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 South Philly (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 22 October 2007 (→User:Gscshoyru reported by User:South Philly (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

    Putinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DonaldDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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 diffDonaldDuck 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted myself back. Does it help?Biophys 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    • 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)

    Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    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)

    Mazinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cobra982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    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]

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

    Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RucasHost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    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]
        • (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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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)

    Ludovic Quistin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stew_jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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 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]

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

    L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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 )

    L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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]

    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)

    |edit]] | [[Talk:Karolina Proniewska |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Karolina Proniewska |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Karolina Proniewska |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Karolina Proniewska |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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]
    • 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)

    List of Family Guy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grande13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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]

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

    Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)

    List of Family Guy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grande13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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]

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

    Precarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.42.211.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:00 11 October


    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.

    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]

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

    Jajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    86.148.176.95 reported by Canada Jack (Result: 24 hours)

    Carl_Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.148.176.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    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]

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

    Migratory history of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Paki.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    Unfortunately, the revert wars have just resumed, despite the warning from 'Nishkid64' (above). It's not 3RR, but the same editors reverting each others' content are causing problems around Wikipedia. I fear that these edit warriors will cause the page to be locked, like they have just done on the Pacific Solution article (now locked), which disadvantages all editors because these 2 indulge in revert wars. Please also consider the other report further down this page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Paki.tv_reported_by_User:Prester_John_.28Result:_24h_-_Blocked.29, which makes it 3 articles these editors are waring on. It's becoming very disruptive. Regards, --Lester 04:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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]

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

    Radoviš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.143.232.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)

    Mir Jafar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HumayunMirzajr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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]

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

    Petr Vaníček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    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]

    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)

    Winter Soldier Investigation‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: Complicated, see below

    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 )

    Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Postdoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    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)

    James Stephen Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    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

    1. (cur) (last) 21:29, 12 October 2007 A7X 6661 18V (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
    2. (cur) (last) 21:20, 12 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (Undid revision 164089463 by HDS (talk)) (undo)
    3. (cur) (last) 17:38, 12 October 2007 HDS (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (Undid revision 163961819 by Xxxaintlovegrand (talk)) (undo)
    4. (cur) (last) 02:45, 12 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
    5. (cur) (last) 01:26, 12 October 2007 70.101.166.119 (Talk) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
    6. (cur) (last) 22:27, 10 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
    7. (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)
    8. (cur) (last) 01:33, 5 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)
    9. (cur) (last) 01:33, 4 October 2007 HDS (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (Undid revision 162134078 by Xxxaintlovegrand (talk)) (undo)
    10. (cur) (last) 00:13, 4 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)
    11. (cur) (last) 16:38, 3 October 2007 Lacaid (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (Removing vandalism) (undo)
    12. (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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, there seems to be some SOCKPUPPETRY going on:
    Ah...didn't realize the socks were out...both will now get indef'ed. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cosc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    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]

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

    Satanic Verses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jedi Master MIK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

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

    Penal transportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Paki.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All diffs are the same;

    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]
    I agree with User:Merbabu (above) that this is not a 3RR violation, though it is an edit war. The first edit from User:Paki.tv was not a revert of another editors' content, and should not have been included in the diffs. At the time of the complaint by User:Prester John, both editors were engaged in an edit war, and both had accumulated an equal 3 reverts. I don't understand why one edit warrior, User:Paki.tv was blocked, while the other edit warrior (and complainant) User:Prester John was not blocked for the same offense. Also, consider the block history of both parties, as 'Paki.tv' hasn't previously offended, while 'Prester John' is a seasoned edit warrior. Prester John has since been waring on Pacific solution article, resulting in that article being blocked for all editors. If a complainant asks for another editor to be blocked for an offense he is himself committing, shouldn't the complainant be treated equally and also be blocked?--Lester 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Prester John's previous ANi report may also be of interest: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive299#Persistent_disruptive_editing_of_David_Hicks_by_User:Prester_John. Regards, Lester 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    James Randi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Harry Mudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

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

    Petr Vaníček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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 )

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    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)

    Flagstaff, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Derek.cashman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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 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)

    Kekkei genkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Princefigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    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)

    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]


    • 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)

    List of Pokémon: Advanced episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.112.23.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    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)

    Template:African American topics (edit | [[Talk:Template:African American topics|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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.

    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)

    Rahul Dravid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stateofart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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 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]

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

    Fairness Doctrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rewinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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.)


    • 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)

    List of allies in the war on terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.216.96.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    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.)

    Reincarnation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 79.120.55.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    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]

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

    Bhagat Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hnsampat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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.

    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.

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

    Trunks (Dragon Ball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mcelite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    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)

    Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Josquius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    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.

    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.


    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)

    Star Trek fan productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stsfi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    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)

    Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pilotbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    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)

    Cronulla Sand Dune System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam.J.W.C. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    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)

    Sea of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Panelequal3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Inserted "East Sea" and subsequently reverted against four independent editors to attempt to keep this change, all within a 24 hour period. —LactoseTIT 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:
    1. For all international articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
    2. For all Japan articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
    3. For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
    4. For all Japan/North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)
    5. For all Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
    6. 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]
    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]

    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)

    Sea of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Neier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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)

    Acid house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 121.222.189.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]


    • 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]
    You are correct about first-second versus third-fourth, but in any event, it's not a violation according to the letter of the law. While obviously an editor is required to stop violating a rule, saying "I'm . . . insisting that you stop" can often provoke the reaction "no one is going to force me to do anything" and cause further disruptive behavior. The regular template is {{Uw-3rr|article}}. I don't know of any others, but it seems pretty suited to the task. Cheers, CitiCat ♫ 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I bookmarked that template for future reference. —mjb 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Cydonia Mensae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.203.82.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    Multiple users reported by User:HG (Result: Page protected, 24h for Jaakobou)

    1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Time reported: 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


    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: 12 hours to both IP)

    Ralph Nader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 90.242.17.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User: 71.139.1.73: Time reported: 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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:

    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]

    User:222.124.193.125 reported by User:Chaldean (Result: )

    Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 222.124.193.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    He is listing countries like Afganistan as a Arab country, which is of course not true. I am trying to source Israel's and Iran's Arab population, and this guy keeps reverted everything to the way he thinks its right. Perhabs a semi-protection would be good with this. He is removing references and sources and summarize his edits as "REMOVING VANDELISM" - isn't that a big Wiki offence? Chaldean 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes you are the one vandelizing all the countries with populations and deleting all of my edits in that article. Why did you deleted everything I made in the article too? Here you reverted another user [52], then me [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] 222.124.193.125 21:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edits are false. Afghanistan is NOT an Arab country. Neither is the European Union. Somalia people form their own ethnic group - see Somali people. You are brining no sources to the table. Chaldean 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these countries have arab populations regardless of number. You kept putting the word "majority" to exclude a lot of countries, but that wasn't there before. 222.124.193.125 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Good friend100 reported by User:Komdori (Result:1 week)

    • 1RR parole violation on

    Military history of Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 15:51, 10 October 2007 (and several similar versions afterwards and immediately before)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: Currently unblocked from his indef block, on 1RR parole per agreement to conditions so he could participate in an open arbitration case.

    Continued reverting/with incivil summaries [58], but eventually reverted himself after to try to stop short of admin action [59].

