a whole, proposing that it is not a documentable phenomena.", which is a unique passage that wasn't present in my previous version, or any other previous version for quite some time.

    The rest of the edit is simply singular V plural and pronoun changing one phrase into a plural third person pronoun.

    The fact that I actually precipitated this event by asking people what they want to change, then trying to accommodate them proves beyond any doubt that I did not break 3RR. I tried to create an acceptable intro via discussion, and this is what I get in return?

    perfectblue 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You asked people what they objected to, other editors made it clear on the talk page, and yet you kept reverting in the very text people objected to. I don't see how you could possibly call that "attempting to find middle ground", it just looks like minor variations on a wording that only you prefer in order to try and avoid 3RR. And I don't see how pending arbcom cases are an exemption from 3RR enforcement - this certainly isn't a bad-faith report. I honestly believe it is four reverts since the same text mentioned above was removed/added four times. --Minderbinder 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted twice and I clearly stated that I reverted in those cases. The other times were genuine edits. If you check back at the talk page conversation, you will find that the attribution of claims was the primary sticking point, and was the area that that was the focus of my two edits. People didn't like what I wrote, so I tried to find a more acceptable solution. This is how things are supposed to be done, by discussion. If every discussed something and edited 3+ times as a result of said discussion was pulled up, there would be a lot less discussion.

    I also find it less than a coincidence that this follows on from the RFC and is at the same time as the ARBcom come.

    perfectblue 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Arjuna808 reported by User:JereKrischel (Result: 24 hours)

    History of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arjuna808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Arjuna808 wrote, Your position is just wrong JK. I'm sorry, but let's take it to the Wiki people if you want. Until then, I will just keep reverting your edits. [2]. I've tried to engage in a dialog, but we seem to be having a disagreement about what he asserts as absolute fact, and I assert as historical interpretation. --JereKrischel 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chardish reported by User:MoRsE (Result:3RR violated, but no block)

    Satellite images censored by Google Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chardish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comment: I am removing libelous information from the page. It is my understanding that unsourced defamatory information constitutes libel. The content on the page in question is accusing Google Maps of censorship without providing sources. Removing libelous material is an exception to the 3RR. If I am mistakenly applying Wikipedia policy, let me know. - Chardish 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another comment: An alternate name for the page is under discussion on the talk page. It is quickly achieving consensus, and, if we decide to make the change, that would resolve the dispute about libel, as the new title would be NPOV. - Chardish 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another comment: The page has since been renamed and I have self-reverted my removing of libelous material, as the material on the page is no longer libelous. I feel this matter has been resolved by all parties. - Chardish 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: While I'm not impartial in this matter I do want to see a decision reached. I still believe that we should have been able to have had an unsourced tag on the top of the page and let people find sources before deleting what is essentially the entire article saying it was 'libelous'. I'd like to know if i was correct in my reading of the 3RR in this matter. MrMacMan Talk 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah -- hold everything isn't this the administrator's noticeboard? Aren't admins supposed to comment and close notices? Unless I'm mistaken -- I don't think Amarkov is an admin. (at least I can't tell on his userpage) Maybe I'm wrong in reading policy here, but i thought that admins read over notices and decided... I'm looking through the closed discussions and it looks like they are all done by admins. Your reading in closing was that you were WP:BB -- is that something you can use on an adminnotice board? Anyone care to comment? MrMacMan Talk 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is an "administrators' noticeboard"; anyone, however, may edit, as Wikipedia is a wiki. Further, "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions" per WP:ADMIN. Whether Amarkov is an administrator or not is irrelevant, and he or she may certainly tidy up discussions and will be subject to the same scrutiny of the other editors whether or not he or she is an administrator. --Iamunknown 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The original research material in the article isn't biographical material, so I don't think there is an urgent need to delete it, especially since it was kept after an AfD. I added a reference column to one of the lists on the article[3]. The other lists need a similar reference column. If the references are not supplied after a reasonable time, it might be acceptable to remove the unreferenced material after discussion. As for the term "censor", it does not always have a negative connotation. However, if you object to the use of "censor" in the article, please discuss it on the article talk page and work towards a consensus on its use in the article. -- Jreferee 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98E reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours)

    Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 98E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 14:46, 17 April 2007
    • Pretty new editor, but seems to be aggressively edit-warring on a number of fronts, and has been warned about 3RR (above). After only three days here his talk page is filled with warnings about image-warring; he seems to have very fixed ideas about how he wants a page to look, and what he want to see on it. The Wikipedia article is pretty much permanently sprotected, but for some reason he insists he wants the big warning box template on the page, rather than the small padlock version used for pages that are sprotected for lengthy periods of time. I suspect he'll continue this behavior until he starts feeling some consequences. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NYScholar reported by User:Jayjg (Result:24 hrs)

