Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
If you do not follow the instructions for making reports correctly your report will not be actioned

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:DonaldDuck reported by User:Biophys (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:55, 9 October 2007

Deletion of sourced material and insertion of OR by User:DonaldDuck who also operates under IP address 217.117.80.2 (see also [1]). I tried to explain him WP policies but it did not help [2] Biophys 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. He blamed me of RR warring: [3] although I tried to extend/improve article in spite of his efforts to remove sourced views.Biophys 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys have broken 3 revert rule first

1 2 3 4. Im' trying to improve the article and reorganise it into proper sections, while Biophys is in edit war. Biophys keeps inserting in the article material totally irrelevant to the topic of Putinism, such as some quotes on the Soviet security services history, etc DonaldDuck 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not at all. As one can easily see, only "1" and "4" in these diffs are reverts, as I indicated in the edit summaries. "2" and "3" versions are completely different - even with different subheadings in the article.Biophys 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My diffs, which your reported as reverts are also substantially different. Nemtsov's definition of Putinism is added, subsections, paragraph about usage of "Putinism" as a pejorative political term.DonaldDuck 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Left and right parts in all four diffs provided by me are identical.Biophys 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in "2" and "3" you have just combined your reverts with some other minor edits to avoid formal breaking of 3RR rule. And doctored my diffs by skipping intermediate revisions.DonaldDuck 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DonalDuck is completely out of control. He just made another RR violation in the same article: 02:53, 10 October 2007 Biophys 05:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't skip all my [other edits], providing referenced sources in support of my version of the article structure.DonaldDuck 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more disguised revert by Biophys diff DonaldDuck 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself back. Does it help?Biophys 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm not entirely sure which of you have violated 3RR here, and I can't really be bothered to work it out. Page protected. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:GHcool reported by User:Pedro Gonnet (Result: Stale)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:20, 9 October 2007

This user has not been warned for this incident, but he is an experienced and regular Wikipedia editor and knows WP:3RR, and therefore does not qualify as a "New user".

These edits involve the addition by User:GHcool of sourced material to the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This material keeps getting deleted and User:GHcool keeps on inserting it. The material, although sourced, does not fulfil WP:RS and has been discussed -- and shot down -- many times before in the article talk pages. This, however, is not a content dispute, but a WP:3RR issue. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR blocks are for preventing sterile edit wars, not for punishment. As such, reporting reverts from two or three days ago generally won't draw any action as there is nothing left to prevent. Also, the "previous version reverted to" needs to be timestamped before the reverts, otherwise it doesn't really make sense. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whig reported by User:Skinwalker (Result: Blocked 12 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 10:02, 9 October 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 13:32, 7 October 2007

This user is insisting on adding a POV tag to the article without enumerating his specific concerns on the talk page. Requests for his reasons have led to filibustering and borderline personal attacks. On previous days he has gamed 3RR by reverting thrice and then waiting 24 hours (see TimVickers' report from 7 October 2007 above). Whig is being extremely disruptive and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could look into the situation. Thanks, Skinwalker 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked for 12 hours. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cobra982 reported by User:Neon_white (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Adds the same paragraph of unsourced, poorly written WP:AWW material. Does not discuss the text or respond to comments on talk page. --Neon white 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only see 3 reverts, and only 2 of them are of the same material. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the history. All three are reverts. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point Wikidudeman was making was that there needs to be four reverts before there is an actionable violation. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the page due to edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RucasHost reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result: Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 05:12, 10 October 2007

1st revert: 05:37, 10 October 2007
2nd revert: 05:48, 10 October 2007
3rd revert: 16:31, 10 October 2007 ( there are a large number of interveneing edits here, but this is just a reinsertion of the same material, rephrased to be even less NPOV)
4th revert: 16:34, 10 October 2007 (I'm not sure what snalwibma did there, either way, rucashost reverted to the blp violating version, rather than discussing the matter. )
5th revert 16:46, 10 October 2007
6th revert 16:48, 10 October 2007
7th revert 16:50, 10 October 2007
8th revert 16:53, 10 October 2007
9th revert 17:00, 10 October 2007
10th revert 17:05, 10 October 2007
11th revert 17:08, 10 October 2007
12th revert 17:08, 10 October 2007
The user has been warned about 3RR on multiple occasions.

This is a WP:BLP to which RucasHost is trying to add poorly sourced defamatory content, he has violated 4RR once before on this page, resulting in page protection.17:15, 6 October 2007 Between these two incidents, at least five different editors have reverted him, and none have supported him. Consensus on the talk page is clear. Please just block the edit warrior this time, so we can get on with improving the article. – ornis ⚙ 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support ConfuciusOrnis here. RucasHost's edits are clear breaches of 3RR and BLP. Please stop him if you can! Snalwibma 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been protected. Frankly, the level of revert-warring on that article was embarrassing. I can't believe you had the audacity to come here and ask for someone to "stop him" when you were just as bad. -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? One edit warrior against talk page consensus, and five other regular editors... I think you should take that comment back and apologise frankly. – ornis⚙ 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm strongly inclined to agree with CO here. 5 editors reverting one editor doesn't make them just as bad. It makes the one editor engage in 3RR 4 times over. JoshuaZ 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As am I. Five editors trying to protect consensus are just as bad as one editor hell-bent on ignoring consensus? Right. Jim62sch 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (to all) Uh... am I the only person here who passed Thread Etiquette 101? Unless otherwise noted, an indentation in from a previous comment is presumed to mean a response to that comment. Unsurprisingly, Confucius did not indent his comment properly (I know you were talking to me). I did that and even quoted the person to whom I was responding. Geez. I don't care what is or is not consensus here; Snalwibma made seven reverts in just over half an hour (and two of those edits came within a minute of each other). There's no excuse for that. If someone is being disruptive on an article, you can request protection or make a 3RR report (the latter of which ConfuciusOrnis did). You don't just continuing reverting into oblivion. Sorry, folks, I'm not submitting to any ridiculous demand for an apology or retraction. WP:3RR does not exempt people who are "protect[ing] consensus"; anybody can just say that. The best (and perhaps only?) protection for those who are truly protecting consensus is the support from that consensus pool. At one point, that was the case without question; RucasHost could easily be blocked for a 3RR violation whereas the rest of the editors could not under any interpretation. But in the forty minutes or so prior to the protection, the article became the site of a dueling match between RuneHost and Snalwibma. That was embarrassing and I couldn't care less whether you disagree with me on that. Next time, before you formulate your sarcastic criticisms, you should actually read what is said (and to whom, dammit). -- tariqabjotu 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Doh! You almost had a good point. Rucas was engaging in more tha edit-warring, he was engaging in vandalism (yes, that would be what one person repeately reinserting his POV edits against consensus would be called). No 3RRR vio for rving vandalism. Sorry, you were so close, and yet, well... BTW, Rucas was blocked for 12RR. Jim62sch 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - He was not engaging in vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism specifically notes that "stubbornness" is not vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Stubborness does not explain 12RR -- by the time you get to the point where you've been told repeatedly that you are violating consensus, anything after about 4RR becomes vandalism. Nonetheless, what Ornis notes below is also a valid reason for rv'ing Rucas' edits, while offering no defence for Rucas' actions. Jim62sch 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material makes for interesting reading. I already made a note of this in my original report, but since you seem to have missed that, I will point out again, that rucashost's edits were not only disruptive, not only clearly against consensus, but they were a violation of BLP. As such, per the policy, they not only may be, they must be removed aggressively, and 3RR simply does not apply to that removal. In fact, even without a 3RR violation, BLP violation is grounds for blocking. Since this is going to be archived I'll repost on your talk page. – ornis ⚙ 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not miss that at all. The question of whether this is a BLP case can go either way; the blocking admin apparently decided this was not really a BLP case (hence the protection instead of a block). I am inclined to agree with his assessment; the statement is not "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So why do you suppose he reverted rucas' change then. In amy case, your interpretation of policy is sadly at odds with the consensus of those who actually spend time editing the article. – ornis ⚙ 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not commented on the idea of whether the controversial piece should be in the article (and I don't intend to). I have only commented on the use of WP:BLP as a reason to support that it not be, since BLP relates to whether 3RR can simply be ignored. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stew_jones reported by User:Robwingfield (Result: 6 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:18, 9 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 18:00, 10 October 2007