    I undid my last revert because I remembered my restriction, and I even said that I was going to undo my own revert. Also, my reverts weren't complete reverts, nor were they blatant, bad faithed edits to disrupt the article. Komdori, can you assume good faith, instead of repeatedly trying to get me banned? I didn't make the reverts in ill faith, and its clear that those edits were an attempt to make the article better (the opening paragraph and the edits after it).
    And Komdori is right, when he comments that I wanted to avoid admin action, and that is true. I don't want to get in trouble again so I undid my edit and began to focus on another part of the article.
    To the administrator, I'll just repeat again that those edits were not ill-faithed and that I remembered not to edit war and I undid my edit. I'm sorry for the disturbance and I'll stay away from this article (and its related articles) for a while. It seems as if the argument heats up everytime I decide to go through there. Good friend100 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You blatantly did the same revert repeatedly, were incivil, and continued to the point you likely would be blocked even if you were not on 1RR parole. When you realized a report was filing, you undid your last edit, but had already reverted much more than necessary to violate the 1RR parole. It wasn't even a question of time since you reverted twice in < 15 minutes. Being on 1RR parole, you should clearly be aware of the importance of discussion of controversial edits. --Cheers, Komdori 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, how was I uncivil? I tried to explain my reverts and they weren't blatant full reverts. I only reverted some parts of it. Then I suggested another version of the opening paragraph, that you reverted as well. After that, I got scared about edit warring so I undid my edit. You keep implying that I undid my edit simply to look "good". Thats not true, I undid it because I didn't want to cause trouble. And I didn't know that a report was going to be filed at the time of my revert on myself.

    After that, I went to another part of the article. Its different this time, Komdori. Those edits were not blatant edits, nor were they done specifically to edit war, and almost all my reverts were more than just "reverts" but changes to the article in a different way so that you could agree to it. Again, please assume good faith.

    You edit warred too, instead of opening a new thread on the talk page, and its clear that you are taking this to a personal level because you watch all my moves and immediately file a report once I do something even a little bit wrong, simply because I'm on parole. Please assume good faith. Its been a while since that unblock and I have not been going around disrupting things since that time. Good friend100 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your first two reverts above are clearly identical. The third posted includes the same category deletion combined with an intro change. Hiding the category removal in another edit isn't fooling anyone. Undoing your fourth revert because you were "scared" of administration action is hardly cooperative editing. --Cheers, Komdori 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diffs include me reverting "history of china". I did not continue edit warring with that link in my next edits and my self revert [60] because I didn't want to cause trouble.
    Komdori, if you still feel that I was reverting with bad faith, I'm sorry. I guess its the different view you have from me and thats probably why we clash in every single article we both work on. Good friend100 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How is undoing my own revert not cooperating? Please don't make things up. I saw my mistake so I undid it. And I did cooperate because I stopped reverting that. Instead I started to edit another part of the article. You keep talking as if I did all this with bad faith. I did not! I undid my edit and stopped arguing about that link. I think that is cooperating. There weren't anymore revert wars about the link after that, right? Good friend100 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see another mistake with your report. This diff was not a personal attack (although I did wonder that you would take it like that after I edited it). I called the empty section a "thorn" (as in a negative aspect in the article) because it was up there forever so I removed it. That edit had nothing to do with my reverts on the link, nor was it done with bad faith. Good friend100 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to debate with you here. Feel free to have the last word. In any case, undoing your fourth revert (not once attempting to discuss) is hardly in keeping with the requirement for staying on 1RR parole. --Cheers, Komdori 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Turemetalfan reported by User:E_tac (Result:No vio)

    Power metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Turemetalfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): reported on: 07:45, 17 October 2007


    User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:Warned Til Eulenspiegel)

    Creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]


    • 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.

    Wrong, the "first revert" is not a revert at all, it is my first edit ever to that article. And the "fourth revert" was in response to a valid request for a cite, note it includes the same information backed up with a cite. Til Eulenspiegel 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3RR warning seems to have been placed nearly simultaneously with the 4th revert so I'll let user off with a warning this time. Til Eulenspiegel, you are still engaging in edit warring. If you continue, you will be blocked. Please talk with other editors to reach consensus. Ronnotel 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VartanM reported by User:Whitealp (Result:No violation)

    Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VartanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    VartanM only had two edits on Turkey in total today. How can this be a 3RR violation? Please read WP:3RR more carefully. Ronnotel 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VartanM under revert parole 1 rv per week, please see;Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. Regards Must.T C 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm - when I search for "VartanM" in that case, I don't see his name appear anywhere under Remedies. Can you be more specific why you think this user is under revert parole? Thanks. Ronnotel 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm not!! And Whitealp is a sock of a banned user. 3RR doesn't apply to violations of WP:BAN VartanM 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To VartanM; User:Whitealp blocked at 20:59, October 18, 2007 by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. How you know that user is sock, how you check user IP's.Till to that time, you haveno any right to revert his edits.You can not use admin rights.
    To Ronnotel, here is the name of Vartan in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Involved_parties, here the results of arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Remedies and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2/Proposed_decision#Applicability_to_all_disruptive_editors and some smilar cases

    Regards Must.T C 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Komdori reported by User:Yearwaves3 (Result: no violation)

    Science and technology in Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Komdori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:24, 17 October 2007

    • Previous version reverted to: [62]


    blank talk page.

    he engaged serious edit war. he edit withour fact. avoid discussion and continually revert without "fact". also, did not prove by trustworthy source.
    continually blank discussion and warning in his talk page. Yearwaves3 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only two reverts above. The third change is a compromise version (not even undoing your edit), the fourth is me tweaking my own edit. Editing my own talk page to remove uncivil edits like this and this and this is clearly okay (not to mention summaries like this, and with racist uncivil comments like this). As for an edit war, you've reverted four times in little over 24 hours gaming the system and hoping no one will notice; in fact, your edits are essentially all reverts--the vast majority to edits. --Cheers, Komdori 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Three reverts to three different versions is not a 3RR violation, and editors are allowed to remove warnings and content from their own user talk page without penalty. All parties seem to have stopped the brushup on the article for now. KrakatoaKatie 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Filmman1 reported by User:Griot (Result:Indef block - SPA)

    • Previous version reverted to: [66]

    This user has reverted more than four times in 24 hours:

    This user has been warned about 3RR on his/her Talk page.

    Note as well that Filmman1 tried to delete this 3RR report.

    This person is one of several sockpuppets who objects to the term “Mexican-American” war for this article and keeps reverting to “Mexican War.” Griot 21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Filmman1 is obvious sock and WP:SPA, indef block Ronnotel 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChrisO reported by User:Argyriou (Result: resolved - no 4th revert)

    Zombietime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    User:Loonymonkey removed a paragraph which had been tagged {{cn}} for a while. I found the references, which had been removed for insufficient reasons, and restored the text, with the missing references. User:ChrisO reverted. I then looked up additional sources, and checked the references. I restored the paragraph with additional sources, and a justification for the existence of the YouTube reference. ChrisO reverted blindly, including removing the new references without any justification. I restored the edit, as the reversion was vandalistic rather than reasoned. ChrisO reverted again, falsely claiming that no reliable sources have been found for it since then. I restored the properly cited material, and left warnings on ChrisO's talk page. ChrisO then posted on WP:ANI without notifying me, and Maxim reverted to the Loonymonkey version. Argyriou (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um... Youtube is not a Reliable source. And please read the page about meatpuppets carefully. I'm an admin myself, and I'm not affiliated with ChrisO in any way. In fact I blocked him (in error, I believe now) a few days ago. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I added the full explanation after Maxim made his comment above.
    Maxim - without your explanation and your later edit, your reversion certainly looked like meatpuppetry. Since your second edit, I appreciate that you have actually read the edits in question, unlike ChrisO, though I disagree with your characterization that a newsclip of a Fox News broadcast showing zombie's work is not a reliable source to prove that Fox News made a broadcast showing zombie's work. It is arguably in violation of WP:EL, as the clip overall is not copyright by the uploader (zombie), but a) the clip contains a siginificant amount of work of the uploader's, and thus may be a derivative work of zombie's, and b) the clip has been up for over a year, and political opponents of zombie's have, according to comments at zombie's youtube page, notified other copyright holders and had YouTube take down some videos on zombie's page for copyright reasons. It is hard to believe that the FoxNews clip would have remained on YouTube without Fox News' permission.
    However, since I no longer believe that your edit was meatpuppetry, I think that makes this report moot, unless ChrisO makes any reversions to zombietime in the next 23 hours. Argyriou (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing a copyright violation is not something to which 3RR applies. -- ChrisO 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Argyriou reported by User:ChrisO (Result:24 Hours)