    Temple Rodef Shalom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • User:NYScholar is obsessed with trying to identify Lewis Libby as Jewish; has made several hundred edits to the Libby article to indicate this, and continues to add Libby to the page of this Temple, in another attempt to identify him as Jewish. Has been editing since June 2005, and has warned other editors about 3RR in this article, and been warned about 3RR on this article[4], so is well aware of the rule. Is trying to get the page protected on his version,[5] as he successfully did at Lewis Libby, and is willing to be blocked for it. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that you are removing sourced content. The removal of properly sourced content can be considered vandalism and the reversion of vandalism does not count as a reversion under the 3RR rule. Additionally, Jayjg made no contributions to the talk page of that article, even though the user he is reporting did, except for one comment by Jayjg after he had filed this 3RR report.
    The warning that Jayjg cites above was made after the last edit to that page of the user he is reporting. --70.51.235.120 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:VANDAL: "Content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." That was done, so the removal of that content was not vandalism. User is well aware of the 3RR rule, and is blocked 24 hours. Kafziel Talk 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's amazing how these IP editors show up spouting pseudo-policy, as if "properly sourced content" could never be removed from an article under any circumstances. I suppose if someone went to the apple article and inserted "properly sourced content" on kick-boxing then it would be "vandalism" to remove that too. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:K1ng l0v3 reported by User:asams10 (Result: 24 hours)

    Walther P22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). K1ng l0v3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 22:46

    User:Crotalus horridus reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24h)

    Racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Editor keeps reverting in a section about United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, despite strong opposition to its presence. Has been warned at length about this 3RR violation, [6], but insists he is allowed to violate 3RR so long as he makes an article, in his view, "more compliant with NPOV". Has been blocked for 3RR violation before. Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Strong consensus" appears to consist of 3 against (Jayjg, Doright, and Tewfik) and 2 for (VanTucky and myself). I've asked for further review from uninvolved editors by posting an article RFC. Jayjg is misrepresenting my statement; I did not claim a right to violate 3RR, and stated I did not intend to revert further at this time [7]. I was not blindly reverting the article. I specifically rewrote the section to incorporate criticism and make it more neutral [8], and then reverted to this revised version twice: [9] and [10]. I don't intend to engage in any further edit warring, but instead to wait and see what happens with the article RFC. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You also refuse to revert yourself, even though you've violated 3RR. 3RR is a hard and fast rule. Jayjg (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Khoikhoi 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Movellon reported by User:Bluerfn (Result: 24 hours)

    Final Fantasy XIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Movellon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Aristovoul0s reported by User:Corticopia (Result: no violation)

    Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aristovoul0s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 16:53, 19 April 2007 (there my be minor variations of this; see 4 & 5)

    also see reverts on 14 April (e.g., [11])

    Comments In recent days, this editor has continually insinuated a Greek-POV into the introduction, in whole or in part, despite ongoing discussions on the talk page (which this editor didn't involve himself in) and consensual agreement on the talk page for a concise yet equitable introduction (with agreement that additional details reside elsewhere and are linked to). Only minutes ago did he comment on the talk page, despite archived involvement in discussions. Please peruse the history for similar reversions recently without discussion or even edit comments (e.g., reverted by another editor). Corticopia 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nima Baghaei reported by User:Michaelbusch (Result: 24 hours each)

    Topics in ufology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nima Baghaei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 17:50
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 18:03, has been warned previously and claims familiarity with Wikipedia policy.

    Nima has been repeatedly including inappropriate material in Topics in ufology, without addressing my concerns and those of at least one other editor, and, as you can see, has greatly exceeded 3 reverts on that basis (this listing is incomplete, extending only for the past 24 hours). Michaelbusch 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Felix-felix reported by Isarig (Result: 24 hours)

    Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Felix-felix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Previously warned and blocked for 3RR: [12]