The user has a history of formatting articles to his own manual of style. I have attempted to persuade him to adhere to the correct MoS, but he gets abusive and reverts. On this occasion, I gained support from other users to avoid breaking 3RR myself. I would hope that any block given here would go some way to persuading the user to treat WP as a community project, and adhere to the correct styles... robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First offence, 6 hours. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anyeverybody reported by User:Misou (Result: 6 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [4]

1st revert: 11 Oct 4:02 [5]
2nd revert: 11 Oct 4:36 [6]
3rd revert: 11 Oct 4:57 [7]
4th revert: 11 Oct 5:10 [8]

WP:POINT. Lots of attempt to get reason into him, by 4-5 different WPians. This user is growing disruptive.

He is reverting the same thing 2-3 times per day since 8 Oct 2007, today, 11 Oct it was 4RR. Before this started he had some arguments on the article, see talk page.

Diff of 3RR warning: [9]

Misou 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I find it humorous that you'd warn and report on the same edit. It'd be like an armed sentry shooting an intruder while at the same time saying, "Stop or I'll shoot". Anynobody 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st revert: 11 Oct 4:02 [10] Was an addition of cited material, not a revert.
2nd revert: 11 Oct 4:36 [11] Was me replacing the material which was removed, and adding another source + more citations to current sources.

Moreover the 4-5 other Wikipedians Misou mentions are a bit overstated. The neutral editors involved Foobaz, FOo, and GoodDamon actually seem to support the addition. Not counting CoS POV pushers, anti-CoS POV pushers, or myself, only Wikipediatrix doesn't support it. Anynobody 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 hours. I'll note that I'm highly unimpressed with the "discussion" that's been going on, and that applies to both sides here. Please tone down the flaming. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misou reported by User:Anynobody (Result: 12 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Any version which does not have a section called Personality.

*1st revert: 04:45, 10 October 2007

A new section was started by me, and supported by others, using first one source then two others with several citations. The sources depict a spoiled jerk, at least those we've found so far. Though WP:RS are being searched for that are more positive, Misou (and others) have chosen to revert the new section rather than improving it despite invitations to do so. I understand that this 4th revert is just outside the 24 hour timeframe, however this appears to be a case of gaming the system in order to remove cited material. Quoting WP:3RR, .[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. I'm hoping for a warning, and not a block, since WP:3RR can be difficult to understand, it would be more constructive if someone not involved could explain that sourced material should not be removed, it should instead be supplemented with sources of differing views if they can be found. Anynobody 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, looks like we've finally tried the dispute resolution method, as an RfC has been initiated for the article. Can we just stick with this and avoid the messy subject of blocks altogether? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 12 hours. JoshuaZ 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result: Old violation, no reason to block)

Three-revert rule violation on Karolina Proniewska ([[Special:EditPage/Karolina Proniewska

Previous version reverted to: [12]

1st revert: 2007-10-09T06:52:08 (among other restored and OR claim it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite as in;)
2nd revert: 2007-10-09T08:44:48 (among other restored and OR claim it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite as in;)
3rd revert: 2007-10-09T09:43:57 (restored it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Praniauskaitė; as in:)
4th revert: 2007-10-09T11:09:13 (it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Praniauskaitė; as in: reverted link to Samogitian noble family as well.)

User:Halibutt was blocked for 3RR violation several times already, so contributor is familiar with policy. Currently he conducted edit warring on the same article for several days with completely unacceptable edit summaries (please not he also accused established editor of vandalism as well). And 3RR policy states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. M.K. 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I brought this case again as it originally was not solved and particular contributor seem to start wage reverts again [13]. M.K. 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: User seized editing the article 24 hours ago. Uninvolved editor should simply warn him to stop revert warring. No point to block him to stop the war as war have already ended as the user stopped editing. A stern warning to stay away from an article for, say, another 24 hours and that he may be blocked if he resumes edit warring would have been sufficient IMO. Users with a long record of contributions tend to be more aggravated with blocks and in general, blocks should be avoided if things can be accomplished with other means. --Irpen 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nishkid, thanks you for unblocking the user. This incident is a fresh illustration that the poor maintenance of the board makes it virtually useless. :( . --Irpen 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sceptre reported by User:Grande13 (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: October 11 2007
2nd revert: 2:10 October 11 2007
3rd revert: 11:42 October 11 2007
4th revert: 14:26 October 11 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: Unneeded; user already filed a 3RR report against me (see above)

User insists on adding doing things the way they perceive is correct, which is under discussion.Grande13 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts, not four. #1 was an accidental revert to the wrong diff. Also improperly formatted report. Will ^(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're not even using reliable sources in your edits, so you don't have any case other to grind an axe. WP:V is non-negotionable. Will ^(talk) 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, fine, even ignoring one of those is still a 3RR violation.Grande13 19:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts. Will ^(talk) 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright database is a reliable source, as well as there have been numerous reverts in the past few days on your part. Many more than 3. Grande13 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm pot. You're rather black for a kettle. Will ^(talk) 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. Don't edit war. --Haemo 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:15, February 7, 2007

User has a long history of edit warring on this and several other articles, including sanctions on the very article from Arbcom. Contimues to remove the key adjective “allegations” from the introduction and in various other parts of the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three reverts here; it is stretching things too far to call the first edit a revert to a version back in February. The user's Arbitration Committee-imposed probation has expired. I will be cautioning him to cool down but he has not violated the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above evaluation of the situation by Sam Blacketer is incorrect. There are only two reverts here; the editor has already moved on to other sections of the article pending discussions on the reverts. The user does not, and never did, have an Arbitration Committee-imposed probation. Sam Blacketer has cautioned an editor that doesn't violate WP:3RR, and isn't continuing to revert. Just setting the record straight before this report is archived. Xenophrenic 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grande13 reported by User:Sceptre (Result:Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 04:40 11 October 2007

1st revert: 17:27 11 October 2007 (while an IP, user contribs confirm a strong link to Grande)
2nd revert: 20:25 11 October 2007
3rd revert: 20:48 11 October 2007
4th revert: 20:57 11 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: Unneeded - see above.