    Zombietime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Argyriou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Argyriou has repeatedly reverted to a version of the article that includes links to a copyright-violating video hosted on YouTube. I have removed this per WP:EL and warned him against linking to copyvios; his report above appears to be a malicious attempt to disrupt my performance of administrative tasks. He was warned in this edit not to restore the copyvio but did so anyway, and subsequently broke 3RR when he reverted another administrator, Maxim, who had intervened to remove the same copyvio link.

    Note that [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zombietime&diff=165287407&oldid=165286697 Maxim's next edit left the bulk of my version intact, and only removed the disputed YouTube link. Argyriou (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Argyriou received a 3RR block in May so should clearly be aware of the rule. Even if Maxim agreed with your changes, that does not mitigate four reversions. Please try to discuss disputes rather than edit warring. Blocked 24 hours. CitiCat ♫ 03:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.215.112.253 reported by User:Famspear (Result:no violation )

    Internal Revenue Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.215.112.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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: [71]

    Anonymous user repeatedly posting tax protester rhetoric. Yours, Famspear 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Some of the material repeatedly inserted by this user appears to be the same as that inserted by another brand new user today, "Enforcer254." The material, which may be subject to copyright, apparently originally came from a web site called "losthorizons.com" that has been designated in Federal court as being part of a tax evasion scheme by an ex-con who is currently having Federal tax problems, having recently lost a tax court case. (I have more details if you need them.) Yours, Famspear 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: The account for user Enforcer254 was first used back in August. My mistake. Famspear 02:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: It appears that my report is incorrect. This does not appear to be a violation of the 3RR rule. First revert at 13:21 on 16 October, and 4th revert at 23:13 on 17 October. More than 24 hours apart. My apologies. Famspear 11:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tankred reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24 h)

    Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    • 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: This is an experienced user eminently familiar with the 3RR rule [72], as evidenced by his block log.

    A short explanation of the incident. This is a disruptive editor with a long history of POV edit warring accross multiple articles, who was already once blocked for 3RR violation but continues his disruptive style of communication and edit warring. He often uses aggressive/harassing type edit summaries and deceptively marks major edits and reverts as minor (3 out of his 4 reverts in the current report were marked as minor). This user knows perfectly well what he is doing he made four reverts in a few hours and even explicitly marked them as reverts himself. If no action is taken he will likely continue his disruptive ways indefinitely. Hobartimus 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not make the same revert as can be seen from the diffs. I reverted two different users with different edits. It just happened to be on the same page. I also encouraged Hobartimus to use the article's talk page instead of resorting to an edit war. Tankred 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the personal attacks in this report, Hobartimus's peculiar style of editing (controversial POV changes made without or before any discussion on a talk page) has provoked several content disputes between him and other users (including me). I would like to encourage Hobartimus to use standard procedures of dispute resolution instead of calling me names on this page. Anyone can look at my contributions and form their own opinion. As to marking reverts as minor edits, I do not consider reverting to a previous, consensual version a major edit because I do not add or change anything. If this is wrong, I will be happy to report reverts as major edits. Tankred 04:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review the WP:3RR policy instead of making personal attacks as you did above as retaliation against me for reporting you (this habit of retaliation of yours is why I was reluctant to make this report in the first place). This policy clearly states under what is a revert, "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors". I do not understand how it is possible to debate that you made 4 reverts, when you yourself marked them explicitly as reverts in the edit summary. Also about minor edits and reverting, per WP:Minor "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances.", unless reverting obvious vandalism, reverts should not be marked as minor. Hobartimus 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again: I reverted a deletion by an IP at Slovakia. Later, I reverted three times your unrelated edit on the same page. I am not aware the 3RR rule prohibits reverting unrelated edits on the same page. Until now, I believed it prohibits reverting the same edit. By the way, I would not make any of these reverts if you used the talk page. But this is obviously another story. Tankred 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I protest against misinterpretation of my block log! I was blocked by accident, after reverting a banned user who vandalized a page more than a dozen times that day. He had to be stopped before the page got finally protected. After being blocked by accident, I was immediately unblocked because all my acts were perfectly in line with Wikipedia's policies. It is allowed to revert vandalism by a banned user even more than three times a day. If this a reason for calling me "a disruptive editor with a long history of POV edit warring accross multiple articles, who was already once blocked for 3RR violation but continues his disruptive style of communication and edit warring" thank you very much. Tankred 04:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is required for the report to show that the user is familiar with the 3RR which can be shown thourgh warnings or blocks. One administrator did think you violated 3RR, hence the block, another thought you did nothing wrong and unblocked (this can be clearly seen from the log which I linked), but I did see you edit war accross like 6-7 articles at a time. Hobartimus 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh indeed you have seen me in edit wars after your mass deletions and POV edits. As far as I know, you have been involved in edit wars against many other editors (Svetovid, Markussep, MarkBA, PANONIAN... I can easily find other names if you wish), not just against me. Are all these editors "disruptive users"? If you do not want other people reverting you, start to use talk pages. Tankred 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not edit warring. The issue is you revert warring past 3RR and threatening even more reverts ("Until a consensus is reached here, the article will be reverted to its previous version" [73]) Hobartimus 05:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tankred, you are doing this at the very same time you are accusing me with diverting the discussion[74] and attacking another editor in my defense? Stunning. Unbelievable. Squash Racket 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me have my say to this report. As I can see from the style, it may be an attempt to block an uncomfortable opponent after reverting two completely unrelated edits, who unfortunately used revert four times. And false accusations do not add on one's prestige either (long-time POV pusher/disruptive user) when had only one block and even that only for reverting someone, who turned out to be a sock of banned user. As such, I think that Tankred should not be blocked just someone doesn't like him AND without good reason, which this clearly isn't.MarkBA t/c/@ 05:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You were not so sensitive when Tankred got me blocked for breaking the same rule, even though I was a relatively new user. Remember? Squash Racket 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a very specific noticeboard, not a forum, so I would ask any administrator, to remove all edits/opinions that have nothing to do with the actual 3RR violation(this includes off-topic edits made by Tankred and me if any). Hobartimus 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for 24 h. WP:3RR clearly 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." (my emphasis). Sandstein 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:V-Dash reported by User:Dlong (Result:72 hours)

    The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). V-Dash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: On some of the reverts, only one "action-adventure" was changed.