    Editor falsely claims this is a BLP issue, but it was explained to him on Talk that the category does not label the subject as an antisemite(which might be a BLP issue), indeed the category appears in the article of several prominent activists against antisemitism. It only says this article is relevant to anitsemitism - and there is ample evidence in the article of that relevance - the subject has discussed antisemitism at length, and has been accused of antisemitism by multiple parties whose accusations appeared in reliable sources, thus the claim of a BLP exception to 3RR is bogus. Isarig 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This looks like a WP:BLP issue to me. Going by policy, I do believe Felix-felix was legitimately removing BLP material. Continue the discussion on the talk page, and possibly bring this up at the BLP policy talk page. Nishkid64 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this a BLP issue? Are we to assume the Abe Foxman is also an antisemite? Isarig 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the first few lines of the "Politics" section was actually from a reliable source, then I would not have thought of it as a BLP violation. It seems to me that he doesn't say he is an anti-semite, but others have called him that based on the numerous comments he has made as an anti-Zionism activist. Nishkid64 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this relevant to the 3RR report? The report centers around the repeated removal of a relevant category, and he is clearly relevant to the categorty, having written extensively about it, and having been accussed, in reliable sources, of being hismlef an antisemite. if you have issues with the article itslef, this is not the place to discuss them - but your response is not relevant to the 3RR report. Isarig 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is completely relevant, 3RR is not applicable in BLP cases. Cbrown1023 talk 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflicted) You asked "How is this a BLP issue?" I gave my response to that question alone. 3RR policy states that if there is a BLP issue including controversial information, then it can be an exception for 3RR. That's why I asked to bring this up at the BLP community talk page to get a consensus on the issue. Nishkid64 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, but that's totaly non-responsive, and I suspect you did not read my arguments carefully. Once again: the category "antisemitism" does NOT identify the article's subject as an antisemite - it appears on Abe Foxman's article. The 3RR report concerns the repeated removal of this very relevant category, not some other BLP issue someone may have with the article. Isarig 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "it happened at xx, so it should happen here too" doesn't really make much sense, especially since we're at Wikipedia. The 3RR report concerns the removal of the category, which could easily be considered a BLP issue, since I don't really see how an accusation of being an anti-semite by an organization really justifies leaving the article branded with a category of "Anti-Semitism". That's why I'm suggesting you bring this up at the BLP talk page, and if someone chooses to enact a 3RR block, then I would be fine with that. Nishkid64 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it clear you are not reading what I am writing. Once again: the category "antisemitism" does NOT identify the article's subject as an antisemite . The Abe Foxman example is not meant to show another case of misapplication of the category, it illustrates the fact that the category includes people who are well known fighters AGAINST antismeitsm, as well as scholars of antisemitism, events related to antismeitism and groups related to antisemitism. The inclusion of the category simply means the subject is relevant, and a clear case for the relevance is made in the article. Isarig 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Atzmon is ACCUSED of antisemitism, hence his inclusion by you in the category. This is defamatory, unlike the inclusion of Abe Foxman and others.It's defamatory, he denies it, and he's living, so it's a clear cut BLP vio.FelixFelix talk 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The antisemitism category is used for articles that discuss antisemitism, as the Atzmon article certainly does; it in no way states or implies that the person themselves is antisemitic. If BLP were really an issue, then the article would not be able to even discuss accusations of antisemitism. False BLP claims are not a license to ignore 3RR, but an invitation to bring the issue to the attention of an administrator or the correct board. 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm fine with that. Isarig, I was reading what you wrote. I said that I don't see a case for using the category. That was my argument. Nishkid64 22:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    we can disagree on that - but that's a content dispute, not a BLP issue, and as such, subject to 3RR. Isarig 00:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vml132f reported by User:Phonemonkey (Result: 24 hours)

    Joji Obara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vml132f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [13]


    User:Mt7 reported by User:Darwinek (Result: 31 hours)

    Koloman Gögh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mt7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    User:208.201.146.137 reported by User:Xinoph (Result: no violation)

    Three-revert rule violation on Common Cause. User:208.201.146.137 :


    Comments: This anonymous IP address has made a habit of unilaterally removing the tags from the article Common Cause. Two separate warning notes were left on this IP address's talk page, and were ignored - the article was again reverted. The failure of the editor(s) at this IP address to respect other's tags and the editing process is damaging the content. The vast majority of their contributions have been solely to the Common Cause article, and they have not contributed to the discussion of the article. Moreover, a WHOIS lookup ([24]) on this IP address shows that it is registered to Common Cause, and therefore the organization is changing its own article - possibly a separate violation. Hopefully this time I report it action will be taken for the good of Wikipedia, and my questions will not be ignored by the administrator who takes action. This entry has been modified and added again to the noticeboard.XINOPH | TALK 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. The editing by the IP is too sporadic, so any block would just look like it is punitive action, which it should not be. Nishkid64 21:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you need to review the definition of "punitive". Any block, for any reason, is indeed punitive: punitive simply means serving for, concerned with, or inflicting punishment. It is not necessarily a negative term. Next time you decline to take action on a rule violation, at least try to stick to words you understand for the explanation. XINOPH | TALK 11:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I said "punitive", I meant exactly what I said. The IP sporadically edits, and the only justification for a block would be to prevent the IP from editing the Common Cause article. They have not violated any Wikipedia rules by editing, and that's why the block would go against policy and be therefore deemed "punitive". Perhaps if you had read WP:3RR, you'd know that the IP had not violated policy at all, and no block would ever be placed on the user. FYI, blocks on Wikipedia are "preventative", not "punitive". That's the whole point of blocking users. It's not to punish them, but to prevent them from continuing to violate policy. Also, please remember to be civil with other users. Getting angry at other users is not going to do you any good. Also, as I said earlier, read WP:3RR, because your report was clearly not a 3RR violation. You provided diffs of reverts made over the course of a month and a half. 3RR only applies to a 24-hour period. Nishkid64 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ahmadhusseini reported by User:Jayjg (Result: Page protected)