Reverting immediately after release of 3RR block on same article. Will ^(talk) 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the last one isnt a revert. So i do not have more than 3. Grande13 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ha, and i just noticed the first one isn't me. If you look over the history of the page there are other members, some with usernames, and some with IP that have reverted your edits as well. I dont have access to a computer from 8am to 2pm central time anyways. Nice try though. Grande13 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK applies (and if you are at school 8am to 2am, I see no reason why you can't use a computer at lunchtime). Will ^(talk) 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who said I was at school? I work at for Board of Trade and our computers dont have access to the internet for legal reasons. So 2 of those still arent valid. I like how you keep making assumptions though. Grande13 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there's plenty of reasons how you can get on the internet. Mobile phones? Internet cafes? Will ^(talk) 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you really go out of your way it can be done...but then anyone else can do that as well. There is no way it can or should be assumed that was me. Heck, it could have even been you doing that action attempting to get me 3RR. Grande13 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that pathetic. Will ^(talk) 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

either im I. Im just saying it could have easily been you or anyone else compared to me. And im saying its even more unlikely it was me as i was stuck at a desk all day. Grande13 20:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale report; see above for the same revert war as seen from the other side. Sam Blacketer 12:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unnamed user from 83.42.211.143reported by User:harrypotter (Result: page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Precarity&oldid=163698106 00:38, 11 October 2007]

This IP Address is in Barcelona, as is 88.6.171.168. Bearing in mind that that the user at this address also has only made changes on the precarity and related pages, I regard it as extremely likely that the same fingers are behind the keyboard.

Diff of 3RR warning: 04:31, 5 October 2007

There has been a certain disagreement about this page going on for a while. Despite refrenced sourcesas to Catholic origins of the term, material has been repeteatedly removed. Those removing the material appear to have little other engagement with wikipedia. Perhaps page protection which prevents un-logged in people from making edits might help here?Harrypotter 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the page. It seems this user is under a dynamic IP, and a block would not be that helpful. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isarig reported by User:RolandR (Result:Stale)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 15:47, 11 October 2007
2nd revert: 18:19, 11 October 2007

NB This user is on mentorship, with a strict 1RR rule, as a result of a discussion on the former Community Sanctions Noticeboard [14]. He has twice added the same spam link -- on one occasion, accepting that it is spam, and defending his action [15]RolandR 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is false, as is evidenced by the lack of a "previous version reverted to" link. The second "revert" is nothing of the sort, and does not introduce the same link - it is a complete rewrite of the section, adding new information and basing it on 2 new, mainstream sources, thus addressing whatever issues existed with the original text. RolndR has been extensively edit warring on this article (and blocked for it) , and is now trying to wikilawyer his way into winning a content dispute. Isarig 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is trying to wikilawyer, it is Isarig, who claims that twice reverting my removal of a spam link is "a complete rewrite". Isarig, who is no longer allowed to edit Middle East articles, appears to be stalking me to other articles in order to provoke edit wars there.RolandR 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False claim here. Those two edits are nowhere near the same. Advise submitter to rethink his submission. Kyaa the Catlord 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I twice removed a spam link; Isarig twice replaced it. The 3RR rule states quite clearly "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". RolandR 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You twice removed a link to TechCrunch, which you claim is a spam link, but I did not replace it twice. Rather, the 2nd time, I rewrote the whole paragraph, focusing it on the controversy rather than the product features, and used 3 mainstream sources, Forbes and PC World, for it. Please stop trying to gain the upper hand in your personal crusade against jajah by resorting to technicalities and wikilawyering of the worst kind. Isarig 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". RolandR 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the community sanction noticeboard enforceable? Stifle (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This report is now stale but I think that users suspected of reverting in violation of mentorship, probation, parole, or revert limitation imposed on them specifically should not be reported here; try the Administrators' Noticeboard instead. Sam Blacketer 12:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. I don't think this is the right place for that. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86.148.176.95 reported by Canada Jack (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 11 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:26, 11 October 2007

This person has been inserting a line into a biography about Carl Lewis from various IP addresses since about October 7th. Since the insertion (drug allegations) was covered later in the article and the issue, once reported, was not followed up, it was my judgement and this was agreed upon by at least on other member that it did not warrant mention in the intro. I invited this person to discuss the rationale for this change as this had been the consensus in the article to that point. To this time, these requests have been ignored. A check on the person's contributions on the latest IP reveals he or she seems bent on inserting the Lewis drug allegations where warranted - on Ben Johnson's page, on the 1988 Olympic final page, etc.

Today, seeing that we had reverted to the original intro, he or she re-inserted the same text yet again, and has re-inserted despite my warning on the talk page that I will move to block or otherwise make this cease, and my final warning on my last revert that this was the final warning and I will act to block. Within three minutes, the person made the change and his still not supplied a rationale for their edits nor engaged me or anyone else I am aware of in discussion.Canada Jack 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll endorse this. This same IP has been visiting various sprinting athletes pages adding poorly sourced or unsourced information regarding 'tarnished' images due to drug use. I've warned the user RE:3RR and reverted changes as per WP:BLP.--Yankees76 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked by Philippe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for vandalism. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paki.tv reported by User:Prester John (Result: no action taken)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 16:39 Oct 11
2nd revert: 20:02 Oct 11
3rd revert: 20:36 Oct 11
4th revert: 20:52 Oct 11

Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

User:Paki.tv is having a busy afternoon POV pushing on multiple articles with the intent of disparaging Australians. Notice the first revert. He totally reverses the meaning of the paragraph without adding any citation. After discussion on the talkpage he continues this for the another two reverts. After being warned, (and his subsequent acknowledgement), he reverts for the fourth time with his misrepresentation of a reference. He seems to be arguing that a speech by the Prime Minister complaining about the "chattering classes" is evidence of the claim he is making. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a comment on the validity of the edits, nor am I suggesting it is not edit warring, but it seems to me that the first diff provided above by Prester John was not a revert but the initial change. Prester John and paki.tv have then reverted each other 3 times each. I.e., both seem to be sitting on 3RR with neither technically making a 4th revert. Up to the admins - i agree it is edit warring even if not a technical 3RR violation by either - my apologies to all if I am wrong. --Merbabu 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The speech in question demonstrates the ongoing problem that Australia has with its history wars - and I use it to demonstrate the tainted reputation of Australias and its relationship to immigration debates. I have discussed these changes at every step. Prester John on the other hand is reverting to unreferenced assertions and even asking for references for well known and established facts eg Invasion Day and the First Fleet and it is he who is deleting without discussion. Paki.tv —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:52, 12 October 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. If edit warring continues, I will either block any 3RR violators or protect the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Link to the Past reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 05:01, 12 October 2007 (I'm not sure what this is asking but I hope I did it right)

Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

User has been blocked repeatedly for doing things like these in the past. He refuses to stop warring and leaves almost incivil comments in his edit summaries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case and one week block in line with previous escalating blocks. Removing warnings not to edit war on the grounds that the warnings constitute vandalism is not acceptable. Sam Blacketer 08:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.143.232.238 reported by User:ForeignerFromTheEast (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:51, 10 October 2007
1st revert: 05:49, 11 October 2007
2nd revert: 06:05, 11 October 2007
3rd revert: 23:07, 11 October 2007
4th revert: 05:14, 12 October 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 23:21, 11 October 2007

The anon user has been repeatedly inserting various redirects/red links which do not link to the article in question (Samuil of Bulgaria). Has continued to do the same on other articles. ForeignerFromTheEast 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was warned and continued reverting; insulting and vaguely nationalistic edit summaries; the content of the revert being over whether to change a direct link into a link to a redirected page. I have blocked 69.143.232.238 for 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:HumayunMirzajr reported by User:Ragib (Result: no action taken)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:33, 7 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

The user has been present since February 2007, so this is not a new user.

The user keeps removing referenced information from the article Mir Jafar, without any explanation. User has been requested to refrain from doing this. User continues to remove the referenced information despite warnings. Ragib 08:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the page. HumayunMirzajr did not make any reverts after your warning (he reverted 17 seconds after your warning), so I'll assume that was the first time he heard about 3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have unprotected the page. It seems the two users are now in discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result: Both blocked for 6 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 21:08, 10 October 2007

1st revert: 07:12, 9:16, 11 October 2007
2nd revert: 14:54, 11 October 2007
3rd revert: 16:13, 11 October 2007
4th revert: 16:49, 11 October 2007
5th revert: 08:26, 12 October 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:42, 11 October 2007

Oops, I just noticed that my warning was respect to his reverts on the other article, least-squares spectral analysis; the editing history there is somewhat more complex, but still amounts to him asserting WP:OWNership and pushing the POV that one person should get more credit than others, per his COI. He has more than 5 UNDOs of my edits in 24 hours, including this one and this one after the warning, even as I attempted various ways to build on his latest but move toward a more neutral presentation. Dicklyon 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These tag reverts are the tip of an iceberg. New WP:SPA with severe WP:COI, ignoring all guidelines such as WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV, engaging in WP:PA, etc. I've also reported on WP:ANI#Geoeg, but at least he should be blocked for 3RR; if you have to block me, too, that's fine. Dicklyon 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you're honest. 6 hours each as you've both violated the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jester7777 reported by Opinoso - Result: Protected

Jester7777, once again, reverted over 3 times. I already denunced him for 4 times revertion in 4 October 2007, but he was not blocked, neither an administrator talked to him. Today, he did the same vandalism in the article Nelly Furtado.

Opinoso 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected by User:Yamla. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't he blocked and not even receved anything at his talk page? This is the second time he does this kind of vandalism.Opinoso 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because blocking for 3RR violations is to prevent sterile edit wars, not for punishment. The edit war is prevented by the protection, so there is no reason to block. I will warn Jester7777 about 3RR; there's nothing stopping you from doing so either. Stifle (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:Under investigation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Complicated, see below

1st revert: 11:08, October 11, 2007 Removal of allegations and allegedly that was added in prior version.

2nd revert: 14:34, October 11, 2007

3rd revert: 18:34, October 11, 2007 Reverted “Most media reviews have regarded the film highly, as a "powerful" and "emotional" record of the era.” this edit, back to previous text [16]
4th revert: 13:27, October 12, 2007 removal of “When the event began, Lane returned to participate in the media event, acting as its "general council” added in this edit

Although, this might be a bit difficult to follow, Xenophrenic has managed to remove, in one way or another, every contribution made to the article over the past 48 hours, and in the process reverted in whole or part, the contributions of other editors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see similar request 11 entries above this one. The diffs above do not show a violation of WP:3RR. As advised by Sam Blacketer on this same issue, "It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply," which is what I did. TDC is misrepresenting the situation, edit warring, misrepresenting his edits in Edit Summaries, and now appears to be attempting to get blocks issued instead of collaborating on article improvement. Xenophrenic 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made the report yesterday, you have made several more edits, and yes, according to the links posted above, you have violated 3RR, but someone elese will make that final determination. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Postdoc reported by User:wbfergus (Result: blocked 24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:20, October 12, 2007 (I think I'm reporting this correctly)

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 12:23, October 12, 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Postdoc seems to have a grudge against HanzoHatorri for some reason, at least that's what i get from his edit comment. The edit he is reverting doesn't even appear to be from Hanzo, but I think John Smith's. wbfergus^Talk 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users: Xxxaintlovegrand, Xxxaintlovegrandxxx, HDS, A7X 6661 18V, 70.101.166.119, reported by IP4240207xx 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Result: indef block for sockpuppetry)

Three-revert rule and Edit War violations over birth year on:

Xxxaintlovegrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.101.166.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A7X 6661 18V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Stephen Hart action = history

(cur) (last) 21:29, 12 October 2007 A7X 6661 18V (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 21:20, 12 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (Undid revision 164089463 by HDS (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 17:38, 12 October 2007 HDS (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (Undid revision 163961819 by Xxxaintlovegrand (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:45, 12 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:26, 12 October 2007 70.101.166.119 (Talk) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 22:27, 10 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:36, 5 October 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) m (1,968 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Xxxaintlovegrand. using TW) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:33, 5 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:33, 4 October 2007 HDS (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (Undid revision 162134078 by Xxxaintlovegrand (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 00:13, 4 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:38, 3 October 2007 Lacaid (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (Removing vandalism) (undo)
(cur) (last) 23:12, 2 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)

Please lock article until BIRTH YEAR can be resolved.

Xxxaintlovegrand blocked 1 week for vandalism and 3RR. This appears to be a vandal-only account. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there seems to be some SOCKPUPPETRY going on:

Xxxaintlovegrandxxx (talk · contribs)
Xxxaintlovegrand (talk · contribs)

Ah...didn't realize the socks were out...both will now get indef'ed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cosc reported by User:DAJF (Result: 48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:36, 13 October 2007

The user stopped at 3 edits on this occasion, and therefore has not technically broken the 3 revert rule, but this is exactly the same edit/reversion pattern which has been continuing since September and for which the user received a 24-hour block on 8 October. The same edit against consensus was subsequently made twice on 10 October and once on 11 October. DAJF 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR isn't a right, and this guy was blocked on Oct 7th. 48hrs for gaming as well as potential vio of copyright. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jedi Master MIK reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: Both blocked 12h)

Three-revert rule violation on

In this diff: 10:10, 29 July 2007, I added the sourced "Rubin explains that the name of Ibn 'Abbas must have been part of the original isnad, and that his name was removed so that the incident could be deprived of its sahih isnad and discredited.^[1]" He removed it four times:

I included the first revert for the whole history. Note how patently disruptive this editing is. He is removing sourced, highly reliable material simply because he doesn't like it, and has made up an excuse. Other, more experienced users User:Itaqallah and User:Aminz who share his POV have not quibbled with this material. With his fifth revert, trying not to violate the letter of 3RR, he again removed the material he doesn't like, this time shoving down to an inappropriate part of the article. The whole time his edit summaries have not said that he is removing the discussion of the isnad or why. He was recently blocked 48 hours for a 3RR vio. If he is not somehow made to desist from this I will have to start moving the context he has separated the quote from to where he has put the quote and the article will become completely disjointed. Arrow740 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both participants in this edit war are blocked for 12 h. Sandstein 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paki.tv reported by User:Prester John (Result: 24h - Blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:41 Oct12

All diffs are the same;

1st revert: 18:41 Oct12
2nd revert: 19:04 Oct 12
3rd revert: 19:11 Oct 12
4th revert: 19:20 Oct 12

Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

User:Paki.tv continues to insert contentious material using extraordinary levels of synthesis. This time he forgoes references and using the talkpage altogether. Note his attempt to ram through his change within 40 minutes. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not evident that paki.tv breached 3RR. Please explain if I am wrong, but from what I can see, his "1st revert" listed above is merely adding new material, after which Prester John removed 3 times in response to paki.tv's 3 reverts of Presters Removal. But, this is only 3 reverts by each of the two parties. This is exactly the same scenario as yesterday where PJ has reported paki.tv. here. If this is a block for edit warring, then the block should apply to both as they both have now three reverts. --Merbabu 07:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harry Mudd reported by User:Diego (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:24, 12 October 2007

16:24, 12 October 2007

User is not new and was warned on the talk page that he has no support for his edits (neither from other editors nor from Wikipedia policies and guidelines). (see Talk:James Randi#Removed link to Randi's forums)
The edit summaries reverting his edits make it clear that they are not appropriate (see History
User:Harry Mudd's edit summaries also clearly indicate that he does not care that he is editing against the consensus on the talk page.
This user claims (in his edit summaries) to be removing a "link", but is actually deleting a non-contentious statement and the reference supporting that statement. This has been pointed out to him on the talk page and he has responded. User:Harry Mudd has not actually challenged the factual accuracy of the statement he is removing, he is admittedly trying to prove a WP:POINT (see Talk:James Randi#Removed information in the million dollar challenge. Again, this is not a content dispute. It is simply disruptive editing to prove a point. He has been uncivil, engaged in personal attacks, and refused to acknowledge the viewpoint of several other editors. If he makes any more edits before this is acted upon, please lock article at 16:24, 12 October 2007. Thank you. — DIEGO ^talk 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours by Maxim. Sam Blacketer 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:26, 12 October 2007

1st revert: 19:49, 12 October 2007
2nd revert: 05:34, 13 October 2007
3rd revert: 05:36, 13 October 2007
4th revert: 10:18, 13 October 2007
5th revert: 10:18, 14:19, 13 October 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 13:01, 13 October 2007

We were both blocked 6 hours for this yesterday; this time I stopped short of violation, and warned him to do the same. But he kept on. As an editor with clear COI as documented on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Geoeg, he should not be removing COI and NOTE tags. Dicklyon 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming straight off a block and reverting is outstandingly bad conduct. 48 hours. Dicklyon is not to be blocked for his moderation; I would caution him not to readd the tags, as other editors can make that call. Sam Blacketer 22:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ned Scott reported by User:86.29.39.5 (Result:24 hours for anon )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:46, 13 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Ned keeps removing my good faith comment, branding me as a troll. He's knowingly broken the 3RR rule, something he's very familiar with. 86.29.39.5 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been trolling on AN/I and baiting Scott. Please reconsider this, and feel free to return tomorrow to constructive editing. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derek.cashman reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: No block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:17, 8 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 03:30, 13 October 2007 - This 3RR warning was for Richmond, Virginia, but the user should have gotten the message either way.

The user continues to remove fields (not being used) in City Infoboxes, demanding they be removed, removing them to the point of vandalism, violating WP:AGF, WP:ABUSE, among others. NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert is a stretch. Bots aren't actually people; I don't believe a human editing the mechanical changes by a bot ought to be considered reverting. -- tariqabjotu 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Princefigs reported by User:Kesac (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:04, 13 October 2007

1st revert: 21:17, 13 October 2007
2nd revert: 21:23, 13 October 2007
3rd revert: 23:47, 13 October 2007
4th revert: 02:52, 14 October 2007
5th revert: 03:24, 14 October 2007 (Warning issued after this revert)
6th revert: 03:29, 14 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 03:26, 14 October 2007

Note the personal attacks on the 4th and 5th reverts as well. Kesac 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case. Although a new user (perhaps sock investigation required?), his confrontational attitude and personal attacks make it necessary to block. I chose 24 hours duration; hopefully he will learn. Sam Blacketer 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Will Beback reported by User:Alecmconroy (Result:No violation, article protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 00:16, 14 October 2007

User's been around for quite some time, but I warned anyway.

Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment is a policy proposal write (mostly) by Privatemusings and BenB4. The proposed policy, if adopted, would discourage, but not forbid, links to external harassment.

Will Beback, a proponent of an all-out ban on such links, has repeatedly edit warred over PM & BenB4's policy proposal, in ways that fundamental alters its central tenet (links are discouraged, but not explicitly disallowed). In doing so, he has broken 3RR. Not to mention the general incivility of substantially altering other users' proposals without consensus.

No interest in vengeance, or retributive justice-- just want him to stop this behavior before it gets worse. Alecmconroy 04:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alecmconroy has mistated my policy position, and has ignored my offer to straighten this out between us. As for the supposed reverts, only one of them was an actual revert - and none of them were reverts to the "version reverted to". The page is already protected, there is no point in a block anyway. Lastly, it should be noted that Privatemusings (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet, and it isn't clear to whom the account actually belongs, so claims of violating consensus are invalid. The proposal does not belong to Alecmconroy, PM, or BenB4. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until you self-revert, we have a behavior problem that needs addressing. --Alecmconroy 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add-- I've politely pointed out to you that you are in violation of the 3RR, and asked you to self-revert. Now, you claim your edits aren't reverts, because you changed the wording slightly with each revert. If I'm wrong, then I guess I owe you an apology. But if I'm right, and reverts are ANY attempt to undo other editors actions, not just "revert to word-for-word previous versions"-- then you're either woefully misinformed about a core policy, or willfully deceiving us about it. If either turns out to be the case, you're really not fit to hold the admin mop. --Alecmconroy 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were minor wording changes that barely affected the meaning, I don't see how you can assert that the purpose of the edits was to undo the actions of other editors. Wikipedia is all about revising each other's contributions. If I may say, I think you started the reverting. We should work this out on the talk page rather than on the proposal page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, feel free to self-revert. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but we really need to be clear on this point that it's only appropriate to hammer away, reinserting BOLD edits, when you have consensus. You clearly know that your changes are disputed. Self-revert, and I will gladly take it as a sign that you recognize the need to discuss and develop a consensus before repeatedly reinserting your own changes.