    V-Dash was previously blocked for violation of 3RR for repeatedly changing the genre listed of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass to RPG (or Action-RPG, depending on his mood). He has now resumed this edit warring. He has refused to discuss the changes on the talk page, just like last time. Dlong 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 72 hours for persistent WP:3RR violations. Ronnotel 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:^demon reported by User:Koavf (Result: Self-blocked and unblocked)

    Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ^demon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This user is one part in a large and lame edit war over this page. It's been discussed, reverted, and now MfD'ed. Someone should do something about this (not necessarily ban/blocking, but something.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.68.80.50 reported by User:Cheeser1 (Result: blocked for one week, article semi-protected)

    Vrlika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.68.80.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the posting of this report:

    Several users have been disruptively editing this article - mostly removing content. This user has been doing it for days (example: Oct 11) Efforts have been made to discuss, but users are ignoring it. User:Jesuislafete initially preformed the revert here, in this round of edit-warring, and this anon IP picked up where he left off (other anons have also been reverting repeatedly). I suspect it may be him (he was also warned). Note that this anon IP has been warned repeatedly and blocked (at least) once for vandalism/3RR. Cheeser1 10:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Please note that several users have been reverting these violations of 3RR, and some have themselves gone over the 3-revert limit. However, they are reverting what is presumably vandalism and doing their best to undo the disruptive editing that's going on. --Cheeser1 05:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing but vandalism from that IP: blocked for one week. (If someone can confirm this isn't a shared IP, at least to a significant extent, I'd happily extend that for longer.) Page semi-protected for two, since other IPs were also involved. Alai 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NangOnamos and User:Khanhamzakhan reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result:24 hours for both, page protected)

    Pashtun Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NangOnamos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Khanhamzakhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [75] and [76]


    NangOnamos:

    • 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: [81]

    Khanhamzakhan:

    • 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: [86]

    I came across this conflict accidentally recently,, when on RC patrol. I've been attempting to mediate it. Obviously, I'm not doing such a good job, since they still seem to be edit warring. I also get the feeling that the ip that reverted NangOnamos, user:71.190.229.46 is also Khanhamzakhan. When I have a bit more free time, I'm gonna look and see what's properly sourced and what isn't, but these two need to be blocked for a bit to cool off after their 3RR violation. Gscshoyru 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected, both users blocked 24 hours. Please don't engage in edit warring. Ronnotel 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Epf reported by User:Ramdrake (Result: no action )

    Ethnic Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    User is continuously reverting to his preferred version of the article, on the basis that the other version has errors. Pure and simple revert-warring over a content dispute, and this is not the first time this user has been blocked for violating 3RR either [87]. Ramdrake 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:Ramdrake himself has ignored and not reported the 3RR violation of another user (Slrubenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), broke the 3RR with edit here: [88]) and has constantly re-verted [89] to that biased version of the article with no consideration for the very justified reasons behind my edits of a much more neutral and supported version (including before I violated the 3RR). It has been a very long time since (only one other time) I have been blocked for 3RR editing, and have been a very significant, positive contributor to Wikipedia. The current version of the article is not necessarily my 'preferred version' and the other version had errors, falsely entered references which did not support POV statements entered by the other user, and contained quotes/information from sources not entered accurately as they were found. Epf 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Radstrike/User:141.151.203.43 reported by User:EEMeltonIV (Result:Warned)

    List of Star Wars spacecraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Radstrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/141.151.203.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 09:23

    User continues to add uncited material to this list-of. Does not grasp WP:WAF or WP:FICT despite multiple links on talk page; edit summaries include such explanation as as "Fictional objects need no real world notabilty". 141.151.203.43 IP address is the same as the registered user as indicated by this comment left by IP with registered account replacing anon sig. See my talk page and Radstrike's talk page for more. I realize this isn't a technical violation of 3RR, but the editor's inability or unwillingness to familiarize himself with policy and guidelines, and to petulantly add this stuff he likes, is a "spiritual" violation, I suppose. --EEMeltonIV 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    technically not a violation since fourth edit not within 24 hour window. User has been warned. Ronnotel 00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Panda reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result:Stale)

    Nobel Prize in Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Panda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]




    This is part of ongoing dispute about content of the article Nobel Prize in Economics. -- Vision Thing --

    • If you look at the diffs and the page history,[90] you'll notice that I was editing the content, not reverting. This is obviously a bad faith claim made by an editor who has been removing reliable sources that I've added to the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles to push his POV. The current wave stems from me finding the statement "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize" from the Nobel Foundation [91], which contradicts his POV and those who share that POV. They have been removing or misrepresenting this reference and others that support this claim and the claim that there any many names for the prize from the article, despite several editors saying otherwise (see Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. Some examples: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] I wonder if this can really be called a content dispute since the content comes from the most reliable source about the article, the Nobel Foundation -- there are just some editors who still don't want to believe it and would prefer to have it removed. This isn't the first time that VT has made a bad faith complaint about an editor with differing opinions -- take a look at WP:AN/I#Liftarn and disruptive editing and WP:CHECKUSER#Liftarn. –panda 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Natasha Kaplinsky

    Excuse my lack of diffs, but this is basically just a note on action already taken. There's on-going addition of a not-properly-justified category, most recently four times in four hours today, with removal by several different users (myself included). There's very similar activity at Sharon Osbourne, btw. Since the repeated additions seem to be by the same person, who edits from a rapidly-changing and presumably-shared IP, I don't see much point in attempting to block, so instead I've semi-protected the page for a week, as this is starting to get quite disruptive. (Whether this is vandalism per se gets well into windows-into-souls territory, so I won't get into arguing that either way.) Please review. Alai 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.2.216.91 reported by User:Maelwys (Result:24 hours)

    House (TV series)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.2.216.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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: [105]

    User continues to push his unsourced original research onto this article. Also onto the ER article, and several other related ones. See his contribs for a full list. Maelwys 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    blocked for 24 hours by User:Moonriddengirl. Ronnotel 23:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Princefigs reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result:1 week)

    Kekkei genkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Princefigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reverts:
    1. 14:52, October 18, 2007
    2. 14:57, October 18, 2007
    3. 14:59, October 18, 2007
    4. 15:02, October 18, 2007
    5. 15:10, October 18, 2007
    6. 15:14, October 18, 2007

    As noted above, this user was already blocked for 34 hours for the exact same edit warring, and as can be seen in his edit summaries he has not learned his lesson. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 1 week for persistent violation of WP:3RR. Ronnotel 23:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MorganReynolds reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: username hardblocked )

    Morgan Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MorganReynolds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All revisions re-add the link [http://nomoregamesnet.blogspot.com/2007/10/morgan-reynolds-exposed.html] to the external links. Most also re-add it to the body of the article.


    • 1st revert: 21:53
    • 2nd revert: 22:08
    • 3rd revert: 22:23
    • 4th revert: 23:03
    • Page blanking at 23:15
    • (after the initial report)
    • 5th revert: 23:20
    • 6th revert: 23:39 (I (Arthur Rubin) have already reverted 3 times today, so I'm not going to comment further).
    • 7th revert: 23:46
    • 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: 22:15, and a clearer one at 23:08

    The WP:SPA seems to be insisting on inserting a blog critical of the subject into the article, or having nothing there at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The username is an obvious breach of our username policy and given the disruption, I have hard blocked the id. Spartaz Humbug! 23:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to suggest that very thing, and on the basis of it indeed being an SPA, so "good kill". Alai 00:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keizuko reported by User:Lear 21 (Result: page protected)

    Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Keizuko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [106]