    Hezbollah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ahmadhusseini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Pretty massive edit war there, I don't think blocking one person is going to put a stop to it. Hopefully the dispute can get resolved quickly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joseph.James00 reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: Warning)

    Asia Nitollano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joseph.James00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This is part on an ongoing problem at the article in question and to others related to Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll. There was exactly the same revert issues (to the same version) with User:CharliTa yesterday (who also received a 3RR warning for the same behaviour). I will not go so far to say that Joseph.James00 is a sockpuppet of CharliTa, but I do find it strange that (1) they both claim to be the creator of the article (2) their editing style is identical (3) Joseph.James00's only edits are to the article in question and my talk page and (3) Joseph.James00 left a message on my talk page signed off as CharliTa (although he later replaced the user link with his own and the talk&contribs links with mine [26].

    Both users have "warned" me that I too am violating 3RR but I believe my edits are exempt per WP:BIO. I have already addressed my policy concerns on the article talk page. The problems with this article are also tied in with similar WP:BIO violations at Chelsea Korka, and the relevant policies have also been highlighted at that article's talk page. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty new editor, so this time I'm going to warn rather than blocking. As to your reverts, we tend to give pretty wide latitude to someone who has legitimate BLP concerns. (By the way, WP:BLP is the policy you're looking for, I believe, WP:BIO is just an inclusion guideline.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just thought I'd make it known that within five hours of Seraphimbladewarning User talk:Joseph.James00 for the 3RR violation he is at it again. This is essentially a second 3RR violation (if you take the start from what was previously the second revert). I have notified Seraphimblade who will be offline for a few days so thought I'd post this here in case someone wants to take this further. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 13:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record... the second incidence of 3RR violation could read like this:

    User:24.65.79.192 reported by User:tbjablin (Result: 24 hours)

    Comparison of the Java and .Net platforms. 24.65.79.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 21:28