Until you understand that, there's no point in talking to you about the policy itself. You know, from the talk page, that multiple editors disagree with your edits. If you're willing to edit war against them all, why waste time talking about the policy more when the opinions of others don't affect your editing. --Alecmconroy 05:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected, so I can't relf-revert. I do know from the talk pages that at least a couple of editors have said the text is something "everyone can agree on". As for edit warring, I think it was another editort who started that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I thought you, as an admin, could self-revert on a protected page. Either asking another admin to make the edit on your behalf, or requesting unprotection with a promise to self-revert as soon as protection is lifted would work. It not about trying to crucify anyone, it's just about bringing you to a general understanding that what you've done here isn't appropriate, that you shouldn't have done it, that you'll fix it, and that you won't do it in the future. If you can say those four things, then we really don't need anything else. If you can't, well.. then we better address that now, before the problem gets any worse --Alecmconroy 06:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Alecmconroy's side in the "BADSITES wars", and Will has been a persistent opponent, but I regrettably have to disagree with Alec on this; as far as I'm aware, 3RR applies to reverting to the same version more than three times, and none of the diffs above are anywhere near identical. Thus, it's an edit battle, with varying versions being proposed which might not meet the approval of other editors, but no 3RR violation has taken place. *Dan T.* 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see once the experts look at it, but I think you're wrong there-- WP:3RR says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." and "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." --Alecmconroy 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no violation of the three revert rule. Will Beback has been proposing a succession of different attempts at wording, and explaining his changes; to hold this a violation of a rule would actively frustrate attempts to get a consensus version. Sam Blacketer 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.112.23.57 reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result:Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

This anonymous IP is consistently reverting information and replacing it with incorrect dates. I have explained several times to the IP on their talk page, and the article's talk page but they continue to revert. MelicansMatkin 05:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MelicansMatkin has made more than three reverts, too. PeaceNT 05:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To remove what they are doing. I have provided references, and yet they continue to remove those references and change the information. MelicansMatkin 05:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you kept on reverting more than three times before adding references to justify the edits. I also think this warning is a rather harsh. The edits were made in good faith, not in an attempt to harm the article deliberately. PeaceNT 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yahel Guhan reported by User:Mostargue (Result: Yahel Guhan warned. Mostargue blocked as ssp)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Has reverted, in violation of WP:OWN, four times despite no consensus or discussion on talk page. He has also accused me of being a sockpuppet of a banned user, despite checkuser evidence to the contrary, and even before the checkuser results were in. Please I ask that someone tell Mr. Guhan to stop hurting me like this. He is very incivil. I have no idea how to approach him because he seems very experienced and I feel overwhelmed. Thank you. Mostargue 05:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, edit one is not a revert, but rather the original edit, so techincally I did not revert four times, but rather three. Second, the only reason you are even editing that page is because you are wikistalking and reverting me. Your edits do appear to be those of Kirbytime, and the result of the checkuser was inconclusive, meaning there still is a good chance you are a sock; there just isn't enough evidence to prove it for sure. Yahel Guhan 05:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

evidence.--Mostargue 05:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you are stalking me (obviously paying attention to my contributions, as you are pointing to an edit to my own userspace as evidence). Yahel Guhan 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor who has contributed to both Template:African American topics and Template:Judaism. Over the past week, Mostargue has appeared out of nowhere and reverted Yahel Guhan's edits to those templates. Mostargue has never edited those templates before, nor (to the best of my knowledge) has she/he edited any of the hundreds of Judaism- or African-American-related articles on my Watchlist. What I have seen this week seems to support Yahel Guhan's assertion that Mostargue is Wiki-stalking him. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting party appears to be a sockpuppet and has been blocked indef. Yahel Guhan appears to have breached the 3RR but was constructively discussing changes on the talk page. A warning suffices. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stateofart reported by User:KNM (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:53, October 12, 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 09:59, August 29, 2007

The user has been revert warring on this article, against multiple editors. In an other revert warring episode, he was given 3RR warning, and so he was well aware of the rule. Yet he has made 5 reverts in last 25 hours, and certainly violated 3RR in last 24 hours. KNM ^Talk 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is case of hypocricy of KNM and his friends of removing sourced information and reverting without even looking at sources. Despite request at his talk page and constant appeals thorugh edit summaries and presenting a SOURCE which he choosed to ignore and delete [18], [19], [20], [21] sourced information along with others whom he hired for saving himself from 3RR [22], [23]

Earlier too despite many explainations and repeated requests by me to see source [24], [25], [26], [27]

KNM [28], [29], [30]

and his friends [31], [32], [33], [34]

chose not to click and read the source and read what they call as 'POV' was endorsed by national newspaper,Times Of India. Note that this source is here from past few weeks and still KNM/others are ignoring and reverting deliberately. Also note that kannada script in Rahul Dravid is unwarrented since he is not a kannadiga. That means Aishwarya Rai should also have Marathi script. Above all KNM and others guard the pages together and leave no option for an individual to break some wikipedia rules. KNM and others should be punished for their deliberate ignoring of sources and starting a edit war. (Stateofart 07:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

24 hours. Please don't bring your content dispute here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rewinn reported by User:38.98.181.23 (Result: no violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [35] (RE:"This is MANDATORY." I was unclear as to what this part of the form was asking me for, soI put the last NPOV version before his first rv.)

1st revert: [36]
2nd revert: [37]
3rd revert: [38]

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

This is a pattern keeping with the Edit Warring detailed on the Incident Board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive309#Rewinn:_Mallicious_Behavior 98.206.145.219 16:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. To violate the three-revert rule one must make more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.216.96.17 reported by User:Pudeo (Result: Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:00, 9 October 200 (with minor modifications to the list)

This user keeps edit warring the article, although the list has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contributions to the War on Terrorism. He keeps recreating the article, although several users have prevented it by reverting. It was told to him on the talk page also, and he for sure has been acknowledged that it isn't accepted as I told him to go WP:UNDELETE, and after that he tried to put undelete-template on the article. Don't start with the ridiculous bureucracy that I did not warn him on HIS talk page prior to the violation. As you see, he keeps doing it and won't stop. Now, please let me use my time improving Wikipedia instead of battling with editwarring IPs. Thank you. Pudeo ⺮ 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will list List of allies in the war on terror on WP:PT, which is more effective than blocking this IP. Sandstein 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that'll do it I guess. He just blanked his talk page of the warning I added. Let's see if he starts new lists of the subject. --Pudeo ⺮ 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.120.55.7 reported by User:Hgilbert (Result: new info.)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Oct 14 2007 17:54