    User:Keizuko has reinserted a disputed part of content several times. The user has been reverted by more than one editor and has not approached discussion pages. The user has been warned on violating 3RR concerning the same issue 8 months ago [107] and is aware of the violation this time. Lear 21 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring warrants a page protection. Please engage each other in useful discussions to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a technical 3RR violation per se, as is clear from the diff timestamps, of which the first doesn't look like a revert at all: your "version reverted to" link is dated the 18th. One notes that Lear 21's also reverted four times in the same time period. To jossi's injunction that you discuss this, I can only add "hopefully without further expanding my knowledge of German terms of abuse". Alai 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timeshifter reported by User:Tewfik (Result: no action)

    Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timeshifter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Over the past days the editor has tried to a) include a list of documentaries and b) modify the infobox. After three reverts in the infobox, the editor seems to think that they are entitled to restore the disputed documentary section as a fourth edit within the same 24 hour period. TewfikTalk 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This doesn't look like "complex" reversion at all: it looks like three clear-cut such (to a version that was in place unedited for most of the past week, incidentally), and one entirely unrelated edit, which is only a "revert" if one reframes the dispute to be a composite of the two issues, and back-dates about ten days, per the 9th Octover link above. I'd recommend joining the talk page discussion, which, while seemingly less than productive at present, is at least taking place between the two main reverters. The reporter, OTOH, seems to have contributed some of the reverts, and none of the discussion. I also note another user has offered to mediate, and I wish him well with that... Alai 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With due respect, I don't see why A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time doesn't apply here. I used the October 9 version because in the interim the editor in question reverted one or the other sections since then, not because that is the last time there was a revert of the material. TewfikTalk 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An examination of the article's history shows no 3RR violation - it's close, but not quite there. Work it out as Alai suggests. KrakatoaKatie 04:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timpennington reported by User:Athaenara (Result: blocked for 24h)

    Miami Township, Clermont County, Ohio‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timpennington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 3rd* revert by 69.61.197.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Timpennington and 69.61.197.195 have edited no other articles. Note, however, that Timpennington attempted a content fork for the same content. — Athaenara ✉ 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anubis3‎ reported by User:NYScholar (Result: page protected )

    [This result does not solve the problem; the violations of WP:3RR have not been addressed: The user (User:Anubis3) should have been at the very least warned and/or blocked for such violations as well as for violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. The page protection leaves an image with a dubious license on the page. An administrator needs to delete the image while review of its legality is ongoing; until the legal issues pertaining to copyright and trademark of what appears to be non-free content and fair-use violations are resolved, this "result" is not sufficient; the image needs to be removed until its use is clearly resolved. (See the comments by an administrator on a comparable problem listed two items below this report; there the reporter of a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines/policies is "commended" for doing so.) It [This image] is also not placed in an appropriate article; it is a photograph of a 1933 Nobel Peace Prize but it has been placed in the infobox for Nobel Prizes (the legality of its license and its non-free content dispute would still pertain if it were in any other article as well, however). As a currently-trademarked image, it does not belong in the infobox for Nobel Prize; see Wikipedia:Manual of style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos. Images of the design of the medal are also copyrighted in nobelprize.org; see also its "terms of service" linked notices and copyright and trademark registration notices. See links throughout below. (Updated.) --NYScholar 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)] [links added. --NYScholar 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

    [The image has now been removed by an administrator. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

    [Concerns Nobel Prize; image in the infobox created by Anubis3 whose licensing and violations of fair use criteria in Wikipedia are called into question by User:Panda and User:NYScholar; multiple reverting of deletion of the image, templates relating to it, and related material about it in more than one page in Wikipedia.] —Preceding comment was added at 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [Updated: --NYScholar 08:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)] [The user in question (Anubis3) is engaging in an WP:Edit warring over this image (her/his photograph which is not properly licensed), and has used page protection as a tool in edit warring over it. --NYScholar 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

      1. 1st revert 165341000 (Revision as of 00:17, October 18, 2007) (Comment:includes one of many false statements in the editing summary; violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF)
      2. 2nd revert 165344603 (Revision as of 00:47, October 18, 2007) (Comment:includes another false statement in the editing history; violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF)
      3. 3rd revert 165455603 (Revision as of 00:47, October 18, 2007) (Comment:further false statements in editing summary; there was no time for the review to take place; the user deleted the template with the requirement for the corresponding template to be placed on the image; doubly reverting both here and in the image page and claiming deception where none existed; these were my good-faith attempts to question what I regard as a questionable (dubious) image license of copyright and trademark-protected Nobel medal image in the photograph in question]
      4. 4th revert 165555017 (Revision as of 23:08, October 18, 2007) (Comment:User deleted my related templates indicating the problem from the image page, claiming that I was being "deceptive" when I was placing the templates in good faith; engaging in related personal attacks (commenting on the contributor instead of content) on Talk:Nobel Prize despite RFC about the image; another user and I have objected to the image in the infobox in Nobel Prize and questioned the validity of the license claimed for it; the user made the parallel revert deleting the template indicating that a request had been made for speedy deletion of the image. (He/she claims that the request for speedy deletion was denied; but gives no evidence of that; s/he simply deleted the non-free content template himself though the non-free content template says not to do so.) At the very least, the image should be deleted while its validity is being reviewed as its "fair use" has been called into question and doubted by at least 2 editors of Wikipedia. This editing summary presents a false claim of "deception" despite obvious good-faith concern on my part explained both on talk page of the image and in Talk:Nobel Prize as well as deleting of the template that I placed on the user's talk page (as required by the templates that s/he moved and/or deleted). I have not touched his/her "licensing"; I have placed templates calling its validity into question. See the history of the image page for evidence of what is going on there.]
      5. 5th revert 165562265 (Revision as of 00:04, October 19, 2007)(updated) [Comment: The reverts all deal with the same edit warring in which Anubis3 has been engaged (see earlier reverts).] [updated: s/he removed warnings from talk page and acts as if they were not placed there; they were. --NYScholar 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)] [Comment: Editing summary by that user calls appropriately-placed template and warning re: WP:3RR violations as "vandalism"; violation of WP:AGF. Read the policy in this very noticeboard re: WP:3RR, WP:AN3RR (scroll up), which asks users to post such warnings in talk page of other user. Not "vandalism" as falsely and misleadingly claimed. --NYScholar 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)] [added link. --NYScholar 20:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
      6. 6th revert 165553756 (Current revision (02:44, October 19, 2007) [Comment: removed the template-message that I added as required by the template that I had added to talk page of image (which s/he also removed multiple times and/or moved so that it was not as evident to others that it was there; these are not good-faith edits on her/his part, in my view; s/he has no right to delete others' warning message about the image and to claim deception in their place in editing summaries; s/he is the only one supporting use of this image contrary to others' complaints about it. The image does not belong in an infobox in Nobel Prize; it is neither useful nor relevant there and not within fair use criteria as defined by Wikipedia for Wikipedia.]
    • There are multiple additional reverts (of the image page and his own talk page), where s/he deleted my comments about this problem from her/his own talk page (more than once) and s/he deleted my reference to her/his violations of WP:3RR as well. Additionally, s/he falsely claims in an editing summary that s/he requested that I not post on her/his talk page; I saw no such request. She/He simply deleted my comments placed there; I was required by the template on the image page (which s/he deleted) to place that template-generated comment on her/his talk page. S/He deleted my warning that s/he has violated WP:3RR in his deletions of my comments from his talk page, without acknowledging them and claiming "deception" where none existed (on my part). S/He requested protection of the page Nobel Prize, leaving her/his image in the infobox despite two editors' (Panda's and mine) complaints about its license being still dubious.) [updated above. --NYScholar 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

    This user has violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA in response to justifiable questions about the validity of the image; s/he has reverted deletions of the image despite those questions. S/He has claimed that my questioning it and comments on his talk page are "vandalism" when they are no such thing, and s/he knows that. S/He escalated into personal comments on the contributor instead of focusing on the actual problems of the violations of copyright and trademark and fair use criteria in her/his posting of this image in Wikipedia in Nobel Prize.