    Tbjablin 02:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (from 24.65.79.192) The situation is that there is a sentence stating that Sun's release of Java under the GPL will still allow them to release their own proprietary versions. Tbjablin wants to inject a quote from Sun into the sentence, stating that they intend to continue releasing Java under the GPL. I wrote the sentence, and my concern is that I feel the injection is limiting the ability of the sentence to convey the original fact. They even went as far as to remove a reference to the license that Sun is planning to use. I asked Tbjablin to simply move their comment to a separate sentence rather than injecting it into mine, and I didn't receive a response, but apparently this complaint is it. 24.65.79.192 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has a history of reverting and generally has been unresponsive to criticism. His edit history on Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java and Comparison_of_the_Java_and_.Net_platforms, show a history of frequent reverts and few constructive edits. Although he responds at length to criticism in talk space, he's been basically intransigent, and has never pro-actively offered a compromise to the three other users who regularly edit these pages. Regardless of these concerns, the fact remains that he has reverted five times in the last 24 hours. Tbjablin 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that every action you're mentioning is a revert, but also, are you and JavaKid the same user? and would you need to be for this rule? 24.65.79.192 02:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:JavaKid and I are not the same person, but I'll be happy to submit to a check user. Tbjablin 02:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're counting restoring my reference that you removed as a "revert"? 24.65.79.192 02:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are referring to revert 5? You use the word restore in your own edit comment. I removed it because the specifics of the GPL license are not relevant to describe what Sun may or may not do with code they own. Sun does not need a GPL license from itself. Tbjablin 02:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly the point. The GPL is not a commitment not to release or authorize proprietary builds, and how else do you prove that but by consulting the GPL?. 24.65.79.192 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't any license they could license it under that would change their ownership of the code, that why it is not relevant to cite the GPL. It wouldn't matter if they choose BSD, MIT, LGPL, GFDL, or WTFPL. Regardless, even if my edit was lame (which it wasn't) you still cannot revert more than three times in 24 hours on the same article except in cases of obvious vandalism. Tbjablin 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The GPL could easily contain terms that would bind Sun from releasing proprietary versions, but it doesn't. The key point is stating the fact that a GPL release won't effect an end to proprietary issues with Java, and the text of the GPL is part of the basis of that fact. 24.65.79.192 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The GPL could not contain such terms. No license could contain such terms. You can sell copyright, or put a work in the public domain, but you cannot make your own copyright disappear. Tbjablin 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can make almost any promise you want to almost anyone, in writing, and potentially be sued for violating it. 24.65.79.192 02:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A valid contract requires compensation. Someone would have to compensate Sun in order for it to make a legally bind promise, but if you are willing to concede that Sun can make promises and that we could take those promises seriously, then you should note that they do in fact claim that they will not close source Java in the future, as per my ref. Tbjablin 02:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a programmer and content creator myself, I've had to deal with the fact that people may wish to license something of mine in a way that restricts what I can do with my own work. Such licenses not only exist and are enforceable, but are actually quite common. For example, a TV network may purchase temporary exclusive playback rights for some content in a given region, and the contract will allow them to sue if another network is authorized to play the same content. Though, are you suggesting that Sun has made a legal commitment not to release proprietary versions of Java in the future? If so, that really would be a reason to remove/reshape the point that I made. 24.65.79.192 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But presumably you were compensated. Without compensation contracts are invalid. For Sun to make the type of commitment you seem to imagine, it would require that they receive compensation from someone and then only that particular someone would have the right to sue them if they reneged. This is exactly the reason people sell houses and cars to their in-laws/children for $1. Without the token payment, the contract is invalid. You can read more about Consideration under American or English law here. Consideration is actually the correct technical term. Tbjablin 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, either way, that doesn't disprove that Sun can release proprietary builds if they please and that the GPL release is not withstanding. 24.65.79.192 03:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At best, your assertion would be that we need either a reference to the license or a reference to some evidence that the circumstances would render it unenforceable. 24.65.79.192 03:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but WTFPL also not withstanding. The point is that the text of the GPL does not in anyway prove your point, and therefore is not a valid ref for your point. Refs exist in order to prove points. Tbjablin 03:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does prove the point. It proves that they will not be restricted because the license does not contain any such restrictions. It would also suffice to prove that the license isn't even enforceable, but I see no reason why that's preferable, especially given that you didn't offer a reference on that. 24.65.79.192 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're not even making sense. The GPL is enforcible because it offers compensation. No reference is needed to prove you can do what you want with your own property. Tbjablin 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You also stated at the time that the problem is that the license doesn't mention Sun or Java. That's a different concern and the one that I originally responded to. That concern is not legally valid, licenses can be generic. 24.65.79.192 03:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean that it does not include the words Sun or Java. I mean that it is not relevant to the specific situation of Sun and Java. Tbjablin 03:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't necessarily do what you want with your own property. Your assertion here seems to be that the GPL as applied to Sun Java wouldn't be enforceable against Sun in this case because no compensation was accepted by Sun for the release. Can you cite that? 24.65.79.192 03:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not at all what I have said. What I have said is that putting something under the GPL does not change its status as being one's own property. Tbjablin 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the GPL contained a commitment by the proprietor not to release non-free builds, and Sun was paid for the release under the GPL, would that be binding? Assuming the answer is yes, then in order to assert that Sun has no such restriction, we have to either demonstrate that it isn't in the license, or demonstrate what you suggested above (that they weren't paid or that it's otherwise unenforceable against Sun). Where am I wrong? 24.65.79.192 03:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Theoretically, if the GPL contained a provision like that, then it would be binding, but only the people who paid Sun would have standing to sue. Why would we cite GPL as opposed to any other contract that Sun is bound by? By your logic we should cite every contract that Sun is bound by in order to prove that it can legally continue to release closed source Java versions. You are asking the article to prove a negative and you are trying to prove a negative by citing only one example. Tbjablin 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The logic is quite simple. A claim to the effect of "hey everybody, we support free software now thanks to our GPL release, so no more worrying about proprietary-only Java with the latest features ruining your free software machine's Java compatibility" seems to be floating around in different forms, and it's just not accurate. I don't feel safe at all, and there are factual reasons why. The easiest point to make is that the GPL doesn't even contain terms to protect the community from Sun, and that can demonstrated simply by referring to and examining the GPL. Even if the GPL did contain such terms, the question of whether the GPL could even be binding for Sun (for example, has anyone paid them for this? I don't know either way) would be another way to demonstrate that Sun can do what they please, but it's moot because we know that the GPL doesn't even contain the required terms. 24.65.79.192 03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is that you are trying to prove that Sun could release a proprietary version of Java in future, and you cite the lack of a GPL clause barring this as an example, however, you do not and cannot know that Sun does not have some secret agreement not to release under closed source. It is like saying, "Bigfoot does not exist because he is not in my backyard." The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so to speak, but even if it were, you do not cite an absence of evidence. All you know for sure is that on checking the GPL you found no clause barring Sun from releasing closed source versions of Java. In order to prove your point, you would need to know the contents of every contract that Sun has ever made and then cite them. This is why proving a negative is so hard, and why one piece of evidence is insufficient for your claim. Tbjablin 03:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence says (and has since I wrote it) "a release under the GPL will not prohibit Sun from .." 24.65.79.192 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You might as well cite Sun MS Agreement. It also does not forbid Sun from releasing additional proprietary versions. The only real evidence on this matter is that Sun has said that they will not. The fact that they said it is backed up by references. Anything else is just a conspiracy theory. Tbjablin 03:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't claim that they will release non-free builds after they release the source under the GPL (assuming it actually happens). The only stated fact is that a release under the GPL won't prohibit future non-free releases. They may or may not be prohibited for other reasons, and post-GPL non-free builds may or may not happen, but we know that the release under the GPL isn't a reason why they can't happen. Sort of like: "Firewalls prevent unauthorized traffic from entering your computer." "Yes, but you can still download and open a malicious file." Both statements are accurate, both are verifiable, both are probably pertinent in a discussion about firewalls. 24.65.79.192 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, most of this is not really relevant to the case at hand. How about moving "There isn't any license they could..." and everything subsequent to talk space? Tbjablin 03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, maybe we should agree to disagree, given that the subject at hand is the basis of one of the changes that you're calling a revert. Personally, I don't think that randomly removing a reference and calling it a "revert" if it's re-added would really go to meet the spirit or necessarily even the letter of the rule, but I guess that remains to be seen. 24.65.79.192 04:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note. I added some completely arbitrary breaks here because this was literally running off of the page. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SteveWolfer reported by User:FraisierB (Result:no action)