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 18:01, 14 October 2007

A new user is trying to include unpublished material ("Karma for Dummies") and has been repeatedly advised that this does not meet verifiability standards. Hgilbert 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for forty-eight hours. — madman bum and angel 00:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the same user with a range of IP addresses beginning with 79.120.55 (and ending .10, .7, .5) has continued the revert war. Hgilbert 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked, for one week. Registered users are still able to edit, as a user claimed that it belonged to a corporate VPN. I believe they meant a corporate proxy. — madman bum and angel 15:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps going; same IP ending in .4 and .14 is now reverting...Is it practicable to block the whole range? Hgilbert 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New user User:Efialt is now reverting in the same way, evidently the same person. Hgilbert 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 3rr warning to User:Efialt's page [40]. --Rocksanddirt 21:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: rv'd after warning. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hnsampat reported by User:PatialaPeg (Result: No violation 31 hours for PatialaPeg )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:33, 13 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 02:51, 15 October 2007

A short explanation of the incident. PatialaPeg 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biography of Bhagat Singh Sandhu, a revolutionary of India of 1920s, the full name has been removed by user Hnsampat for unknown reason. There are thousand of references to his full name "Bhagat Singh Sandhu" [41] although he is generally known just as "Bhagat Singh", as the article is appropriately named.

No violation - I also see that the discussion has moved on to the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcelite reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: 48 Hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 06:57, 15 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 06:35, 15 October 2007

This disruptive editor (which I'm thinking might be a sockpuppet of someone) has been reverting constantly for the past few days instead of discussing the matter on the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breathtaking disregard for other editors and site standards. Usually its 24 hours for the first offence but I have gone in at 48 hours. Please let me know if there is any further disruption as we need to keep this one on a short leash. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Josquius reported by User:CaptainNemo420 (Result:Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:33, 15 October 2007)

1st revert: Revision as of 16:45, 11 October 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 08:39, 12 October 2007
3rd revert: Revision as of 16:28, 12 October 2007
4th revert: Revision as of 12:19, 13 October 2007
5th revert:

Revision as of 14:20, 13 October 2007

6th revert

Revision as of 10:56, 15 October 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 08:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Acknowledged - Josquius 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests to stop vandalizing the page, the user has not stopped. When requested to provide a source for his POV, he has constantly refrained from doing so. Despite requests to compromise on the word, he still refuses to do so. Despite requests to look at previous discussion where this issue has been settled by regular editors, the user refuses to take that into account CaptainNemo420 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a clear violation here. However, reporter, CaptainNemo420 is a new account with surprisingly good grasp of WP policies. Also, as per WP:EXTREMIST, WP style guide suggests that the term Freedom fighter is to be avoided so it's unlikely I would 3RR someone just for removing that term. I have protected the page to give parties a chance to cool off. Ronnotel 12:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to report that guy. I strongly suspect that this CaptainNemo420 may well be DemolitionMan aka. JVallant.
I have previously tried to get that page protected against him but it was in vain.
If my suspicions as to who he is are correct then he has broken the 3RR.

3: 12:45, 15 October 2007
2: 11:33, 15 October 2007
1 (not logged in anywhere): 08:16, 15 October 2007

What he says above should really be aimed at himself. 'Despite repeated requests to stop vandalizing the page, the user has not stopped': he just spouts off rhetoric about me presumably being brainwashed by some strange imaginary cabal seeking the return of the British empire. 'When requested to provide a source for his POV, he has constantly refrained from doing so. Despite requests to compromise on the word, he still refuses to do so' - he is pretending to compromise by offering another word that means the same thing. There is no compromise possible, this is not my POV against his, this is NPOV vs. his. If bargaining was required then I would have started my edits with far right anti-asian nonsense which of course would not be productive at all.
'Despite requests to look at previous discussion where this issue has been settled by regular editors, the user refuses to take that into account' taken into account and brought to his attention. --Josquius 13:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's reasonable grounds for an interested user to file a report at WP:SSP against User:CaptainNemo420. Ronnotel 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is freaking absurd. I wouldn't be surprised if Josquis himself setup an account called User:CaptainNemo420 to argue with himself. He certainly seems capable enough to frame me unnecessarily. Either way, I am sure you can trace the IP addresses if required. I am sure, both of these will belong to Josquis. I don't ever recollecting complaining against anyone so far. I don't know about Josquis' sockpuppet, but I certainly have provided proof of the term "freedom fighter" being used by the Indian govt - heck there are movies made in India calling them "freedom fighters", and that is what the school text-books say. Neither Josquis nor his sockpuppet have provided any evidence to the contrary. DemolitionMan 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User:CaptainNemo420 can explain how (s)he became so familiar with WP policy to be able to file a report here after 3 edits? Ronnotel 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never bothered to create an account before, but have been using Wikipedia for a while. It's retarded to assume that everyone who uses wiki actually creates an account. It's even more retarded on the part of Josquis to assume that more than one person can't disagree with him. Why wasn't he banned for a period of 24 or 48 hours? Also, is there a rule which states that a newly registered user can't invoke the 3RR?

CaptainNemo420 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stsfi reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:01, October 15, 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 05:00, October 15, 2007

This new editor has shown up trying to repeatedly insert information about an unproduced project they are associated with into Wikipedia. While they have not been warned directly about 3RR, they are aware of it, as they threatened to report another long-time editor for violating 3RR in retaliation for the unsourced information's continued removal *before* violating 3RR themselves. This user has also made legal threats against another user and Wikipedia for daring to remove his content. MikeWazowski 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked twenty-four hours for three-revert rule violation and forty-eight hours for legal threats. — madman bum and angel 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have upgraded the block to indef per WP:NLT. Once the original block expires the block can be lifted upon the withdrawal of the legal threat. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pilotbob reported by User:Strothra (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:15, 14 October 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 12:38, 15 October 2007

Continuous edit warring to insert unencyclopedic information. Strothra 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one edit and three reverts, not four reverts. The editor is new, and the edit summary on the last edit indicates that he does not intend to continue reverting. Therefore no violation and no block. I will leave a talk page message to encourage discussion and not reverting. Sam Blacketer 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake, that is 4 reversions on October 15 back to the October 14 edit which included the contested statement. While certainly a textbook 3rr vio, I can see not blocking due to the edit comment and the fact that 3rr blocks are not intended as a punitive measure. --Strothra 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adam.J.W.C. reported by User:Alan Liefting (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:04, 14 October 2007

I have removed what I consider to be inapprop categories and User:Adam.J.W.C. is reverting with very little discussion. This editor appears to be rather too protective of certain articles. -- Alan Liefting talk 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more like regular editing going on. Please assume good faith and work together and reach consensus. Ronnotel 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Panelequal3 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:Blocked 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 06:49, October 15, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 18:37, October 15, 2007

Inserted "East Sea" and subsequently reverted against four independent editors to attempt to keep this change, all within a 24 hour period. —LactoseTI^T 06:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. i already discussed yesterday why this artcle must changed.[42]

also, user LactoseT did not answer his talk page.[43]

he did not mutual agreement of the page. Panelequal3 07:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Check the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean).