    Because s/he attempted to protect the page with the disputed image in place, the image is still in the infobox in Nobel Prize; while the review of the validity of its licensing and the lack of a detailed fair-use of the Nobel medal image in the photograph are ongoing, the image should not be in Wikipedia. It violates the copyright and trademark of the image of the medal by the Nobel Foundation. --NYScholar 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly, I shouldn't even respond to this false accusation as this is a perpetuation of an earlier conflict of opinion with this user. Firstly, these edits cited above are two different pages. Secondly, three of these edits are not even reverts but normal edits. Furthermore, user NYScholar has made just as many edits/reverts in the process. This is a very weak case of 3RR violation and review will show that it is, in fact, nowhere even close to a violation.
    I have already requested and got the pages (in question) protected in order to end this conflict of opinion and edit warring. Furthermore, the issue with this image (contested by only this user) is currently being discussed under Fair use review. So, there shouldn't be a problem in the future. For the time being, I think its best to move on from this issue to make valuable edits elsewhere. aNubiSIII (T / C) 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As the user acknowledges elsewhere ([in the talk page of the image, relating to] fair use violation report page; [linked there]), the use of this image of the medal in Wikipedia violates the notice on the Nobel Foundation's website re: restricting use of images and photographs of the "design" of the medal: Please see the other discussions. Thank you. (I have altered references to "he" and "him" and "his" to gender neutral references--singular grammatical terms. There is one user not several who has uploaded the image of the medal in the personal photograph to Wikipedia without permission from the Nobel Foundation.) Copyright law is clear: doubting that one can acquire such permission is not a rationale for the license or claims of fair use. If one requests permission in writing, and if it is denied, then one cannot use the content denied by the proprietary organization (in this case the Nobel Foundation). I'll return to post the link to the other discussion pertaining to the report re: violation of fair use criteria of Wikipedia. (Otherwise, I will be logged out of Wikipedia doing non-Wikipedia-related work.) --NYScholar 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [updated: --NYScholar 20:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    See Fair use Review of Image DSCNO732.JPG; some of the comments being posted there are speculations by people who are clearly not familiar with or have not even consulted Wikipedia's own fair use policy: see WP:Copyvio where there are links to them. The reverts are all related to the same edit warring that the user who created the image is engaged in; her/his concern appears to be having the photograph in Nobel Prize (a personal matter) not the best interest of the article or Wikipedia. The photograph is not directly related to the content and does not belong in the infobox of Nobel Prize. It is not a useful addition to the infobox and does not improve the article. It is not worth the potential danger to Wikipedia of copyright and trademark violation of the proprietary organization. The licensing of the image is inaccurate and misleading. I stand by my report of violations of WP:3RR. One needs to read the policy more carefully to see how reverting in the service of edit warrring is not in keeping with it. --NYScholar 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protection does not indicate any support of the position of the above user: read the notice in page protection templates. S/he simply used the tactic to protect her/his own version of the page while edit warring over her/his photograph. The photograph's license is dubious and in violation of fair use criteria in Wikipedia; no detailed fair-use rationale is being supplied; such a rationale is needed for each use of the image in Wikipedia. The page was not "protected in order to end this conflict of opinion"; it was protected because an edit war over the image was occurring (see the editing history of Nobel Prize already indicated above in the numbered reverts. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:B_Nambiar reported by User:Tulu_war (Result:24 hours)

    Ezhava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). B_Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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.

    User:B_Nambiar has ween vandalising the Ezhava article for last one week. The editor User:B_Nambiar has been warned by mutiple editors not removing content and not reverting the revisions identified as vandalism. Tulu war 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Tulu war 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is exaggerated and Tulu war is hypocritical as my edits are proven to be of a factual basis, and also to remove a POV comparison as the Ezhava article is full of peacock terms and POV which users such as Tulu war vehemently maintain. My attempts at negotiation to make Tulu war understand how I support my edits have been unanswered and the 3RR rule was broken before me by user Tulu war who reverted my factual edits and removal of a POV comparison which I reverted back in the interests of objective information. It is important to understand before judgment that Ezhava users seem to have a group inferiority complex and only appreciate selective edits that cherry pick or further add peacock terms to the poor article to show the community in subjective light.B Nambiar 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours by User:Merope Ronnotel 00:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avlan reported by User:Meanlevel (Result: No violation, Meanlevel indef blocked )

    Christopher Paul Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [108]


    • 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: [112] - please note this is not a diff as it is the first message left for this user.

    User is continuing to remove an image from the Christopher Paul Neil article, claiming that it has been incorrectly added. Whether that is actually true or not, said user is engaged in an edit war against several users. Meanlevel 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not in an edit war at all, I just have a problem with the picture of an innocent man (which other people claim is released by interpol, but i can't find it anywhere on their site) being posted again and again on the article of a child molester. Avlan 12:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have informed this user that if they have an issue they should take this to WP:ANI to have it resolved, NOT to continue defying Wikipedia policy. Meanlevel 12:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sensitive BLP issues here, and it's already being dealt with on AN/I. east.718 at 13:27, 10/19/2007
    I apologize for my violation of the 3RR rule, I am relatively new and didn't know of it (I know, not a valid excuse). I choose to remove it multiple times because of the possible harm that could have been done to an innocent person being linked to a child molester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avlan (talk • contribs) 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did not violate the three revert rule; you only made three reverts on that page; MORE than three is generally required to violate it. Since you were removing a poorly sourced image of a man who was being labeled a pedophile on Wikipedia without any evidence, you should be commended in this respect. --Haemo 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michaelbusch reported by User:Harry Mudd (Result:No violation, warning to reporter)

    James Randi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michaelbusch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [113]


    • 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: [118]

    This is about the James Randi page. It concerns a a simple statement that Randi's staff have on occasion falsified the logs in the challenge application. This is supported by appropriate cites.

    This statement has been deleted four times. Three times by User:Shot Info. The fourth by user Michaelbusch AFTER I had warned that this would violate 3RR.

    If I understand correctly, this is "gaming the system." Michaelbusch did not make all four reverts himself, but he made the fourth one, ignoring the statement that such reverts would be reported.

    I see now that the line has been re-inserted by User:Hardyplants, and reverted again, for a fifth time by User: Diego. Diego has made numerous reverts in the last few days, as well as acting in a generally aggressive and disruptive manner.

    I therefore wish to report both Michaelbush AND Diego for violation of 3RR. 

    Harry Mudd 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Harry Mudd, please read Wikipedia policies before you accuse people of violating them. I have made only one edit to this article in the past 24 hours and that edit was made on the basis of WP:BLP (It was a contentious statement from a non-reliable source). Anyone is free to read the talk page comments at Talk:James Randi and see that I have never been aggressive or engaged in personal attacks. On the other hand User:Harry Mudd (who has been blocked twice for edit warring on Randi-related articles), has called me "vain", "a hypocrite", and "a liar", and assumed bad faith from the beginning by classifying me as a "Randi supporter" who "does not care about the truth" or Wikipedia policies. — DIEGO talk 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, your points in order.
    1) Diego chose to make a 5th revert to an article that had been reverted 4 times already. As I understand it, that makes him responsible for a fifth revert. Claiming to have no responsibility for the first four is "gaming the system"
    2) This is after several days where he has repeatedly reverted edits that he doesn't like.
    3) He claims that it's a contentious statement from an unreliable source. But no more or less so than any other web page out there. He wants to keep links to other web pages that are equally contentious and equally unreliable.
    4) I'll just post your most recent comment, let people judge for themselves if you've been aggressive or not

    I think it's time for you to go, you are too disruptive. ... You refuse to listen to reason and I don't have time for your crap.