    Nathaniel Branden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    I hope this is the correct way to file this report. I should also mention that Mr. Wolfer says he is allowed to violate WP:3RR because he is removing libel, but he is not being at all honest. Please read the Talk page for more information. FraisierB 03:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    no action, seems to have settled down and no edits in over 36 hours.Rlevse 11:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to watchlist the page (and others might want to as well). This is an old issue that seems to come up alot. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.248.247.135 reported by User:Parsecboy (Result: 1 week)

    • Editor warned of violating 3RR prior to most recent (5th revert) [27]

    Editor has also used personal attacks in both his/hers edit summaries and in replies to warning of 3RR violation on user's talk page. Parsecboy 07:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mackan reported by User:DDRG (Result:no block)

    • Previous version reverted to:[32]
    I did revert it one time too much, but my so-called "5th revert" was a revert back to the version DDRG is supporting (edit: I suspect DDRG has mumbled up the edit diff's, but after doing one revert too much, I reverted it back to DDRG's version). As you can see, my edit summary is "RV to DDRG version - didn't realise I was on the verge of breaking 3RR, apologies" [34]. This revert took place 6 minutes after my 3RR violation. Let me also point out that the consensus on the talk page (where DDRG has not made a single edit) is clearly in favour of the version I was reverting back too, but anonymous Japanese users keep reverting it. See also this related sockpuppet/meatpuppet case, Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vml132f. I do apologize for breaking 3RR, but it was a mistake, I reverted it back in 6 minutes, and the discussion on the talk page is being thorougly ignored by the users I'm "edit warring" with. Mackan 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You already violated 3RR in 20 April. If you have reflected on it, you wouldn't do again today. And you have violated 3RR in this article two times, you need to take a time to cool off. DDRG 13:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see, apparently I violated the 3RR already this morning (UTC time). I didn't realise this until now, nor was it pointed out to me earlier. At any rate, I reverted back to your revision as soon as I realised I had broken the 3RR, and I've apologized. According to WP:3RR, "in general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked". I'd also like to add that I gave a Japanese user edit warring on this very article a chance to revert back before I reported him, see [35]. Mackan 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd better read WP:3RR. An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. You have revertd 6 times, because this previous version [36] was a revert to previous version, 08:16, 14 April 2007 in essence. You need to take a time to cool off.DDRG 16:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nishkid64 reported by VnTruth 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC) (Result:No violation)

    Ngo_Dinh_Diem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [37]

    According to Nishkid64's User Page, he is an administrator.[41]. Accordingly, the "new user" rule should not apply.