According to Wikipedia naming convention,

Per the vote that took place from 18 July 2005 to 8 August 2005 here, this is the new naming convention for the body of water that separates Japan and Korea:

For all international articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
For all Japan articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
For all Japan/North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)
For all Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
For all North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)

Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention.

so, use as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is right. it is not 3rr violation. just obey wikipedia naming convetion.WP:NC

also, i did not changed every sea of japan/east sea article. i only changed sea of japan article. Panelequal3 07:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Information: I was just about to report this user for exactly this breach. In addition to those mentioned above, the user has continued despie warnings:

Clearly something needs to be done to prevent these disruptive edits. B1atv 08:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse 3RR warning. This edit war is continuing. The article Sea of Japan is an international article. Even it were bound by the MoS for Japan/Korea articles, only the first instance of the name would need to be appended (East Sea); not every mention in the article. Neier 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8th revert: 08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block, and would block him myself if i would not be involved in the article. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i revert only volation of WP:NV. 1(me):4(japanese + admin) fight. this is unfair. you must see who is the more Neutral POV edit. Sea of Japan/East Sea(same use) is more Neutral POV edit. Panelequal3 09:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. And yes, i also read WP:NV. Please abstain from reverts. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9th revert: 19:42, October 16, 2007 (JST)

I have blocked the user for 24 hours after hist 9th revert within 24 hours. While I am sure that this is justified, I am involved in the article, and hence would invite another admin to check if (s)he agrees with this block. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. CitiCat^♫ 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neier reported by User:Panelequal3 (Result: No Violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 07:39, 16 October 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

He reverted as "Sea of Japan" and subsequently reverted against four independent editors to attempt to keep this change, all within a 24 hour period. he did not convetion this in article's discussion page. also, he did not obey WP:NC and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), this sea is not only for japan but also, north korea and south korea's. also, this sea name disputed with japan and north korea and sout korea. "Sea of Japan/East Sea"(same use) is right. Panelequal3 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to accuse people of sockpuppetry and 3RR reversions, you may want to lay off the copy/paste keys. subsequently reverted against four independent editors, mathematically impossible, as there were only three reverts by me; and, patently false, as you are the only one (against four or five others) trying to push your PoV edits. As I wrote on the talk page, and in your own 3RR warning above, the article Sea of Japan is an international article. The Korea naming convention page is very clear on how to deal with that article in this situation. Your changes to add (East Sea) after each instance of Sea of Japan go against all of the naming conventions you have cited; as, they all say to only add the parenthetic ONCE. Neier 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

four independent editor? who know? They are socket puppet? this is NOT point. don't out of topic. 1. you have been violation of 3rr rule. 2. i revert only WP:NV violation article. 3. i did not edit other page's sea of japan name. i only edited in sea of japan page. 4. also, i discussed yesterady in article's discussion page for convetion.Panelequal3 09:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go on debating this issue with you, because this is probably the wrong place. BUT - nobody has accused you of editing the Sea of Japan's name in any other article. What people are complaining about is you changing it in every occurrence of the name in THIS article. As you have been repeatedly told - naming clarifications go at the top only. It does not need to be repeated in every mention of the name further down the article as doing so makes the article unreadable. B1atv 09:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't out of topic. internationally, Sea of Japan/East Sea use is right.(already metioned in discussion page) 2. According to WP:NV, same use is right, too. who is the more Neutral POV edit?Panelequal3 10:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No 3RR violation, since only 3 reverts are claimed, and only 4 reverts are a violation of policy. read up on WP:3RR. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, totally biased by Pro.japanese admin.No 3RR violation? you did read WP:3RR? Panelequal3 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Chris 73, you edited many of japanese relation article. maybe you are japanese. i understand why do you upset to me. so, i give up by japanese admin? whoa........ i can not fair edit by japanese admin. i remeber you. Panelequal3 10:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop! personal harrasment you japanese guys. you continually harassment if try to NPOV edit. this is Not japkipedia. Panelequal3 10:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse people of bias, you accuse people of sockpuppetry, you claim 3RR violaitions where there is none, you completely ignore other editors comments, etc. Have you ever considered that you may have to change here? As mentioned above, 24 hour block for you for a 9RR violation to think it over. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:121.222.189.102 reported by User:Jvhertum (Result: No Violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [45]

1st revert: [46]
2nd revert: [47]
3rd revert: [48]
4th revert: [49]

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: [50]

Continuously adding back trivial information about which song is popular at their high school right now. Also added this to my talk page. Jvhertum 10:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This first revert was a couple of days before the others, so there is no 3RR violation. You are doubtlessly correct in removing the trivial information, and I'll keep an eye on the page, and will leave a note about civility. I would also recommend, however, that you try to be somewhat more neutral when you leave a talk page warning for a first violation, as "stern" warnings like the one you left might inflame the situation. CitiCat^♫ 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This first revert was a couple of days before the others, so there is no 3RR violation. I think you mean the 4th was 2 days after the others. The first three were in about a 20-hour period, hence the valid 3RR warning that I (not Jvhertum) wrote on the user's talk page. I also suggested Jvhertum file a 3RR report if the edit war continued, but I see now that the 4th revert would've also had to occur within 24 hours (of the 3rd? or of the 1st?). In any case, I apologize for the misdirection.

If there is a template for someone's first 3RR warning that isn't too stern, please let me know. I didn't think it was too stern to "insist" rather than "ask" that they discontinue the edit war. —mjb 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:193.203.82.194 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Page Protected - Full)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 11 October 2007
1st revert: 10:52, 16 October 2007
2nd revert: 12:32, 16 October 2007

Editor continues his ongoing edit war in Cydonia Mensae. He's been blocked once for this behavior already. Please advise if you don't feel a block is due for this repeat behavior. Thanks. Ronz 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the article on full protection for 17 days. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users reported by User:HG (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Since I am commenting on the involved 2 users' content dispute, I would prefer another party to examine and handle the edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre. I am not expressing an opinion about which version should be kept. Preferably, both parties can be treated on an equivalent basis, either based on 3RR or otherwise.

This might be the initial revert in the latest flare up: diff1 Here is the most recent diff

Thanks very much. Pls reply to my Talk if you need more info. HG | Talk 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: 90.242.17.230 and User: 71.139.1.73 reported by User:Astruc (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [51]

These two are in a revert war about whether a quote from the Atlantic Monthly belongs in the first paragraph. They went back and forth several times today (a glance at the History page will suffice to show). Here are a handful of the reverts:

1st revert: 16 October 17:01
2nd revert: 16 October 17:06
3rd revert: 16 October 17:19
4th revert: 16 October 17:25
5th revert: 16 October 17:27
6th revert: 16 October 17:32
7rd revert: 16 October 17:35
8th revert: 16 October 18:38

90.242.17.230 was warned about the 3RR rule by, ironically, user 71.139.1.73. So they both know about it.

I recommend this article for protection till tempers simmer down.Astruc 20:30, 16 October 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}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*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 will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

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

^ Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Darwin Press, 1995, page 256.

[1] Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Darwin Press, 1995, page 256.

[1]

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