    And note that he has been putting out dozens of comments in a similar tone for several days.
    5) see point 2 for why Diego is a hypocrite. I certainly did not assume bad faith. Not until Diego kept making the accusation, which made it clear how good his faith was. As for the statement that Diego "does not care about the truth" that is a direct quore from the man himself. He stated directly that he does not care about the truth. And he certainly only applies Wiki policies when it suits him to do so.
    Harry Mudd 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Harry Mudd, you are the only one who has violated WP:3RR on James Randi. You have also violated Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and WP:CONSENSUS. Three editors independently removing something you've added to an article is not gaming the system. It is an indication that you are not entirely justified in adding it.
    Admins: please trash this request as the nonsense it is. I would recommend giving User:Harry Mudd a 24-hour block for his first 3RR offense, as seen in the history of James Randi ([[119]]), and breaches of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Michaelbusch 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Harry Mudd, I stand by my statement that it is time for you to go. You insist on editing against consensus and being extremely uncivil to editors who challenge you. I think a longer block and topic ban on articles related to the paranormal would be in order. Please stop being disruptive. — DIEGO talk 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The statement which Harry Mudd has attempted to add does, in my opinion, violate WP:BLP. It is, in effect, an accusation of professional sharp practice by someone unnamed at the James Randi Educational Foundation, and it is sourced to a blog maintained by a group who are actively hostile. Given the small size of the foundation it is an accusation directed at a small group of people and although it does not identify which, it is better to be cautious when making any such accusation.

      As a BLP violation, removing this claim is not covered by the three revert rule. Adding it repeatedly is covered. I will warn Harry Mudd not to readd this claim. Sam Blacketer 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RedSpruce reported by User:TMLutas (Result:3 hours)

    Elizabeth Bentley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RedSpruce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    Since RedSpruce's user page already has the records of several 3RR blocks on it, I didn't think the new user warning was needed. I did however make allowance that it might have been an error and let him have a chance to revert his own last revert and avoid this notice. What I wrote on the Bentley talk page is included below:

    A note: WP:3RR

    If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

    Look at the recent timestamps and the reverts. Leave the text be and let's work it out in talk or this goes to the admins. I'm assuming a good faith mistake at this point. Please don't disturb my assumption. TMLutas 08:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

    I only came here to report after RedSpruce commented on the Elizabeth Bentley talk page and did not revert. So far as I can tell from his talk page, he should know better by now. I'll even let the assumptions of bad faith regarding me and the incivility slide I just am tired of him edit warring.

    The substance of the page problem is over how much context to put in regarding personal accusations regarding Bentley's credibility. The three models available are:

    • 1. Bentley's accusers are labeled as spies, perjurers, etc based on the best state of our knowledge today, impeaching their smears of Bentley as appropriate so Bentley's later vindication by Venona and other external evidence is clear without taking up a lot of space on the article.
    • 2. Bentley's accusers have their guilt explained on Bentley's page, impeaching their credibility and we get some sentences on White's guilt, Remington's guilt, etc.
    • 3. Bentley's accusers have their accusations on Bentley's page but the later, external evidence isn't presented next to the accusation. The accusations have enhanced credibility here over other alternatives.

    RedSpruce is emphatic on the page adopting option 3. For me, option 1 or 2 would do nicely, anything that makes clear that a debunked accusation is not to be taken as truth. TMLutas 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • RedSpruce has violated the three revert rule and his user page shows that he has skirted it before; I have come to the conclusion that a block is necessary. However one of the edits he was reverting was to my eye very questionable (this is an example) in its insistence on labelling those who denied Elizabeth Bentley's accusations as "the spy". RedSpruce was participating in the talk page in detail in largely constructive discussion with others. Those mitigating factors, coupled with his clean block log so far, lead to a short block of three hours. Sam Blacketer 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple users reported by User:HG (Result:No violation)

    Arab citizens of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    It appears that User:Zeq violated has done 2 reverts and, in tandem User:Tiamut and User:Roland combined for 3 reverts.

    Initial edit on Oct 18: Zeq, restoring "trend & quote" text (which had been reverted on Oct 15)

    correct diff

    correct diff

    Oct 19th 3:23 a.m.


    These experienced users do not require warnings about edit warring or 3RR. Please review block logs to see whether said users are already warned or restricted regarding reverts, thanks!

    The disputed text had already been reverted some on Oct 15th. As noted above, some reverts of disputed text were made w/minor revisions or other changes, but the basic edit warring is clearcut. HG | Talk 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I was carefull not to violate 3RR. Should anyone let me know (on my talk page) I would immidetly self revert - but this was not needed since I did not reverted. Please allow me to review this report to see if indeed I by misatke violated 3RR - this was not my intention for sure. right now I am not editing the section in which the dispute arose. Zeq 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • update: According to my reading no single editor has violated 3RR. The rule is about "an editor" - for each there is it's own count. No one revertyed 4 times in 24 hours . The one that came close is User:RolandR with 3 reverts but no violation. Zeq 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • update(2) this report does not provide diffs - so it is hard to understand what was counted as reverts. At least in my case I have addressed concens by RolandR and re-edited the section not reverted it. Zeq 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I provided the competing revisions but not the diffs. The diffs can be clicked from the revisions, but I can try to redo. This is quite time-consuming for me. HG | Talk 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should try to provide diffs that show that two revisions are identical. In the case of user:RolandR there are 3 such diffs. In my case there is 0. I had made a legitimate edit [[120]responding to concerns RolandR raised in his edit summary of the revert. (Roalnad indeed made 3 reverts but not 4)
    HG Rebuttal. The 3RR rule and edit warring are not governed solely by technical aspects of 3RR. From the policy: "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." All three of you know this rule extremely well. Also, it appears that Zeq may be subject to tighter restrictions due to his probation. While I'm not an expert an enforcement, it seems to me that a brief block would impress upon all involved Users that they are not entitled up to 3 reverts every 24 hrs, but rather they should work thru Talk on these contentious pages, even if it means that their desired text stays in the article longer than they'd like. Their statements, above, only reinforce my impression in this regard. Respectfully HG | Talk 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zeq Rebuttal: Can you provide diff s ? what you provided is links to revisions not to diffs and it makes it hard to see what you think is a revert. You can not make any of the 3 editors responsible only for his/her own actions. In my case I have addressed conncerns raised in edit summary and made modifications. I have not entered an edit-war of reverts. In the case of the other editors one made 3 reverts and one made 1 revert. Zeq 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. So, besides the revision pages, I've now added the diffs. (I guess one fall-out of edit-warring is how time consuming it gets merely to report it. So it's more disruptive and harder to respond to than folks realize.) HG | Talk 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What you provided are the edit diffs not the diffs showing reverts. In my case I have not reverted. The other two editors did reverted here are the diffs showing it, still I don't think any of them violated as well. There was no 3RR violation here.