    No violation because, among other reasons, the 3RR forbids making more than three reverts. Also, the edits you are reporting are 5 days old, making it difficult to believe this report is intended to help with an edit-war situation, which is the purpose of the rule. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    User:Joseph.James00 reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 24hrs)

    Asia Nitollano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joseph.James00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    A previous incident report has already been filed above (so please read that as well) and Seraphimblade warned the user not to violate 3RR again but it has since happened 2 more times. Seraphimblade is currently off-line per a mesage on his talk page and comments on my talk page, so I have decided to relist so this gets noticed. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chowbok reported by User:Quartet (Result:no vio)

    Cow tipping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chowbok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [42]
    • 1st revert: [43]
    • 2nd revert: [44]
    • 3rd revert: [45]
    • 4th revert: [46]
    • Other older reverts:

    [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]


    Please note that this 3RR violation does not take place during a 24-hour period. However, the user has reverted numerous editors changes to the image caption of this article without valid reason and is clearly edit warring (in fact any editor who attempts to change the caption on this page is reverted without valid reason). The Wikipedia policy WP:3RR states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." As you can see by the massive number of reverts above, this is a long-term issue, where edits by a large number of editors have been reverted, even though there is no established consensus on the issue. I won't hesitate to say that there could possibly be a WP:OWN violation going on as well.


    User:Liaishard reported by User:Nightscream (Result:18 hours each)

    Corey Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liaishard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [52]
    • Both sides have violated 3RR. Despite Nightscream's claims to the contrary, there is no exception to the rule for reverting NPOV material: if there were, anyone could claim an exception at any time by arguing they were reverting POV. The only real exceptions are simple vandalism and unsourced negative material in biographies of living persons. As such, 18 hour blocks for both. Heimstern Läufer 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SteveWolfer reported by User:FraisierB (Result:48 hours)

    Nathaniel Branden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    (new)

    I reported the first four reverts, but was told that there was no need for action because the article has settled down and there are no edits. I think you will find that this turns out not to be the case, as Mr. Wolfer has continued to revert over the same issue and shows no signs of ever stopping. Please note that he is reverting against three other people, and that I have refused to edit the article since filing my first report, so I am not fanning a fire here.

    There is a fire, though, as this is fast becoming a full, ugly edit war, the details of which I am too polite to summarize. My concern is that your act of mercy was misunderstood by Wolfer as administrative sanction to revert that article at will, based on his patently false claim of removing libel. As I understand it, only simple vandalism and unsourced negative material in biographies of living persons allow endless reversion, but this material is reliably and multiply sourced and isn't even particularly negative.

    Wolfer has been blocked for 3RR violation before but has gotten away with it since, even before this. At this point, I feel that we have no choice but to block Wolfer's account to the maximum extent allowed until he learns that he does not own all articles related to Ayn Rand. By doing this now, we can avoid the need for a community ban later. FraisierB 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting 3 others on a ref'd statement of fact about a school's lack of accredidation. Rlevse 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)...:The ref clearly states that the school is unaccredited and grads can be licensed, which is what the article says; stating facts is not libel. The ref is an official source and very reliable and refers to the school, not the subject of the article.Rlevse 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He is also pursuing 3rr violations on template:ethics, if you look at his edit history, you will see that he will not accept consensus on some things that are matters of fact. --Buridan 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bus stop reported by User:JJay (Result: 24 hours)

    Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:87.189.91.236 reported by User:Dual Freq (Result: 24 hours)

    Flag of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 87.189.91.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Oh, I'm aware. I also regard all my reverts anti-vandalism. None of the changes I reverted was in any way justified, despite continued requests to do so. --87.189.91.236

    User:Guillermo Alvarez reported by User:NickW557 (Result: 24 hours)

    Finasteride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guillermo Alvarez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    --Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DDRG reported by User:Mackan (Result: page protected)

    Joji Obara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DDRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Let me be straight about one thing - this user has not broken 3RR, and yes, I read the disclaimer. But, WP:3RR clearly states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". This user keeps reverting other users (but is sure to not break 3RR), has not made a single edit to the talk page of the article in question, is ignoring the consensus there, has only used the edit summary field ONCE, and is breaking WP:BIO rules. If it's wrong to post about this here I apologize, but considering the wording on WP:3RR, this seemed appropriate. Mackan 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I explained my edit on edit summary before, and I think that what I want to say is already explained in talk page by other people. So I didn't it. What I want to say is only to tell it clearly how it is if someone dosen't want to see it. Thanks. DDRG 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fully protected the page. There seems to be no point in blocking DDRG for disruption because while he is blocked, he will not be able to contribute to a discussion on the article talk page. By protecting the article, hopefully the user will go to the talk page and discuss his changes to the article. Nishkid64 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. But, I think what would be explained is already done by other people, so I wonder I have something to add it. Though I will add some. DDRG 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MrHaney reported by User:Elonka (Result: 24 hours)