    Here are 3 reverts by two editors:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Arab_citizens_of_Israel&diff=165519017&oldid=165507845

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Arab_citizens_of_Israel&diff=165589141&oldid=165519017

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Arab_citizens_of_Israel&diff=165507845&oldid=165433006

    Zeq 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LuisGomez111 reported by User:LiuSun (Result:No violation)

    Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LuisGomez111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [121]


    User continues to add POV language to this article, changing the word "occupation" to "invasion" despite being reverted by several users. On the talk page he was told that "invasion" failed NPOV yet he continued to revert. LiuSun 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation here. The version and diffs are confused: the 'first revert' could only be LuisGomez111 reverting himself. In fact he has three reverts, but no more; he was also not warned nor alerted to this report. The talk page shows an active debate on how to characterise the circumstances in which Tibet came into the People's Republic of China. Sam Blacketer 23:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TDC reported by User:TDC (Result: no action)

    Michael Ledeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange, someone reporting themselves, but I gotta go for a while, and since someone is going to report me anyways, I figured I might as well get my $.02 in. Simply put, this is a WP:BLP issue, and 3RR does not apply here.

    Material from a self published source, consortiumnews.com keeps being introduced into the article by two editors.

    Self published sources are not allowed in BLP’s, unless the topic of the BLP is the publisher. After this was brought up, it was argued that the self published source was not criticizing or demeaning the subject of the article, but rather, it was criticizing the author of a book he liked. It was then pointed out that in this instance the material from the self published source did not belong in the article, because it had nothing to do with the topic of the article, making it WP:COATRACK and WP:OR, because it has little or anything to do with the topic and is advancing an argument, Michael Ledeen was wrong about so and so.

    If I am wrong, then block me, if not please inform the other of this. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TDC is claiming variously, BLP, OR, SYNTH, in his subject text but the nature of the edits don't really support BLP issues, there's no sense that this is derogatory for example, and the others claimed policies don't support being 3RR anyway, and the edits don't even mention the living person, they talk about comments and clarifications on circumstances facts surrounding the views that Michael Ledeen has held. The OR claim is risible in my opinion, the edited text does not exceed the reference in any way.WolfKeeper 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure (without digging further) whether the added material is reliably sourced (I need to check the policies, it's a bit of a gray area), but in any case that's a content dispute issue, TDC is clearly editing tendentiously and is 3RR. He frequently tries to use policies to support his non NPOV edits, and this seems to me to be what is happening here; but that's for you to decide.WolfKeeper 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of a 3RR block is to stop an edit war. TDC did stop after he reported himself. As blocks are preventative instead of punitive, a block to stop something that's not happening is pretty pointless. Straighten up and play nice with each other's toys or you'll get thwacked with my sarong, and not in a way you'll enjoy. KrakatoaKatie 03:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Freethinkersusan reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result:24 hours)

    Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Freethinkersusan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 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.

    Adding the claim that Dawkins supports eugenics, based on a primary source that doesn't support the claim.  – ornis⚙ 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours for WP:3RR Ronnotel 00:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Petr Vaníček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Geoeg has been 3RR blocked twice in the last week; no additional warning was given.

    Three of us have been tagging the article to indicate Geoeg's WP:COI while his user conduct RFC and COI noticeboard items are pending. Besides reverting the tag, he continues with other reverts, personal attacks, etc. Dicklyon 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    48 hours. It's a tag, for cryin' out loud. Somebody, please, bend a little? KrakatoaKatie 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rkowalke reported by User:TallMagic (Result: blocked for 24h)

    Warren National University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rkowalke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    • 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.

    Those aren't all distinct reverts: some of those are essentially compound reverts, done by using "undo" multiple times. With a misleading and uncivil summary each time, mind you. Given the latter especially, the talk-page blanking, and generally aggressive appaoch this users seems to be taken, blocked for 24h. Alai 20:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Alansohn (Result:no block)

    Ghosttown, Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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: [126]

    After a failed attempt to delete the article via AfD, User:ILike2BeAnonymous has been removing sourced content, directly relevant to the article. This 3RR violation is just the tip of the iceberg of the issues he is creating here. Alansohn 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This edit war has been going on for days and should have stopped a while ago. The reporter here is just as guilty of edit warring as the reported, so I'm not willing to block only one of them. I've watchlisted the article and am prepared to block them if the war continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is edit warring here, but from only one individual; multiple editors (including myself) have add sourced content and User:ILike2BeAnonymous removes it with baseless claims. I will be more than happy to refer you to the WP:3RR policy which is abundantly clear that the fourth violation triggers appropriate measures. Your obligation to enforce the policy does not disappear because you have failed to understand the bad faith inherent in User:ILike2BeAnonymous's reverts. 71.187.29.156 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saintjust reported by User:Rockgoals3 (Result: No Violation)

    Japanese-Korean disputes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Saintjust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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: [127]

    He engaged disruptive edit war, and JPOV edit. User:Saintjust has been removing content withoust source and fact, edit to JPOV. Rockgoals3 09:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Str1977 reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: )

    Banu Qurayza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In each revert the following is bieng removed:

    The account says that he later related that after giving his advice, "My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle".

    I have also included Str1977's edit summary for each edit. It shows that Str1977 him/herself knew that his/her edit was a revert.

    • 1st revert: 09:52, 20 October 2007 edit summary: (rv with overhaul according to the Watt article, also what-tag Serjeant's view (what does "more optimistic" mean?)
    • 2nd revert: 18:29, 20 October 2007 edit summary: (rv to last NPOV version)
    • 3rd revert: 01:45, 21 October 2007 edit summary: (rv to last NPOV version)
    • 4th revert: 09:45, 21 October 2007 edit summary: (rv POV pushing again, as well as removal of links, undue weight for one argument (opinions on Ibn Ishaq belong in his article))
    • A diff of 3RR warning: Str1977 is not a new user.

    The inclusion of the above mentioned clause has been subject to a dispute here: Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Abu_Lubaba. Str1977 simply fails to agree with Jedi Master MK or I, both have whom have provided sources demonstrating the statements reliability. This report should be considered nullified if Str1977 completely self-reverts his/her edits.Bless sins 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I won't formally deal with as Bess sins and I have recently had a difference of opinion over a block and they may not accept me as an honest judge on this but checking through, I can't quite see how revert 1 is the same as the other 3. Would you mind confirming what part of the edit is the same as the others for the next admin that passes by? Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In both reverts the following is removed:

    The account says that he later related that after giving his advice, "My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle"

    And User:Spartaz, I do consider you an honest judge, esp. after I've seen that what you did is normal practice around here. I hope I didn't offend you in our recent dealings.Bless sins 11:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not offended at all but we always strive to avoid even the appearance of bias and therefore try not to make decisions concerning editors with whom we have had recent disagreements - its just another of the things we do round here. Concerning the violation - yes I see it now. Thanks for the explanation. I think a block is marginal right now because its a possible oversight in an extensive set of edits and also because I do see some tangential discussion on the talk page. I would be grateful if another admin could review this anyway Spartaz Humbug! 11:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gscshoyru reported by User:South Philly (Result: )

    Erotica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gscshoyru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gscshoyru has been driving an on-going edit war in the article over a relatively small topic, Student erotica. This has been going on for a couple of weeks now, and there has been no moves made to compromise.

    Gscshoyru is aware of the rules as evidenced by this lovely quote:

    Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. Gscshoyru 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [128]

    Finally, I would like to Assume Good Faith about not driving an edit war, or trying avoid 3RR. When I warned Gscshoyru about having made four edits after having been warned, this was the response:

    No, it wasn't -- the 4th one is at 21:16, this one is at 21:30... so it wasn't. So your reversion does count. Gscshoyru 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [129]

    South Philly 00:58, 22 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 -->
    1. ^ Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Darwin Press, 1995, page 256.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=166178244"