    Gnostic Gospels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MrHaney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    MrHaney continues inserting a paragraph promoting author Elaine Pagels, despite consensus on the talkpage to not include it. He has also been edit-warring to insert many other Pagels-related links on the page, and appears to be a {{spa}} account, with no editing history outside of Gnostic Gospels. He has been repeatedly warned about 3RR by different editors, but continues to edit-war and retort in an uncivil fashion. --Elonka 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UBeR reported by User:Nethgirb (Result:24 block)

    Global warming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UBeR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Background: UBeR has been active as a global warming skeptic on the global warming-related articles for some time. A previous complaint about his behavior is on the Administrator's Noticeboard (Reigning in Uber's trolling). Recently he seems to have been following John Quiggin around, first initiating an RfD against an article JQ created; after that RfD failed, making inappropriate edits to the article, such as removing sourced material with an edit summary saying it was unsourced (see discussion and in particular evidence); and now removing JQ's material from Global warming controversy. Full disclosure: I am also active on the GW-related articles and frequently conflict with UBeR on content issues. Thanks for your time. --Nethgirb 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Erroneous labels serve little more than to outwardly exhibit ignorance. ~ UBeR 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Uber for 24 hours. Raul654 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nima Baghaei reported by User:Michaelbusch, 2nd offense (Result: 31 hr.)

    Topics in ufology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nima Baghaei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 23:32
    • 3RR warning: warning prior to recent 3RR block (during which I was also blocked because I lost count of the times I removed the offending material). Nima has been adding material back over the objections of three other editors and seems to be deliberately being dense with regards to criticism. Nima has filed a Request for Mediation, but keeps adding back the material while insisting that we 'let the mediation occur first'. Michaelbusch 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked 31 hr. for 2nd offence per WP:3RR fishhead64 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irakliy81 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result:)

    List_of_sovereign_states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irakliy81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    See block log. Khoikhoi 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scottandrewhutchins reported by User:Naruto134 (Result: 30 hours)

    King Shisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naruto134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user, Scottandrewhutchins keeps changing the name of this Godzilla monster into a name that is the japanese name. The Godzilla monsters there have their english names but he keeps changing this one monster's name, King Caesar to King Shisa. He kept moving the name more than once and I warned him, but he ignored me. --Naruto134 00:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irishguy reported by User:RPIRED (Result:no violation)

    Yankees-Red Sox rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit&section=1

    User has continually reverted information which is unsourced. Claims a source that has been continually pushed but has no basis in fact. POV dispute. Warned on user page. - RPIRED 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What I reverted was readding a sourced claim that the above user continually removes. And as the times show, I didn't break, nor even make, 3 reverts within 24 hours. The above user is attempting to claim a false 3RR to gain an edge in an edit conflict. IrishGuy talk 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation - User:Irishguy did not make more than three reverts within 24 hours. fishhead64 05:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biophys reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result:)

    Operation Sarindar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:85.158.32.6 reported by User:Ivan Kricancic (Result:)

    User talk:KillerChihuahua (edit | [[Talk:User talk:KillerChihuahua|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.158.32.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [58]

    Note these diffs as well, as they are very close to breakign teh rule, and almost certainly will be broken soon.

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

    User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Articles that he has reverted twice so far in teh past 15 minutes are Bosnian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bosnian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and many more (refer to this).

    It should also be noted that this IP and many other 85.158.xxx.xxx IPs are in fact Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - a known POV pusher, vandal, troll, personal attacker 3rr violater etc. He currently has an RFC against him. And has been blocked 10 times in cluding 4 times for 3RR violations.


    I would like to note also that I too have reported user Biophys for repeated violations of 3RR on Boris Stomakhin, but he was only warned. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive44#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28Result:_Warning.29

    Despite warnings he continues to revert any additions to the text by me. Although he never disputed main part of my new additions, he reverts them. Vlad fedorov 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moreover, like with user csloat, user Biophys also deletes and reverts my additions to Operation Sarindar article, which presents just another version of the article Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy.Vlad fedorov 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    <!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

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

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

* 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 and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->




<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=125133920"